Uzbekistan forced labour regime

“I will hold on to the end. I will withstand everything and do it for all the people who have been abused by the authorities.”1 Elena Urlaeva, Uzbek human rights activist. On the morning of 29 September, Elena Urlaeva was arrested, … Continue reading

“I will hold on to the end. I will withstand everything and do it for all the people who have been abused by the authorities.”1 Elena Urlaeva, Uzbek human rights activist.

On the morning of 29 September, Elena Urlaeva was arrested, stripped naked and searched by the Uzbekistan police. Her crime? Interviewing high school students forced to pick cotton in this year’s harvest.2

The Uzbekistan government conducts the world’s largest state-sanctioned forced labour regime and they are willing to go to any lengths to prevent the truth getting out.

We need your help to show Uzbekistan that the international community will not sit by and let brave men and women like Elena risk their lives to reveal Uzbek slavery.

This is not the first time Elena has been targeted for investigating and speaking out against slavery in the cotton fields. Over the last 10 years, the Uzbek authorities have subjected Elena to public attacks and beatings, enforced stays in psychiatric hospitals, and numerous court charges. But they have never succeeded in silencing her.

Right now, we’re joining with the Cotton Campaign to put pressure on the World Bank to make sure there is no forced labour in its Uzbekistan project areas. The first step to achieving this is to make sure that activists like Elena are free to report and monitor the situation in the fields.

Tell the World Bank to insist that those who investigate and document modern slavery in Uzbekistan are protected by the Uzbek government.

In solidarity,

Zoe, Vicky, Joanna and the Walk Free team

1 http://www.cottoncampaign.org/uzbek-police-brutalize-human-rights-monitor-elena-urlaeva.html
2 http://www.cottoncampaign.org/uzbek-government-subjects-human-rights-defenders-to-body-cavity-searches.html
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d0denqOslQ


a luxury

Dear Friends, Next week the Senate is planning to vote on H.R. 4038, a bill that would slam the door in the face of Iraqi and Syrian refugees who have been victimized by ISIS and Assad.  Please write to your … Continue reading

Dear Friends,

Next week the Senate is planning to vote on H.R. 4038, a bill that would slam the door in the face of Iraqi and Syrian refugees who have been victimized by ISIS and Assad.  Please write to your Members of Congress and tell them that our country should be a place of safety for those fleeing violence.

Fear and cowardice are not the way forward.  ISIS has done terrible things but our reaction to them should not be to punish their victims.  Refugees already face an intense, often multi-year screening process to ensure that they are not a threat.  We should not make it harder for them.  Instead our country should protect victims of torture, abuse, and other forms of violence.  Please write to your Members of Congress today and tell them that you oppose H.R. 4038.

Sincerely,

Matt Hawthorne
Policy Director

P.S. You can also extend a hand of welcome to refugees in your local community.  We encourage you to think of ways you can also help local refugee families – whether by raising money, contributing time or goods, or making clear to your local elected leaders that you believe your community should be a welcoming one.

Uploaded on Nov 15, 2010
Trailer from the multi-award winning documentary Climate Refugees

for documentary filmmaker and immigration expert Sheila Murray, the Syrian refugee crisis is only a prelude.

Her film on international refugee law, No Place to Go, was made for Amnesty International Canada’s refugee program.

In a 2010 report in Refuge magazine, Murray predicted that by 2050, the world could see a mass exodus of 200 million environmental refugees fleeing homelands rendered uninhabitable by extreme weather, rising sea levels, and mega-droughts.

Published on Oct 27, 2015
This drone footage filmed near the Croatian border shows thousands of migrants and refugees crossing through farmland on foot.


People are outraged to see refugees with smartphones. They shouldn’t be.

By: Lloyd Alter

September 8, 2015, 4:16 p.m.

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/gadgets-electronics/blogs/people-are-outraged-see-refugees-smartphones-they-shouldnt-be?utm_content=buffer7fb4f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=planetgreen#ixzz3mW69xuMR


Bring the Global Climate March home

Wow! — Avaazers are planning over 1,500 Global Climate March events across the world, but there isn’t one near you yet! Bring the Global Climate March home — start an event now and join this massive day of action. ——- … Continue reading

Wow! — Avaazers are planning over 1,500 Global Climate March events across the world, but there isn’t one near you yet! Bring the Global Climate March home — start an event now and join this massive day of action.

——-

Dear friends,

Something magical is happening… All across the world we’re coming together to hit the streets on November 29th — hours before the most important climate summit this decade!

This is a day of action not to be missed — click on the map to start an event in your area:

This is going to be mega! Last year almost 700,000 people took to their streets and created the largest mobilisation on climate change in history. This year we are going even bigger!

If hundreds of thousands of us join events in cities and towns everywhere, we’ll show our leaders meeting in Paris that our movement cannot be ignored and we will accept nothing less than an ambitious climate deal, with a global commitment to 100% clean energy!

Click the link to join in:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/new_toolkit_create/?cl=8829500839&v=66659

Let’s seize this moment, for our future, our kids’ futures, and everything we love.

With hope,

Oli, Alice, Morgan, Iain and the rest of the Avaaz team

More Information:

No plan B if Paris climate summit ends in failure, says EU climate chief (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/06/no-plan-b-if-paris-climate-summit-ends-in-failure-says-eu-climate-chief

‘Climate deception dossiers’ expose oil industry lobbying (RTCC)
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/08/climate-deception-dossiers-expose-oil-industry-lobbying

Taking a call for climate change to the streets (NYTimes)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/nyregion/new-york-city-climate-change-march.html

People’s Climate March: the revolution starts here (article on The Guardian by Avaaz founder Ricken Patel)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/peoples-climate-march-the-revolution-starts-here


Bring the Global Climate March home

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21 or CMP 11 will be held in Paris,[1] from November 30 to December 11.[2] It will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United … Continue reading

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21 or CMP 11 will be held in Paris,[1] from November 30 to December 11.[2] It will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 11th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.[3] The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. Leadership of the negotiations is yet to be determined.

Wow! — Avaazers are planning over 1,500 Global Climate March events across the world, but there isn’t one near you yet! Bring the Global Climate March home — start an event now and join this massive day of action.

——-

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. (“Reasonable,” in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.) The fossil fuel we’re currently planning to burn – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719#ixzz3rua4W7kG
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Dear friends,

Something magical is happening… All across the world we’re coming together to hit the streets on November 29th — hours before the most important climate summit this decade!

This is a day of action not to be missed — click on the map to start an event in your area:

This is going to be mega! Last year almost 700,000 people took to their streets and created the largest mobilisation on climate change in history. This year we are going even bigger!

If hundreds of thousands of us join events in cities and towns everywhere, we’ll show our leaders meeting in Paris that our movement cannot be ignored and we will accept nothing less than an ambitious climate deal, with a global commitment to 100% clean energy!

Click the link to join in:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/new_toolkit_create/?cl=8829500839&v=66659

Let’s seize this moment, for our future, our kids’ futures, and everything we love.

With hope,

Oli, Alice, Morgan, Iain and the rest of the Avaaz team

More Information:

No plan B if Paris climate summit ends in failure, says EU climate chief (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/06/no-plan-b-if-paris-climate-summit-ends-in-failure-says-eu-climate-chief

‘Climate deception dossiers’ expose oil industry lobbying (RTCC)
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/08/climate-deception-dossiers-expose-oil-industry-lobbying

Taking a call for climate change to the streets (NYTimes)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/nyregion/new-york-city-climate-change-march.html

People’s Climate March: the revolution starts here (article on The Guardian by Avaaz founder Ricken Patel)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/peoples-climate-march-the-revolution-starts-here


Detox fashion

Twenty global fashion leaders have committed to Detox in response to the growing international campaign (Nike, Adidas Puma, H&M, M&S, C&A, Li-Ning, Zara, Mango, Esprit, Levi’s, Uniqlo,Benetton, Victoria’s Secret, G-Star Raw, Valentino, Coop, Canepa, Burberry,Primark). However, other clothing companies, like GAP, … Continue reading

Twenty global fashion leaders have committed to Detox in response to the growing international campaign (Nike, Adidas Puma, H&M, M&S, C&A, Li-Ning, Zara, Mango, Esprit, Levi’s, Uniqlo,Benetton, Victoria’s Secret, G-Star Raw, Valentino, Coop, Canepa, Burberry,Primark). However, other clothing companies, like GAP, American Apparel and Disney still need to respond to the urgency of the situation, Detox their brands and help Detox our future.

Published on Oct 24, 2013

Around the world a growing movement of people are using their creativity, design skills and purchasing power to demand fashion without pollution. United by a shared belief that the clothes we wear should carry a story we can be proud of, activists, bloggers, designers, scientists and models have been able to convince big brands including Zara, Mango, Valentino, UNIQLO and H&M to commit to toxic-free fashion. There is still a long way to go, but our successes so far prove that when we work together, big brands are forced to stand up and deliver.

With special thanks to Nova Heart (http://nova-heart.com) for the use of their track “My Song 9″ from the Beautiful Boys EP, and to Jeff Garner and Prophetik for the use of their footage in the making of this film.

For more information or to find out how you can join the campaign visit: http://greenpeace.org/detox


9.70

UPDATE – 6 September 2013

The Colombian government has just announced that it is suspending Resolution 970, which was the subject of massive public outcry in recent weeks thanks to the huge peasant mobilisation launched on 19 August. The Resolution, adopted in 2010 and sometimes referred to as Law 970, made it illegal for Colombian farmers to save seeds in order for private companies and transnational corporations to gain monopoly control over the market.

 
Resolution 970 will be suspended for a period of two years, and this will only apply to domestically produced seeds (not imports). The government says it will use the two-year freeze to write new rules on seed use «which will not affect small farmers».

This is NOT a reversal of policy. It is a public statement from the government. People are waiting to see it written into a document with legal force, and are reiterating calls for the Resolution to be repealed instead.

Sources (in Spanish):

On 19 August, Colombian farmers’ organisations initiated a massive nationwide strike. They blocked roads, dumped milk on cars and basically stopped producing food for the cities. The problem? Farmers are being driven out of existence by the government’s policies.

The state provides almost no support for the small-scale farming sector.
1 Instead, it embraces a social and economic model that serves the interests of a wealthy elite minority. Recent free trade agreements (FTAs) signed with the US and the EU are undercutting Colombian producers, who can’t compete with subsidised imports.
2 The Colombian government has been actively promoting land grabbing by large corporations, many of them foreign (Monica Semillas from Brazil, Merhav from Israel, Cargill from the US), to promote export-oriented agribusiness at the expense of family farming oriented towards food sovereignty.

UPDATE - 6 September 2013

The Colombian government has just announced that it is suspending Resolution 970, which was the subject of massive public outcry in recent weeks thanks to the huge peasant mobilisation launched on 19 August. The Resolution, adopted in 2010 and sometimes referred to as Law 970, made it illegal for Colombian farmers to save seeds in order for private companies and transnational corporations to gain monopoly control over the market.
 
Resolution 970 will be suspended for a period of two years, and this will only apply to domestically produced seeds (not imports). The government says it will use the two-year freeze to write new rules on seed use "which will not affect small farmers".

This is NOT a reversal of policy. It is a public statement from the government. People are waiting to see it written into a document with legal force, and are reiterating calls for the Resolution to be repealed instead.

Sources (in Spanish):
On 19 August, Colombian farmers' organisations initiated a massive nationwide strike. They blocked roads, dumped milk on cars and basically stopped producing food for the cities. The problem? Farmers are being driven out of existence by the government's policies.
The state provides almost no support for the small-scale farming sector.
1 Instead, it embraces a social and economic model that serves the interests of a wealthy elite minority. Recent free trade agreements (FTAs) signed with the US and the EU are undercutting Colombian producers, who can't compete with subsidised imports.
2 The Colombian government has been actively promoting land grabbing by large corporations, many of them foreign (Monica Semillas from Brazil, Merhav from Israel, Cargill from the US), to promote export-oriented agribusiness at the expense of family farming oriented towards food sovereignty.

weekend warriors

It is not clear what to do about climate change or even if there is anything that can be done at this time. Climate change is a problem that cannot be solved by week-end protests. But regardless of the ignorance … Continue reading

Ztrash1

It is not clear what to do about climate change or even if there is anything that can be done at this time.

Climate change is a problem that cannot be solved by week-end protests. But regardless of the ignorance of the weekend warriors, climate change is a real problem, not in the future, but today. Maybe it is too late to stop the destruction of the human habitat and it is best is to pretend all is well.
ByGSZi0CcAAOMol


a shady and illegal pipeline expansion

In August the State Department quietly posted documents revealing that it is allowing Canadian pipeline company Enbridge to move ahead with a shady and illegal pipeline expansion project that could nearly double the amount of tar sands crude pumped into the U.S. through its Alberta Clipper pipeline, in clear violation of its existing permit.1
Enbridge is responsible for the Kalamazoo tar sands disaster, the largest inland oil-spill in U.S. history.
But shockingly, the State Department is green-lighting this scheme without giving public notice of its decision, without conducting a detailed environmental review, and without a finding of «national interest,» as required for Keystone XL and other new pipeline projects.
Expanding tar sands production, by any means, will lead to “essentially game over” in our fight against climate change. So it is crucial that we strongly challenge this decision.
Enbridge has been trying since 2012 to get a presidential permit to expand the Alberta Clipper from its current permitted capacity of 450,000 barrels per day to 800,000 barrels per day.
Thanks in large part to our public pressure, activists have stalled approvals for this tar sands project and others, like the Keystone XL pipeline. So Enbridge concocted a dangerous scheme that essentially amounts to smuggling to get their filthy product across the border.
Instead of carrying tar sands across the border on the Clipper pipeline directly, Enbridge is diverting the tar sands flow to an adjacent 47-year-old pipeline, where it will travel 20 miles across the US border into Minnesota, then back to the Clipper pipeline. Disturbingly, the aging «Line 3» was not designed to carry toxic and corrosive tar sands crude, yet would be operating at more than double its current capacity.
Yes, this is a proven recipe for disaster: The 2013 Mayflower Arkansas spill was caused by a rupture of the similarly aging Pegasus pipeline, which had been also co-opted to carry tar sands crude.
The quiet State Department approval of Enbridge’s pipeline scheme stands in clear violation of the process required to approve new tar sands infrastructure, and the National Interest Determination test the President set for Keystone XL: If the project significantly increases carbon pollution, it should not be approved.
This project, which could carry about half as much crude as Keystone XL, clearly fails that test.
It’s possible that President Obama and Secretary Kerry did not know about this decision, in which case they could intervene and put a stop to it. But if they do nothing, it will seriously call into question the President’s commitment to fighting climate change, and commitment to the test he himself set for ensuring that tar sands pipeline projects do not make climate change worse.
Thanks for taking action.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
Take action now ►
  1. «State Department Approves Illegal Scheme for Doubling Tar Sands Flowing through the Great Lakes,» National Wildlife Federation, 8/25/14
In August the State Department quietly posted documents revealing that it is allowing Canadian pipeline company Enbridge to move ahead with a shady and illegal pipeline expansion project that could nearly double the amount of tar sands crude pumped into the U.S. through its Alberta Clipper pipeline, in clear violation of its existing permit.1
Enbridge is responsible for the Kalamazoo tar sands disaster, the largest inland oil-spill in U.S. history.
But shockingly, the State Department is green-lighting this scheme without giving public notice of its decision, without conducting a detailed environmental review, and without a finding of "national interest," as required for Keystone XL and other new pipeline projects.
Expanding tar sands production, by any means, will lead to “essentially game over” in our fight against climate change. So it is crucial that we strongly challenge this decision.
Enbridge has been trying since 2012 to get a presidential permit to expand the Alberta Clipper from its current permitted capacity of 450,000 barrels per day to 800,000 barrels per day.
Thanks in large part to our public pressure, activists have stalled approvals for this tar sands project and others, like the Keystone XL pipeline. So Enbridge concocted a dangerous scheme that essentially amounts to smuggling to get their filthy product across the border.
Instead of carrying tar sands across the border on the Clipper pipeline directly, Enbridge is diverting the tar sands flow to an adjacent 47-year-old pipeline, where it will travel 20 miles across the US border into Minnesota, then back to the Clipper pipeline. Disturbingly, the aging "Line 3" was not designed to carry toxic and corrosive tar sands crude, yet would be operating at more than double its current capacity.
Yes, this is a proven recipe for disaster: The 2013 Mayflower Arkansas spill was caused by a rupture of the similarly aging Pegasus pipeline, which had been also co-opted to carry tar sands crude.
The quiet State Department approval of Enbridge’s pipeline scheme stands in clear violation of the process required to approve new tar sands infrastructure, and the National Interest Determination test the President set for Keystone XL: If the project significantly increases carbon pollution, it should not be approved.
This project, which could carry about half as much crude as Keystone XL, clearly fails that test.
It’s possible that President Obama and Secretary Kerry did not know about this decision, in which case they could intervene and put a stop to it. But if they do nothing, it will seriously call into question the President’s commitment to fighting climate change, and commitment to the test he himself set for ensuring that tar sands pipeline projects do not make climate change worse.
Thanks for taking action.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Add your name:
Take action now ?
  1. "State Department Approves Illegal Scheme for Doubling Tar Sands Flowing through the Great Lakes," National Wildlife Federation, 8/25/14

Hobby Lobby

The decision, written by Justice Alito, is beyond disturbing. It essentially grants for-profit corporations a free pass not to follow laws by invoking their “religious rights” under RFRA. While Alito and his buddies said their ruling was narrow, nothing could … Continue reading

The decision, written by Justice Alito, is beyond disturbing. It essentially grants for-profit corporations a free pass not to follow laws by invoking their “religious rights” under RFRA.

While Alito and his buddies said their ruling was narrow, nothing could be further from the truth. The door is now wide open for corporations to run to court saying they can discriminate in a variety of ways.

Some key points about Hobby Lobby:

As Justice Ginsberg noted in her dissent, “‘Closely held’ is not synonymous with ‘small.’” America’s five largest “closely held” corporations alone employ more than 436,000 people — one of those companies being the $115 billion, 60,000-employee Koch Industries. And the Washington Post reported that, according to a 2000 study, “closely held” is a term that covers as much as 90 percent (or more) of all businesses, and studies from Columbia University and New York University showed that closely held corporations employed 52 percent of the American workforce.
The duplicitousness of pretending that limiting the ruling to “closely held” corporations really limits it substantially in scope goes beyond just the size and number of “closely held” corporations. In providing no actual reasoning as to why only “closely held” corporations would be afforded religious rights under RFRA, Justice Alito’s Hobby Lobby decision certainly could pave the way for all corporations — even publicly traded ones — to claim these rights.
Many on the Religious Right are already asserting employers’ right to discriminate against LGBT people. While Hobby Lobby states that employers cannot claim religious objections in order to discriminate based on race, it says nothing about sex or sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court ponders the contraceptive mandate

ON March 25th the Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare”, was back before the Supreme Court. Two years ago the justices upheld most of the law. This week they heard oral arguments in Sebelius v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v Sebelius. These two consolidated cases concern Obamacare’s “contraceptive mandate”—the requirement that businesses offering their employees health insurance must provide plans that cover all federally-approved contraception methods at no extra cost to their employees.

The legal merits of these cases revolve around the concept of  Corporate personhood


Corporations are NOT people. While it is true that what guides them is the human activity of their executives, boards of directors, managers and employees, all the human emotional factors of the people in the corporation pass through a “filter” created by the two basic rules:

  1. Maximize profit
  2. Do whatever is necessary to continue the business.

(Rule number 1 should be modified when it conflicts with rule 2)

It is a slippery road to give personal rights to corporations. The corporation is an amoral entity, i.e., not governed by human moral values. It lacks guilt for what it does, or empathy for those it harms. What’s worse, this “sociopathic” entity is given the rights of a human being, but not similar responsibilities. A corporation is particularly dangerous because of its great concentration of money, power, and political influence–which it uses freely to reach its goals.

To give a concrete example of the dangers of giving too much power to corporations to allow corporations to participate directly on political campaigns is a very serious threat to democracy.

Campaign finance law in the United States changed drastically in the wake of two 2010 judicial opinions: the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC.[42] According to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report, these two decisions constitute “the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades.” [43]

Citizens United struck down, on free speech grounds, the limits on the ability of organizations that accepted corporate or union money from running electioneering communications. The Court reasoned that the restrictions permitted by Buckley were justified based on avoiding corruption or the appearance of corruption, and that this rationale did not apply to corporate donations to independent organizations. Citizens United overruled the 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, in which the Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections.

Two months later, a unanimous nine-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided SpeechNow, which relied on Citizens United to hold that Congress could not limit donations to organizations that only made independent expenditures, that is, expenditures that were “uncoordinated” with a candidate’s campaign. These decisions led to the rise of “independent-expenditure only” PACs, commonly known as “Super PACs.” Super PACs, under Citizens United and SpeechNow, can raise unlimited funds from individual and corporate donors and use those funds for electioneering advertisements, provided that the Super PAC does not coordinate with a candidate.

One should not confuse the individuals working within a corporation with the corporation proper. To elaborate and clarify the point of freedom of speech and corporations let’s consider the case of Media corporations, those whose actual activity revolves around disseminating information and opinion. While journalist, writers, news anchors, and the like have 1st amendment rights, the corporations that they work for do not. This might be a subtle point but it is crucial. When corporations do have positions on some issues, and they always have an agenda, this is NOT freedom of speech, it is censorship. This censorship is exercised trough the firing or ostracizing of staff or source that go astray of the corporate line. Thus, to give corporations freedom of speech rights is actually antithetical of the spirit of the first amendment.

Corporations as such do not have national loyalties. Just as an example, Standard Oil supplied the German government during WW II as Coca Cola did.

The Standard Oil group of companies, in which the Rockefeller family owned a one-quarter (and controlling) interest,1 was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II. This assistance in military preparation came about because Germany’s relatively insignificant supplies of crude petroleum were quite insufficient for modern mechanized warfare; in 1934 for instance about 85 percent of German finished petroleum products were imported. The solution adopted by Nazi Germany was to manufacture synthetic gasoline from its plentiful domestic coal supplies. It was the hydrogenation process of producing synthetic gasoline and iso-octane properties in gasoline that enabled Germany to go to war in 1940 — and this hydrogenation process was developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in the United States in partnership with I.G. Farben.

Evidence presented to the Truman, Bone, and Kilgore Committees after World War II confirmed that Standard Oil had at the same time “seriously imperiled the war preparations of the United States.”2Documentary evidence was presented to all three Congressional committees that before World War II Standard Oil had agreed with I.G. Farben, in the so-called Jasco agreement, that synthetic rubber was within Farben’s sphere of influence, while Standard Oil was to have an absolute monopoly in the U.S. only if and when Farben allowed development of synthetic rubber to take place in the U.S.

Fanta is a global brand of fruit-flavored carbonated soft drinks created by The Coca-Cola Company. There are over 100 flavors worldwide. The drink originated in Germany in 1941.

Fanta originated as a result of difficulties importing Coca-Cola syrup into Nazi Germany during World War II due to a trade embargo.[2] To circumvent this, Max Keith, the head of Coca-Cola Deutschland (Coca-Cola GmbH) during the Second World War, decided to create a new product for the German market, using only ingredients available in Germany at the time, including whey and pomace – the “leftovers of leftovers”, as Keith later recalled.[2][3] The name was the result of a brief brainstorming session, which started with Keith exhorting his team to “use their imagination” (“Fantasie” in German), to which one of his salesmen, Joe Knipp, immediately retorted “Fanta!”[3]

While the plant was effectively cut off from Coca Cola headquarters during the war, plant management did not join the Nazi Party. After the war, the Coca Cola corporation regained control of the plant, formula and the trademarks to the new Fanta product — as well as the plant profits made during the war

The U.S. Federal tax system also helps corporations operate in this amoral way by allowing them to deduct from their profits, with some limitations, the cost of public relations campaigns to cover for the damage they cause, the compensation to victims, the cleanup operations, the cost of legal defense, legal damage awards, and the cost of lobbying to change the laws in their favor or gain exemptions from the law. In other words, if they are caught, corporations pay the costs of their destructive, illegal activities with tax-free money. (Tax free for one corporation = somebody else pays more taxes.)

In their current form, corporations are the most dangerous things on earth–because they threaten the survival of humankind and the entire planetary ecosystem.

Birth control does not mean abortion I am not in favor of abortion but I am against using this kind of complicated issues for political ends. How do one balance in black and white gun ownership and the statement that murder is wrong? In the same way that gun advocates justify killing a human being outside the womb (to themselves) by redefining murder according to the circumstances, others justify killing a human being inside the womb (to themselves) by redefining abortion according to the circumstances.

Tea Party types do believe that killing is proper under some conditions and are against governments interfering with the freedoms of people, so why be in favor of government regulations of any kind? Criminalizing behaviors is not a solution for social problems.

Republican Jodie Laubenberg, who co-authored Texas strict anti-abortion laws in 2013, (because she says she believes that “life begins at conception”) also opposed healthcare for newly developing fetuses. Laubenberg testified that the unborn should not be entitled to health care, because “they aren’t born yet.

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) the single most important factor for a healthy pregnancy is a healthy mother. This means that every woman who is of child-bearing age should have regular health screenings, as well as access to services and medications which can help diagnose, prevent, treat or cure chronic or temporary health conditions.

According to the CDC (the only agency in the United States that has the ability to monitor and track abortion rates) in 2009 there were 15.1 abortions for every 1,000 live births. Of those abortion 91.7 percent were performed earlier than 13th week of pregnancy, and of those the majority, almost 70 percent, were performed prior to the 8th week of pregnancy. Additionally, statistics show that many of the abortions that occur later in pregnancy are performed for medical reasons.

In this highly informative article published on Patheos.com, the author explains the many reasons she lost faith in the right wing’s pro-life movement.

“Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.”

There’s a circus of political shows with no other end that entertain and distract. Like for example that speech of a democrat meant to be an attack on Republican policies when Reagan had just passed an immigration amnesty, and now it is used for opposite purposes. Life is not as simple as good conservatives on the shadow of God against evil liberal lefties doing the devil’s work.


shopping can kill

To inform people in boycotting Israeli products (made in Israel or made outside of Israel but directly or indirectly support Israel) send out an emails, tweets, share Facebook pages, post boycott information on forums and different blogs, send out text…



To inform people in boycotting Israeli products (made in Israel or made outside of Israel but directly or indirectly support Israel) send out an emails, tweets, share Facebook pages, post boycott information on forums and different blogs, send out text/SMS messages to people in your mobile phone book, call people and tell them.

Most consumers do not realize the extent of the penetration of Israeli goods in Europe, and in particular the UK market.

The purpose of this campaign is to draw awareness to this and to encourage people to join the boycott by starting with boycotting 'made in Israel' products.

Does the boycott work?


According to the Israeli Union of Industrialists, following the attack on Gaza, one in five Israeli exporters are having difficulty selling abroad due to the boycott. Yair Rotloi, chairman of the association's foreign-trade committee revealed:
 "Twenty one percent of local exporters report that they are facing problems in selling Israeli goods because of an anti-Israel boycott, mainly from the UK and Scandinavian countries".