One of the problems with studies of cell phones, according to Dr. Davis, is that the issues they are trying to understand are inherently complex. Science works best, apparently, examining one thing at a time, as we do routinely with drugs in clinical trials.

The problems posed by cell phones in the real world are like are like huge simultaneous equations — mathematical formulas of relationships between multiple unknowns. She asks how we can determine the role of one factor, such as cell phone exposure to the skull, when others like diet, workplace conditions and local air pollution, are changing at the same time and at different rates.

Studying brain cancer, for example, is one of the toughest jobs in epidemiology, according to Devra (Let’s provide a cozy sit-down, holiday ambiance here, okay?) because it is a rare disease, takes years to decades to develop, an impairs the very systems that might give us clues, a person’s ability to recall and describe past activities and exposures that might have put them at risk.

The disease can take forty years to develop, and very often researchers have to rely on the very unreliable recollections of family members… respecting what elements a given relative might have been exposed to way back when. Try remembering on that count for your own life. Very difficult, to say the least.

When it comes to sorting through the risks of cell phones, we have lately been assured that there are none based upon reports from what appear to be independent scientific reviewers. Devra points out that researchers from the Danish Cancer Society reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2006 that they found “no evidence of risk in persons who had used cell phones.”²

Headlines around the world boasted of this latest finding from an impeccable source published in a first tier scientific journal. The press coverage of this study tells us a great deal about what journalists and the rest of us who depend so heavily on these phones would like to believe. The following were all posted between the 6th and the 10th in 2006:

“Cell Phones Don’t Cause Brain Cancer” — Toronto Daily News

“Cell Phones Don’t Raise Cancer Risk” — Reuters

“Big Study Finds No Link Between Cell Phones, Cancer” — San Jose Mercury News

“Study: Cell Phones Don’t Cause Cancer” — Albuquerque Tribune

“Study: Cell Phones Safe” — Newsday³

“Cell Phones Do Not Cause Cancer” — Techtree.com, India

Most people — in the absence of well-publicized official clarification/intervention — will run with those positive findings… for a number of reasons. Continue with their lifestyle as is. Keep their hands on their habits.

But…what did the researchers actually study? I can hear Santa Claus going “Ho, Ho, Ho” in the background:

1. They reviewed health records through 2002 of about 421,000 people who had first signed up for private use of cell phones between 1982 and 1995.
2. A “cell phone user” in the study was anyone who made a single phone call a week for six months during the period 1981 to 1995.
3. The study kicked out anyone who was part of a business that used cell phones, including only those who had used a cell phone for personal purposes for eight years.

Dr. Davis asks:

1. Why did they not look at business users — those with far more frequent use of cell phones?
2. Why lump all users together, putting those who might have made a single cell phone call a week with those who used the phones more often?
3. Why stop collecting information on brain tumors in 2002, when we know that brain tumors often take decades to develop and be diagnosed?

There are NO legitimate explanations for such indiscretions.

It would have been better to compare the frequent users with non-users, omitting the limited users altogether. Devra notes, “Lumping all these various users together is like looking all over a city for a stolen car when you know it’s in a five-block radius.”⁴

The Danish Study was designed to appear definitively thorough — Imagine, 421,000 people!!! — but in fact it was biased against positive findings from the start.

Anyone who’s interested in receiving data which definitively damns the use of cell phones is invited to contact this author. Short of that, if you’re interested in the health of society and your own health on this count, I recommend the “Presumed Innocent” chapter (Fifteen) of Dr. Davis’ latest book.⁵ For the purpose of coming up with a possible… New Year’s Resolution.

Regardless, I do have one other anecdote to share, which hints at WHY findings (you’ll keep coming across) are likely to gloss over the gross, horrific aspects of cell phones.

A major international study of brain cancer in wireless phone users has been underway for quite some time, headquartered at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization in Lyon, France.

The large study was designed to combine more than 3,000 cases of brain tumors from around the industrial world and was supposed to release its results in 2006. In Canada, Daniel Krewski, a respected epidemiologist who heads that country’s national study of cell phones, receives much of his funding from the industry. Some have asked whether this constitutes bias. Krewski is also part of the IARC study.

The former director of the IARC, Lorenzo Tomatis, is concerned about the lack of independence of this important work, according to Dr. Davis. He complained publicly in 2004 about the close cooperation that was developing between the cell phone industry and those who were studying brain cancer that could be associated with cell phones’ use.

When Dr. Tomatis returned to the facility in Lyon to meet with colleagues with whom he had worked, he was treated like no other former director: he was ordered to leave and security guards escorted him from the building. Much along the lines of how Will Ferrell’s “Buddy” (a loving character) is roughly escorted out of his Scrooge-like father’s office building — denying him deserved refuge — in the laughable movie Elf.

I end on this funny cinematic note because more readers are likely to be able to relate to that Moloch-like image than they can to delineated dangers of cell phone use.⁶ And I do so want readers to stop stagnating with/suffering through the commercial imagery surrounding cell phones, push past the powers that be, and resolve to make changes in their lives. Our lives.

1. She is also a Global Environmental Advisor to Newsweek, and was the founding director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology of the National Academy of Sciences and Services, as well as Scholar in Residence at the National Academy of Science. Her traditional credentials are impeccable, but the real basis for her credibility lies in her unswerving embrace of what’s right, unencumbered by any self-serving financial and/or career agenda.
2. Devra Davis, The Secret History of the War on Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 2007), pp. 401-402. This is a monumentally important/well-respected/useful book for the layman. I urge one and all to delve into Devra’s opus.
3. Interesting to note that Dr. Davis is Global Environmental Advisor to this publication. Whoops, that’s Newsweek, not Newsday! Still, the point is that the vast majority of independent scientists do not concur with the “reassuring” headlines. Documentation upon request.
4. Davis, op. cit., p. 403.
5. Her 2007 book (cited above) begins Chapter Fifteen with a photo of Donald Rumsfeld, posing as CEO of the Searle Corporation… when FDA approval was granted prematurely to market aspartame in 1981. The fact that scientific reviewers were overridden in that case should be highly instructive. Across the board, our decision-making authorities have been dropping the ball for decades. It’s time for the pubic to come up with a new way of looking out for themselves. To put it mildly. Again, this author has recommendations upon request.
6. Which include, of course, the electromagnetic dangers for non-users associated with cell towers.

At a time when almost every poet inevitably reminds us of others we have already read, Blaise Cendrars’ work appears to us solitary, isolated, like one of those distant islands of which he likes to speak, an island of a single owner, where no one before him ever landed.
– Ferreira de Castro speaking about the author’s father with words which , hopefully, set an appropriate tone for this article

Things might change when we have a politician who’s a poet. — Henry Miller

One premise: One must try to work within the electoral system in place, but following a new paradigm for doing so. The fact that many machines may be rigged, many citizens have given up on voting, and the historical record for politicians is pathetic should be neither here nor there. There is room for tweaking the system so that it serves our purposes. Without support from the media, and virtually without fundraising.

What are “our purposes”? Before addressing that, permit me to underscore a few myths/habits that have us in their grips.

One, the notion that any major presidential candidate for any of the major parties will make significant inroads regarding the main issues of our time is foolish. We have been under the delusion that “success” was at hand with this or that politician for far too long. Mavericks have not planted seeds that have borne significant enough fruit, either because they have been assassinated, co-opted, or disingenuous. And their “colleagues” can undermine the best of intentions far too easily.

Two, the notion that we don’t have to work more expeditiously than we are doing at present/than we have in the past is greatly mistaken. A greater sense of urgency in all we do is of paramount importance. Something new must be done immediately on a grand scale. An undertaking of some singular scope, complication and risk. Or we are doomed.

Three, the notion that traditional models for generating voter registration/citizen participation can continue without detracting from the possibility of coming up with new, efficacious approaches is wrong. We all have only so many heartbeats with which to work. And the time/energy of activists (which must be channeled onto fresh roads) can only be utilized effectively once obsolete methods for creating solidarity are discarded. There are many areas of activity to which this applies … to a significant degree.

Four, violence –in any form– must be rejected out of hand. The historical record shows that “the balance sheet” for revolutions worldwide has not been worth the candle. And even if one disagrees with that assessment, certainly we are obliged to exhaust all peaceful means which remain at our disposal. This goes hand in hand with holding back from creating martyrs for a given cause. For now, we do not need to/cannot afford to have any more activists jailed, tortured or eliminated. We must seriously pause before subjecting ourselves to easy arrest and/or emulating self-sacrificing souls from the past. To be “taken out of the loop” in dramatic fashion generates publicity, for sure, but the value of “playing the lamb” is greatly exaggerated these days. Seeds are planted and people inspired, BUT… it all represents an old paradigm for protest, not leading to a significant enough impact on the powers that be.

Five, An undertaking of some singular scope, complication and risk must be embraced. Or we are doomed.

Six, it is not necessary for a political candidate to take a stand on ALL issues. Certain issues must be placed on a lower rung for starters. That’s not to assert that a given issue is not of monumental importance, but rather is meant to clear the ground for initial prioritizing. For instance, voters concerned with gender-related issues must take a back seat temporarily perhaps to setting an Afghanistan/Iraq pullout timetable.

Seven, there is much more of a need to reach people on an emotional/spiritual level than on any intellectual plane. Rather than emphasize “a platform,” we’d do well to let that evolve once people get excited about being “involved” once again.

Eight, “other” parties are doomed — as they stand, playing their cards according to outworn notions — by virtue of having been marginalized permanently, easily. One cannot win or plant significant seeds even if one is allowed into debate settings as long as mainstream media outlets spin as per the interests of the status quo powers.

There are other myths/habits which need to be delineated, but I am obliged to address, as promised, “our purposes” at this juncture…attention span being what it seems to be these days.

In no special order, let’s list a few stances — most negotiable — which should serve well in lieu of a platform:

1. Moratorium on the death penalty.
2. Reduction of military bases abroad. Starting with Afghanistan/Iraq.
3. Immediate elimination of 50% of our “foreign aid” to Columbia, Egypt and Israel. Sounds of disinvestment down the hall?
4. Using Mark Zepezauer’s Take the Rich Off Welfare as a point of departure, tax those who can afford it (to a greater degree) so as to provide decent health coverage for one and all within our borders, including ALL immigrants. While undermining Big Pharma.
5. No support whatsoever for any walls being constructed anywhere on earth.
6. Movement towards making oil spills impossible. Highly suggestive here, yes?
7. Deal a death blow to aspects of Agribusiness…immediately.
8. ‘Cross the board “confrontation” with ALL sweatshops.

C’mon, you get the idea, I’m sure. I could go on and on, of course. And discuss the devilish details. But the point here is that there is plenty to get down with immediately, plenty that one would get plenty of support for ‘cross the board among the electorate. Even for that which doesn’t fall within the purview of our Governor. The aim should not be to attract as many voters as possible. No, the focus should only be to delineate stances which dance with one’s spirit.

Which brings me to the soul of The Dream Party.

This whole enterprise should not be viewed with the caution or calculation of old. It should literally incorporate poetry, song and dance…and other arts…in a significant, singular way. The day for NOT following one’s dreams is over.

Cynics and know-it-alls stand aside. We’re about to give another listen to John Lennon’s “Imagine,” to John Fogerty’s “Don’t You Wish It Were True”:

“I dreamed I walked in Heaven
Just the other night
There was so much beauty
So much light….”

Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” is NOT dead.

Sure, there is much to discuss vis-a-vis Joseph Campbell’s injunction to “follow your bliss.” But you can kiss it all good-bye unless you embrace what you know is necessary in the political realm first: a radical change. With all due respect to Harold Bloom, there’s not a helluva lot of room these days for artists as quietists. And any reservations anyone has about sticking to one’s heartfelt guns (and not compromising) are no longer relevant. Shakespeare never faced the challenges that now envelope our traumatized, ecocidal age. And there is no place any longer for opportunistic takes on what to do. All we are left with is what our soul tells us.

When Emiliano Zapata gathered his cohorts together to battle the powers that ruled — and were ruining — Mexico, he appealed to the farmers’ love of their land. He was honest about his Plan of Ayala. And it resonated as an organizing principle in his patria chica. He didn’t try to appeal to fence-sitters or the large numbers of undecided individuals outside of his immediate area as the Mexican Revolution took shape.

It doesn’t matter that one can easily argue that his revolution failed. That’s neither here nor there with regard to my purposes here. I bring up events of a century ago at this juncture to underscore that we no longer have a land base that the populace can relate to, love.

All that remains for us is the potential appeal to the land base that resides in the souls of citizens.

And it is to that individual realm in each voter which I want to appeal.

Not on a national level at first, but in the more modest political demographic contained in California. Zapata’s refusal to take the reins on a national level was the reductio ad absurdum of the patria chica mentality. However, there’s no parallel with that today… for the purposes of this article. Rather, one is forced to focus on the “little homeland” of California because of two reasons: a) it is a manageable unit on the electoral level (replete with disgruntled, “experienced”/dissenting citizens) and b) it is capable of having not only a national, but international impact.

I love Zapata for much of the same reasons that I respect John Brown. But, for now, we must divert our eyes elsewhere. For one, they were too violent. Again –before I trudge on– I’m talking about NOW. The likes of them would be eliminated today, as everyone will acknowledge, faster than you can say Martin Luther King, yes?

I want to be spiritually sane, but spot-on-target practical if possible. In California.

Warped, but Spot-on-Target “Syllogism”:

A. Any mainstream governor is unlikely to give you half of what’s promised, that being no more than a tenth of what you desire, deserve.

B. A typical “third party” can’t get elected.¹

C. Therefore, any Dream Party candidate should deliver…infinitely more, making voting worthwhile.

Where to start? When? We go for the gubernatorial race in 2010 California. We begin immediately to implement the suggestions below to put OUR CANDIDATE in the Sacramento seat.

Your homework — and we all should start doing some hands-on here, and stop talking/writing (so much) soon — is to first check out the powers which the Governor of California has in her/his hands. Review, then study. It’s impressive.
I’m talking about what the governor can do unilaterally, whether or not he/she can work well with a given set of legislators. Like actions that can be taken vis-a-vis capital punishment, parole, pardons, the militia, state emergencies, line-item veto power, a say as a full member among the Regents of the University of California, etc.

None of that, however, can hold a candle to the fact that any sincere/knowledgeable/clever governor can command daily press conferences on radio and television. Imagine being able to circumvent the spins of mainstream news outlets. Daily delivery of “news” from our heartfelt governor’s angle — if legitimately/primarily concerned with citizens’ interests — would be tantamount to replacing our present major sources for current events information.

Humane, sane news in lieu of distraction, misinformation?

Once you get a handle on what’s at stake here, you and a lot of people you talk to will get motivated really fast. Remember, I’m highlighting what can be done unilaterally. And if a given governor is not arrogant about what’s being done, impeachment or recall are unlikely. Don’t forget that many legislators still have souls deserving of the name…which can be tapped into. Keep the faith, brothers and sisters.

Who would be an ideal candidate? A lot of people who are honest, incorruptible. Who would not be career politicians, not emulate Zapata’s hated, opportunistic cabrones. It would be icing on the cake to have someone who could sing and/or dance and/or play an instrument. And I’m not talking about the kind of stint/stunt which Bill Clinton had televised during one of his runs. I’m talking about a talent like Alicia Keys.

That would carry much more weight than political experience. Think about it for a moment. Use your imagination, without having to have me spell out the possible scenarios for you. The vast number of opportunities with such a personality. Especially if a “running mate” in the form of a compatible Lieutenant Governor candidate joined in. I mean, if one is putting a governor in office…why not do the same for another in the same election? It would be a potent duo. Solidarity doesn’t hurt here.

But one doesn’t get such a person (or such people) in office easily. I should say not at all. Except for the fact that I’ve come up with a new paradigm for doing so.

And, again, a campaign can be waged without success being contingent upon cooperation with the mainstream media outlets… which are guaranteed to spin whatever an honest party is putting on the table for public consumption. It should be noted — big time — that to accomplish our goal without resort to media support in and of itself would be an historic accomplishment.

Furthermore, and much more important, is the fact that no money is required for the campaign. I mean, aside from that which is demanded by the state to register, to be formally on the ballot. Individual Dream Party people are not going to have to shell out anything. And they are not going to be expected to raise any funds whatsoever.

To quote that silly Kevin Costner movie, “Build it, and they will come.” Tweaking that spot-on-target sentiment I say, appeal to the soul in citizens and the necessary funds will flow. Still, I want to reiterate that one needs absolutely no budget to proceed. That should tell you volumes about what historic ripples the Dream Party will set in motion.

Can or will set in motion?

I’m convinced that victory is within our grasp, being able to get almost a three-year jump on 2010. However, even if the Dream Party was nudged out by one of the major parties, an historic precedent/an unprecedented inspiration will have been established/created. Just imagine what it would mean to everyone if — with virtually no forewarning — an unfunded, unpublicized party beat out one of the major political parties. Overnight.

How is that possible? How do we go about this MIRACLE?

It is unnecessary to reveal that at this juncture. And it would be unwise to do so. The element of surprise — so dear to, so fundamental for the wagers of war — is of a paramount importance. If can’t get a few people to respond to a posting of this piece in confidence… all of this is probably dead in the dissenting waters. At a certain point, it won’t matter if the word gets out, so to speak. But –for starters– I should think that the above is intriguing enough to warrant at least a bakers dozen worth of inquiries on the sly. Out of the public eye. For now.

I was angsting over the idea of registering “Dream Party” before using it as the point of departure for initial presentation of this proposal in public. But all that was uncalled for. If my plan touches the soul, we can call it whatever we want. “Drum Party” or “Dumb Party” wouldn’t matter much. In fact, “Pajama Party” isn’t bad. We don’t want to leave out humor. I understand that Zapata wasn’t much on that count, but we can certainly make use of the ha-ha element for sweet souls.

It should be loads of fun, by the way, to be in on the ground floor…involved in scouring the Golden State for candidates, for advisers (a Dream Team?) who will provide the most socially/environmentally conscious support in the world. Yum, yum, yes?

This is California sushi for starters, folks. I want residents of the state to contact me asap. Short of that, perhaps readers have friends or acquaintances who live near me. That might work.

The point here is that what people are doing isn’t working. And people have nothing to lose by dreaming…on a different pillow…in a new bed.

1. Peter (Camejo) The Great Green garnered only 5% of the vote in “sensitive” Santa Cruz last time out. See the author for a thousand other such examples.

Profound thanks to Julie Fogerty for her constant love, inspiration, and support.

– John Fogerty showing his wife/adviser deep appreciation for help with his latest release…and more.

I know that John Fogerty has been getting rave reviews for his Revival CD, but no one has been doing justice to the first cut, “Don’t You Wish It Was True,” as far as I’m concerned.

Some are saying it’s John Fogerty’s “Imagine,” but John Lennon’s song begins very differently. Contrast the two openings:

“Imagine there’s no Heaven
   It’s easy if you try…” [Lennon]

“I dreamed I walked in heaven
   just the other night
   There was so much beauty
   so much light…” [Fogerty]

In both songs, a heaven on earth is suggested, but in Fogerty’s lyrics there is the dream    experience of another realm, which includes tactile contact with angels AND hearing the words of God:

“He said the world’s gonna change
   and it’s starting today
   There’ll be no more armies
   no more hate…”

One does not have to believe in a traditional God of any particular stripe — or any God whatsoever — to see that there’s a significant difference here.

In one song, the writer asks the listener to use imaginative powers as a basis for creating solidarity, and producing positive change. In the other, the chorus

“Don’t you wish it were true”

alternates between two totally identical questions repeated (the above line repeated twice)
and

“Don’t you wish it were true
   Lord don’t you wish it were true…”

“Lord” here, of course, can be serving the same function as “Boy” or “Jeez” would be if the line were “Boy, don’t you wish it were true?” or “Jeez, don’t you wish it were true?”

But that’s not quite the case. It’s not that mundane.

Now take a look at the first “What if” segment:

“What if tomorrow
   everybody was your friend
   Anyone could take you in
   no matter what or where you been”

That set of lines involves an invocation of forgiveness which is not directly incorporated in Lennon’s song. “Imagine” is extremely powerful, but it is not potent in the same way.

That last statement is not made to suggest that one set of lyrics is better than another, but rather to stimulate intellectual extrapolation.

There is a greater friction than ever before, greater all-pervasive fear, and a greater readiness to respond to injustice and mere difference with violence that’s “justified.” He did this. She did that. We have more “unforgiveables” today. Less tolerance these days. Across the board, mercifulness takes a back seat more than not, more than ever.

Forgiveness has always been the center of many religious injunctions, is a time-worn “weapon” against self-destructive behavior, societal suicide.

Certainly These Times beg for our stretching ourselves in this way, opening up thusly.

And John Fogerty gets it right. Spotlights a neglected essential.

I think he might wince at someone distinguishing between forgiving and forgetting. He would certainly understand the distinction, but something tells me that he underscored the need for “forgiveness” in keeping with his take on “Our Times.” One who “gets over it” doesn’t really get it. Or give what’s needed.

If anyone wants to get others to embrace the likes of felons, they’d do well to clean house on a personal level, inviting those with whom they have either petty or ultra-serious gripes …to hug. Start with your own family. The most difficult challenge, yes?

Besides everyone knows what a drain being pissed off on an ongoing basis can be.

I can thank John Fogerty for a phone call I made immediately after hearing the cut. Now I’m much more ready to spring the incarcerated on the world. Encourage compassion.

The ideal scenarios which both Fogerty and Lennon have in common may seem utopian to some, easily dismissed. However, for those who think that “NO MORE ARMIES” and “NO MORE HATE” is pie in the sky, I recommend two things:

1) Howard Zinn’s chapter “Violence and Human Nature” in his Declarations of Independence (to dispel the notion that war is necessary, inevitable).
2) Not thinking that our goal should be to rid ourselves of ALL real life counterparts to “evil” characters in Flannery O’Connor’ short stories and Cormac McCarthy’s novels, but rather to minimize that quarter. To believe that one cannot anticipate what glory will result from simply not feeding hate. To not assume that we are doomed to be ruled by The Negative.

“Don’t You Wish It Was True,” like “Imagine,” is a call for action. Very personal action. That for which you can be responsible. Set an example.

In Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men there is an image painted of a man on horseback — the father of one character — seen in a dream:

He just rode on past and he had this blanket wrapped around him and he had his head down and when he rode past I seen he was carryin fire in a horn the way people used to do and I could see the horn from the light inside of it. About the color of the moon. And in the dream I knew that he was goin on ahead and that he was fixin to make a fire somewhere out there in all that dark and all that cold and I knew that whenever I got there he would be there. And then I woke up.

Fogerty’s first cut on the new album is his “I Had A Dream” speech. It is infused with as much hope (and sense of destiny) as Martin Luther King’s words and Cormac McCarthy’s expectations. It shares much with Lennon’s masterpiece, but makes its own singular mark.

Of course, you have to hear Fogerty’s delivery. Obligatory.

It’s guaranteed to wake you up, unless you’ve already gone to sleep forever.

* Marcelle Cendrars, Algerian-American journalist, trusts that anyone in a position to contact Julie Fogerty on her behalf will do so. The author would like to arrange a unique interview with John Fogerty in which a new paradigm for action could be proposed, and discussed (and, then, widely disseminated).

“When it was light enough to use the binoculars he glassed the valley below.”

That line from his The Road, “the most important environmental book ever written,”¹ leads the reader into a realm which is “paling away into the murk.”

In a recent Counterpunch piece by Paul Craig Roberts, “Good-bye to All That,” it is noted that both Pat Buchanan and Naomi Wolf, “two writers of different political persuasions,” determine — from opposite angles of vision — that our country’s “demise” has arrived.

But neither Buchanan’s Day of Reckoning nor Wolf’s End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot touch upon our “demise” from the perspective of the citizenry. All pretty much laid at the feet of the powers-that-be, treating the most powerful player of all, The People, as a peripheral factor in our decline…by sin of omission.

I have personally been involved in trying to recruit citizens in the name of solidarity for quite some time,² and whatever the official records may show (or not) respecting fissiparous unions, the proliferation (and simultaneous inefficacy) of anti-administration groups, decreasing numbers on the streets, etc., I can tell you definitively that our “demise” is, in great part, a function of something having turned the corner within our common ranks.

Of course, there has been plenty of commentary to date with regard to apathy, the burden of mundane tasks, concern overload, etc. I could certainly go through the alphabet delineating various categories…which all culminate in citizen impassiveness and non-involvement.

However, my focus here is the malaise, nay…virulent infection which now plagues our activist groups. Which is, arguably, the main reason for our ongoing “downfall” — no end in sight — at this juncture.

Below is a list of 10 “symptoms” which I’ve noted among activists, our supposed mobilizers, as an ongoing problem. Actions and inactions which have been putting the final nails in our collective coffin:

1. As a rule, no one returns calls.
2. Generic emails are employed to respond to specific inquiries, generally.
3. When there are exceptions to the rule above, there is virtually no follow-up.
4. The feeling of too much correspondence is focused on fundraising.
5. There’s almost a total absence of “bonding” in recruiting, numbers sufficing.
6. A deadly combo of lack of communication skills/incivility (in the form of impatience)/lack of knowledge is pervasive.
7. Obliviousness to, or little sense of, the urgency attached to many issues.
8. Busyness predominates, and there is little imagination for or interest in truly new paradigms for protest/change. Redundancy rules.
9. Being out of touch, generally, with the ‘cross the board apathy, etc. among citizens.
10. “Territorial trauma” runs rampant among left-of-center groups, unhealthy worry setting in whenever one segment “threatens” to steal the spotlight, cut into a given financial base, or some such priority takes precedence over solidarity.

In one review of The Road a critic notes the following:

“It seems to me that we are already pushing other people ahead of us down The Road. As the biosphere shrinks, McCarthy describes the collapse of the protagonist’s core beliefs. I sense that this might be happening already: that a hardening of interests, a shutting down of concern, is taking place among the people of the rich world. If this is true, we do not need to wait for the forests to burn or food supplies to shrivel before we decide that civilization is in trouble.”³

For one and all, I recommend a new pair of binoculars.

1. For two reasons, I’d like the reader to contact me to get the source of this quotation. I’ll explain upon contact. This approach certainly opens the door for solidarity beyond the written word, yes?
2. At least for forty years, intensely within the last ten years, and 24×8 during the last four. Across the country, worldwide. My focus has always been hands-on action.
3. See footnote #1 above. Forgive the inconvenience, please.

Their recent “The Best Cities to Raise Kids,” featuring, as they say, “places [which] offer parents the right mix of safety, good schools and low cost of living,” names Groesbeck, Ohio as The Winner!¹

Well, I’ve got bad news for Yahoo! and anyone who took their plug seriously … and packed up already for that semi-rural patch of land seven miles northwest of Cincinnati. That is, Hamilton County totally surrounds the census-designated place (not a city) — almost dead center — and is totally toxic.

Whichever way the wind is blowing in Hamilton County, Prize-winning Groesbeck will take the toxic cake, as they (don’t) say. Hamilton is hazardous to your health. Out of 86 Ohio counties, it ranks 9th on the Degraded Dog House List ‘cross the board. And it’s so full of toxicity in the air, it spews well over three times the emissions of Trumbull County, which comes in at only #18 or thereabouts.² To review, 9th — by far! — out of 86…in a verrrrrrrrrrrrrry polluted state.

To get more specific, under “Chemical Releases or Waste Generation” — in four of six categories — Hamilton scores in the upper 10% of Dirtiest/Worst Counties in the U.S. In terms of “Releases weighted by Potential Environmental Health Impacts” both categories listed rank it in the upper 10th. In three of five categories under the filthy umbrella of “Releases Sorted by Recognized Health Effects” it’s in the same 10% leaky boat.

For total environmental releases, cancer risk score (air and water), non-cancer risk score, air releases of recognized carcinogens, and air releases of developmental toxicants — in ALL those categories — it came in at the upper (worst) 10 percentile for the whole country.

Reviewing a rundown of the worst culprits in Hamilton, it’s worth noting that on a list of 20 (who are running everyone down), #1 North Bend’s Cinergy Miami Fort Generating Station and #3 Addyston’s Bayer Port Plastics provide a different angle for wind currents than Cincinnati…which accounts for thirteen facilities on the list.

This is not the kind of situation one encounters in Oregon, say, where Ashland lies in the same county as Medford — Jackson — but experiences an entirely different pollution level, as a rule. No, Hamilton County dooms one and all within its devastating environs.

There is some good news, however. In the category of “Water Releases of Suspected Endocrine Toxicants” there’s one subset which comes in at just below the 50% mark; about average in the country.

To use a recent Coen Brothers film as a point of reference, Hamilton is No County for Old Men with Emphysema or Kids with Asthma. Or pregnant moms for that matter.

And on that note, I’ll conclude by underscoring that if you’re not into Bad News you’ll probably do best to stay away from the rest of the Yahoo! Best.

And not just for this “Best Places” list.

When all is said and done, sitting in front of a computer digesting Yahoo! reporting is, arguably, one of the worst “places” your child can be.

1. See Yahoo!
2. In 2002, this county ranked among the dirtiest/worst 10% of all counties in the U.S. in terms of total environmental releases. Things have changed since then but not for the better in Groesbeck; nevertheless Trumbull might register a slightly different rank as of 2007. This Environmental Defense link should lead you to all of the different angles addressed in this article.

Some say that iron entered the soul of the Mexican Revolution at that juncture. Plenty of stomach-turning atrocities had taken place prior to that moment, but following Huerta’s rushed appointment treachery, murder and crimes against humanity became the norm rather than the exception.

Huerta’s rise to power was part of what’s commonly — and understandably — known as La decena tragica (”The Ten Tragic Days”). If you don’t already know, I’ll spare you the gory details attached to his Dantesque spectacle of horror.

He wasn’t the only Bad Guy, of course. The desire for bloodlust and a tearing down of all boundaries was quite infectious. But Huerta was The Man. He led the way.

That’s what we’ve got today.

But you’d never know it to listen to the Democratic Party Debates.

A simple point here, but quite instructive, I believe. That is, if you believe that our “leaders” are war criminals, you’ve got to be taken aback by the polite tones embraced by all the candidates who want to take over the reins. The question of impeachment rears its indelicate head now and then, of course, at opportunistic moments. But there’s a total absence of the kind of language the same people have used in reference to our long list of Unbearable Dictators (some called “Hitlers”) in the past.

The simple retort, of course, would point out that they can’t use such language as long as the Commander-in-Chief is directing troops here and there midst enemy fire.

And the clearest reply I can think of to that rationale is that none of the candidates will be adopting such language — if elected, or not — even long after Bush has been retired.

That should tell you something.

Because even now that we’ve entered our seemingly unending tragic days, with casual conversation about the pros and cons of Neocon (and other) torture quite routine, not a leading soul exists in The Other Party who is calling a filthy spade a filthy spade.

For the same reason that they won’t speak that way once he’s gone. They won’t be able to afford to say what we can’t afford them not to say ’cause they’ll be too invested in their careers, tolerated maverick talk within acceptable parameters notwithstanding.

Neither talking impeachment nor quietly questioning the mental health of The Executive does the trick. There’s other language and different tones that we reserve for war criminals.

Any one of them getting into the highest office in the land will guarantee ongoing tragic days. Because one can’t be as “polite” as they’re being, and make significant change. One can’t give such a priority to personal advancement over values, or short cut clear cut communication now without dooming us.

If we’re voting this time ’round at all, we must vote our conscience, and not try to second guess the value of our vote, not cleverly rationalize what’s proper form at the booth.

In terms of our increasing crimes against humanity, then, it won’t make much of a difference whether or not we select this one or that one from the two major parties. For there is a long, long history of both parties overseeing abominations like the major one General Huerta learned best from, our pacification of Filipinos in horrific concentration camps around the turn of the century. None of the candidates will own to that because no candidate is allowed to do so, allowed to be in the position of being a candidate without first being carefully screened. Over time.

And so, in one form or another, the show is slated to go on as is.

President Francisco Madero, at one point, received definitive evidence from his trusted brother, Gustavo, regarding Huerta’s duplicity, his plans to replace Francisco. But El Presidente, El Idiot, bought the General’s cock ‘n bull blather about being loyal, and — promising to take care of all of Madero’s problems in twenty-four hours! — got his gun back!!!

It’s considered by most as one of the most egregiously self-destructive actions in all of history.

Gustavo (”One-Eye”) Madero was blinded with a sword, then tortured beyond belief before being dispatched, amidst much laughter. His brother, the leader of all Mexico, had his foolish head chopped off. Not literally, but you get the idea, I’m sure.

The question is whether or not you get what’s going on on our shores. Today.

Everyone’s been caught with their pants down, guns out of their holsters at present, the smoke from their firearms coming up from our end of the floor. Within our reach.

We gonna bend down, pick up one of their weapons … and hand it over again? Repeat history?

The Democratic Debates are much too sweet for us. They’ve got what it takes to kill us.

1. Why is so much fuss being made over the recent oil spill around San Francisco while virtually nothing is being reported/discussed about the “simultaneous” spill in the Black Sea.
Context: Dozens of birds and beaches were affected in the Bay Area while 30,000 birds were killed on the Russian/Ukraine border … extending ecological catastrophe over a much greater area. Also, people died and four freighters went down along the Crimean coast. Is it that someone’s discovered the birds were communists? If there’s going to be a death penalty for anything, why isn’t it applied to the individual — and, surely, there was one person responsible — who gave the green light for a tanker without a double hull to be in the Kerch Strait’s heavy seas? To remain there even after official warnings were issued.
Category: Ecological Catastrophe

2. Why do celebrities like Don Cheadle and George Clooney and Brad Pitt agree to do an “African” special in Vanity Fair when they know that Condy Rice and George W. are going to be getting feathers in their caps alongside them while Bono gets away with blending GAP and his RED project in a very fashionable, favorable light?
Context: It should be called “Vanity Unfair,” but at least Archbishop Desmond Tutu put himself in a prayer position (with eyes closed) as he was forced to pose with Bush for the July issue.
Category: That’s Entertainment!

3. Why are so many prescription drugs (like Celebrex, designed to treat arthritis pain) so popular with doctors and the public when the number of suicides and serious (possible) side effects are astronomical?
Context: The length of the “warning” points in the literature which accompanies distribution of the Pfizer product (and so many others) is unbelievable. When one thinks about the fact that people in general (let alone the unassisted elderly) will not plow through all the small print, it’s a wonder that so much political fuss is made over making prescription drugs available to one and all in health plans.
Category: Ongoing Abominations.

4. Why are so few activists who’ve wanted to incorporate people of color into the ranks of anti-war protests joining hands with members of the Latino community over the monumentally important/historic immigration issue?
Context: In a recent study out of Teachers College, Columbia University only one in ten anti-war activists questioned indicated that they had made an effort to do so. All else aside, our ages-old-tradition of vigilante action, being implemented along the border now with official sanction, is no less a horror than what went on with the tolerated/encouraged lynching of African-Americans throughout U.S. history.
Category: That’s Soldiarity!

5. Regarding the Minot-Barksdale Nuclear Missile Flight, why, out of over 900 high school Social Studies teachers canvassed, has there been no discussion of the “mistake” in “Current Events” school segments?
Context: Immediately after reading Dave Lindorff’s timely rundown of the event, I had my contacts across this “great” nation telephone 85 teachers (on average) in eleven states. I don’t know if things changed following his follow-up piece.
Categories: Ostrich Syndrome and That’s Education!

Just try to find out via googling what products from what companies are flooding our country… from Mexico. For your general information. Or because you want to boycott. It won’t be easy. Online one finds, primarily, information about maquiladoras which might help those interested in investing in sweatshops and the like. Virtually nothing an activist can put teeth into.¹

If you fancy that you would have been an abolitionist 150 years ago, I submit that you’ve got an agenda to embrace with regard to maquiladoras. Whether or not the war in Iraq ends tomorrow. Whether or not all of our troops are withdrawn from foreign shores. Whether or not the sweatshops of India are addressed by Congress, and the GAP and NIKE labeled for what they actually are among informed adults. No matter what the “weather” is in Politically Correct Circles.

A cry from The South goes out to you.

Veteran border rights activist Enrique Davalos told historians Mike Davis and Justin Akers Chacon recently:

Maquiladoras combine traditional ways of exploitation…with new, intensive ways of exploitation based on high-speed productivity. Working in a maquiladora means [living] in poverty with no hopes of getting better…. Average daily wages in Tijuana…are about six to seven dollars for ten working hours. This is enough to pay only 25 percent of the very basic expenses, without including rent and education. So maquiladora workers are condemned to live in shantytowns without piped water, power, sewage or trash collection. Temperatures in Tijuana fluctuate from 30 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit, but 66 percent of the houses don’t have piped water.

The maquiladoras are risky and unhealthy labor places. Most of the companies force the workers to deal with dangerous chemicals with no training and no appropriate protection. As a result, labor diseases and accidents are common…. Workers ruin their eyes, lungs, hands, backs and nervous systems after a few years…. In addition, workers without fingers and hands are not rare, but workers’ negligence is always used to explain recurrent ‘accidents.’ In fact, maquiladoras not only deteriorate workers’ lives, they also pollute their families and communities. Ejido Chilpancingo is a neighborhood located near to Otay, one of the most expensive industrial parks in Tijuana. Because of maquiladora pollution, residents of Ejido Chilpancingo are exposed to lead at levels three thousand times higher than U.S. Standards.²

So much for the “unique status” of lead toys from China.

The fact that with NAFTA Mexico has become almost entirely dependent on the U.S. for trade shouldn’t stop us from researching which companies benefit from this abominable form of slavery. No more than we should justify wearing diamonds because “at least we’re providing ’some’ jobs for the Congolese, better than what they would have otherwise.” Or, well…you know the mantra.

Even the Chinese are now exploring ways in which they can exploit the NAFTA stranglehold on Mexicans for their purposes. For getting around U.S. trade restrictions, etc.

Over 1.3 million small farmers forced into bankruptcy during the decade 1994-2004, coupled with “mandatory migration northward” for 15 million more in agriculture in the near future, provide a clear picture of why the Zapatistas had their uprising.³

These are numbers and a force that cannot be stopped by a handful of Minuteman vigilantes or a U.S. version of the Berlin or Israeli Wall.

Bill Clinton launched a new standard for border militarization with his Operation Gatekeeper in 1994, and Bush pushed through a $32 billion Homeland Security bill for 2006 designed to provide enormous increases for border enforcement. Then there’s Arizona’s Operation Safeguard, Texas’ Operations Hold the Line and Rio Grande the bipartisan Kennedy-McCain bill, Bill Richardson’s co-opting, Hillary Clinton’s threats….

But none of that will work.

It won’t work because of the simple fact that Slavery doesn’t sit well with Nature.

The only question is whether or not YOU are going to do something about this. You don’t have to be a John Brown here, but all this certainly begs for a few more Thoreaus and Stowes.

Why not start with putting an end to some of your purchases?

1. Contact the author if you have difficulty finding particular information.
2. From p. 118 of No One Is Illegal: Fighting Racism and State Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border. It’s a Haymarket book out of Chicago by Justin Akers Chacon and Mike Davis.
3. Alan M. Kraut’s Silent Travelers: Germs, Genes and the “Immigrant Menace” (New York: Basic Books, 1994), pp. 270-71 delineates the health-based reasons for migration northward. However, even once they arrive — as things stand — they’re still the victims of forty-five thousand different pesticides used in agriculture. They are ravaged by leukemia, lymph node cancer, multiple myeloma (bone cancer) in adults, and leukemia and brain cancer in children…and much more. And speaking of children, according to federal law, children as young as nine years old can work in the fields with or without their parents.

1. Hijos de la guerra (Children of the War), graphic and fast-paced, focuses on the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), the largest (100,000+ worldwide) and most violent street gang on earth. Drug smuggling, black market gun sales, human trafficking, assassinations for hire and much more that’ll turn your stomach is their soup du jour. Lessons abound, including what can be gleaned from the fact that the MS-13 continues to grow in spite of the U.S. deporting, incarcerating and killing gang members…spending tons of $$$ in the process. El Salvador’s Alexandre Fuchs documents the horror of the life of refugees from that country who fled in the 80s to Los Angeles. One wonders if Ron Paul would have given glowing tributes to Ronald Reagan if he had seen this film.

2. Spain’s Invisibles enables Academy Award winning Javier Bardem (featured in a new Coen Brothers film, btw) and Doctors Without Borders to assemble the work of five of the world’s top filmmakers, showing the victims of political unrest, poverty, and corporate greed. If you’re a Wim Wenders or (Goya winner) Isabel Coixet fan, don’t miss this. Coixet told me in Barcelona recently that this was his favorite work thus far.

3. Tocar y luchar (To Play and To Fight) gives you something exhilaratingly fresh out of Venezuela. A work of last year by director Alberto Alvero, this film features interviews with some of the world’s most celebrated musicians while focusing on the captivating story of the hundreds of youth orchestras formed within Venezuela’s towns and villages. The program description says it “is an inspirational story of courage, determination, and ambition, showing us that only those who dare to dream can achieve the impossible.” It is more than that. It provides another positive notch in Chavez’ belt.

4. De nina de madre (Girls to Mothers) shows why the maternal mortality rate in Nicaragua is 90 per 100,000 (while the maternal mortality rate is 25 per 100,000 live births in developed countries). Belgian filmmaker Florence Jaugey won some impressive awards with this feature last year, and the interviews with mothers as young as thirteen (and their loved ones) will show you why. They’ll also give you another reason to grimace when someone mentions the Pope’s policies for that immiserated part of the world.

In addition, filmgoers who are interested in the positive side of those who wear masked wrestling costumes in Mexico should see Arturo Perez Torres’ Super Amigos. And those interested in Mexico (and/or animation) should consider viewing Y tu cuanto cuestas? (So, What’s Your Price?).

Another type of tension — deep-seated strains, actually — rose astronomically in Spain not long after the comic figures had their impact, exploding in the Spring. And Antony Beevor, in his monumentally important study of the Spanish Civil War,¹ relates a very interesting incident experienced by one of Jose Ortega y Gasset’s young disciples, which provides an instructive moment for one and all from that period.

On his way to Madrid University, the young man observed an unforgettable expression of hatred on the face of a tram-driver, in the process of letting passengers get on and off. The driver was staring at the face of a beautiful woman, his visage seething with rage as her well-dressed body disembarked from the streetcar.

“We’ve really had it ,” thought the disciple: “When Marx has more effect than hormones, there is nothing to be done.”

It wasn’t just a function of Marx’s influence, perhaps, but the point is clear: Under certain circumstances, normal human instincts can be overridden. And at such a juncture, a deep sense of hopelessness sets in, acceptance of impotency appears to be the only option.

Not the kind of fare for a Streetcar Named Desire. Depression, maybe.

These days I’m most interested in what overrides both common sense and instinct. That is, I see — all around me — an almost comic book version of “Captain Survival Meets Penultimate Priorities.”

Some out-of-whack examples:

a) The U.S. war machine arrogantly “abuses” a billion Muslims (and others) in the name of national security, and returning Vets undermine the last vestiges of military credibility.
b) The U.S. contributes to — virtually guarantees — 150,000 (mostly Hindu) farmer suicides in India by its foreign agricultural policies, ² as they try to build solidarity with that country through nuclear deals…violating well-established international agreements.
c) The U.S. government continues to think that it is presenting “Democracy in Action” to the world with its electoral process, when the validity of voting machines is highly questionable, marginalized segments of its population are disenfranchised, and voter turnout continues its decline with Tweedledee/Tweedledum choices. All as media outlets fall into fewer and fewer hands.
d) The U.S. advertises itself as an “example of economic prosperity” whilst the dollar declines relative to the euro and other important currencies week after week.
e) The U.S., in the midst of experiencing ongoing, record-setting catastrophes and unprecedented environmental ills/shortages, portrays itself as #1, Heaven on Earth. As the Ecocide on Earth is mostly paid lip-service. Laid out for Green Festivals…for those who can pay.
f) The U.S., firmly ensconced on land stolen from Mexico and indigenous peoples, impoverishes both groups, increasing the likelihood of foreign emigration, whilst taking violent action against immigrants whose labor is much needed domestically.
g) Blatant racism grows, and is institutionalized, as Orwellian denials of such practices preclude rational approaches to solutions, and domestic violence in all quarters soars, as an unhealthy bunker mentality across the nation becomes the norm.

Insanity. Nothing natural here.

I could go on, of course.

But the most telling example of instinct being overridden, of common sense not being honored, comes from the Amerikan public’s stance respecting all of this, not from the government’s indiscretions, callousness, shortsighted self-destructiveness. Bought off with an (apparently) organic apple, or inexpensive sweatshop top, as the case may be.

People in the U.S. — by their actions and inaction — are ensuring that the future will hold no beauty, no sensations to speak of but violent-prone thoughts. Ugliness all the way down to the bone.³

With an un-heroic, dastardly, comic look.

1. The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 (Penguin Books: London, 2006). Julian Marias is the disciple.
2. The Indian government’s official figures list 100,000 farmer suicides for the period of 1993-2003, and it is confirmed that –on average– there were 18,000 for each year following that. I received this information from Devinder Sharma, Indian scholar.
3. Those wanting to do something about our mutual situation are encouraged to contact the author at bcendra@yahoo.com.

Leave us alone!
– Devinder Sharma’s response to my question, ‘What do you want the U.S. to do to help India?’

The well-respected scholar/activist Devinder Sharma tells me that at minimum 28,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide over the last ten years, in great part as a consequence of the business practices of Archer Daniels Midland (sponsor of The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour), Monsanto, Wal-Mart and others.¹

Most people reading this probably know the basic story/cold facts, but my contribution is to offer up a recommendation for meaningful action, designed to –at the very least– make a dent in related criminality/immorality being perpetuated in the United States. Beyond that, it is obvious that the health of the world, making life livable for us, is contingent upon our being concerned with the welfare of one and all, above and beyond what NGOs (under the influence of the IMF and World Bank) have done. Haven’t done.²

To do so, Andrew Kimbrell, public interest attorney, activist, and author has been indispensable. His service as Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment and the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. has enabled him to edit an astoundingly helpful work titled The Fatal Harvest Reader.³

His listing of the seven worst/most prominent myths concerning agribusiness are well worth running through here, as they can serve as talking points for influencing others in the scenario suggested below.

Cutting through the Corporate Lies –and making a difference in practical terms– requires that we not fight against industrial agriculture on an issue-by-issue basis exclusively. Altering the thinking and habits of a lifetime is a monumental challenge, but…our lives depend upon being successful in this realm.

The Myths Confronted:

A) Poverty and landlessness deny people access to food. This causes world hunger, not a lack of food. “Industrial agriculture actually increases hunger by raising the cost of farming, by forcing tens of millions of farmers off the land, and by growing primarily high-profit export and luxury crops.”⁴ Industrial Agriculture will NOT feed the world.

B) Everyone has heard about how industrial agriculture contaminates –with pesticides– what we eat. In addition, its life-threatening bacteria is slipped into our lettuce, and genetically engineered growth hormones (in milk) guarantee that obesity is the norm. Food-borne illnesses are one thing. Cancer, easily traceable to agribusiness practices, is quite another. One doesn’t have to donate more money for cancer research, the scorecard is in on several counts, and we all now simply wait for the obligatory action to be taken. Industrial Food is NOT safe, healthy and nutritious.

C) Industrial Food is NOT cheap… if you add up its real cost. Health, environmental, and social costs must be factored in with current supermarket prices. Duh. Hmmm, I wonder who’s making out like a bandit here… with (our tax) subsidies too.

D) “Small farms produce more agricultural output per unit area than large farms. Moreover, larger, less diverse farms require far more mechanical and chemical inputs. These ever increasing inputs are devastating to the environment and make these farms far less efficient than smaller, more sustainable farms.”⁵ Industrial Agriculture is NOT efficient.

E) Our local supermarket provides an illusion of choice. Labeling of products is guilty of The Sin of Omission with regard to pesticides and genetic modification. What happened to the right to reject what we don’t want to eat? “Most importantly, the myth of choice masks the tragic loss of thousands of crop varieties caused by industrial agriculture.”⁶ Industrial Food does NOT offer more choices.

F) Not even the U.S. Military –which has made uninhabitable (in the U.S. alone) a land mass the size of the state of Florida– can compete with Industrial Agriculture as the largest single threat to the earth’s biodiversity. Industrial Agriculture does NOT benefit the environment and wildlife.

G) Biotechnology will NOT solve the problems of Industrial Agriculture. Rather, it will compound them. And, in the process, a few of the world’s largest corporations will gain ever greater control over our food supply.

There you have it. Now, as promised, I’m obligated to tell you WHAT YOU CAN DO.

It’s simple. I recently wrote a piece which urged parents and other interested parties to march into local schools, and demand that teachers do away with perpetuating the lie that our system of government is based –in reality– on checks and balances.

Well, let’s take it from there. Authorities in schools can be confronted –easily– with the facts delineated above. How much time does it take to pass around the Fact Sheet to one and all? Of course, one would have to follow that up with a very focused, clearly laid out plan/demand for a STRIKE! A student strike. And, where possible, PTA participation would be desirable. Independent parents, neighbors et. al. should be welcomed.⁷ A civilized food fight (!!!) in the cafeteria, if you will. Or simply a classic sit-in. No fasts necessary.

Before you rule this out –out of hand– as pie in the sky, look at what actions are already being attempted in educational settings out of concern over obesity alone. You’d think that a Gym teacher or two might want to run with the ball you put on the court, yes? And Science? Really, the number of relevant disciplines here is high. And the stakes are much higher than overweight kids not being able to climb a rope, or –please don’t take this the wrong way– acquiring diabetes. Our landbase is threatened with extinction.

Coordination with several schools might be an option. Huge Government $$ Here!!⁸

Cooperation with several organizations might prove fruitful.⁹ Considering the looming threat to the integrity of organic standards, those interested in establishing more stringent standards would be prime candidates, for starters. Frustration and fear in all quarters of the Green Ecological/Agrarian Movement, however, would quickly give organizers the necessary minds and bodies to begin.

Let everyone look at the where the food-related expenses are going at present.¹⁰ Whose pockets are being lined. Whose kids are being assigned… obesity problems. And worse.

I mean, it’s one thing to want your kid to not miss any classes ’cause you want him/her to become a Rocket Scientist. It’s another thing to have the child grow up and become a Rocket Scientist with colon cancer.

And to be bringing down most of India in the process… to get one’s missiles off.

1. Those interested can verify this by reviewing Seven Stories Press’ Censored 2008: The Top Ten Censored Stories of 2006-07, Vandana Shiva’s appearance on Democracy Now! (December 13, 2006) Arun Shrivastava’s “Genetically Modified Seeds: Women in India Take on Monsanto (Global Research, October 9, 2006), and Suman Sahai’s “Sowing Trouble: India’s ‘Second Green Revolution.’” Devinder Sharma is a distinguished journalist, author, thinker and analyst based in New Delhi, India.
2. Mike Davis’ Planet of Slums (the “Illusions of Self Help” chapter) provides a definitive take on this fundamental point.
3. Island Press, 2002.
4. The Fatal Harvest Reader, p. 6.
5. Ibid., p. 19.
6. Ibid., p. 23.
7. As far as what demands should be made, the list of organizations referred to in the #9 footnote below is a good starting place. Advice on tactics/strategies would follow naturally. And coverage from media outlets is virtually guaranteed. I would be more than happy to recommend organizations which are near given locations, upon request.
8. It’s pretty ugly how governmental food support must take the form –’cross the board (in and out of educational institutions)– of subsidies for corporations producing unhealthy fare exclusively.
9. The great number of groups listed at the back of The Fatal Harvest Reader is a good point of departure for contacting interested parties. When considering working with NGOs, however, one always has to be on one’s toes, asking the right questions, not jumping too quickly into the arms of someone who’s already in bed with The Enemy.
10. One of the many hidden aspects of financial support for the industry lies in the fact that very often the same companies that receive assistance for providing food own and/or run transportation that’s necessary for delivery. That’s one. The “aid” goes way beyond the surface support…which is unseemly enough at $30.5 or so billion per year.