An all too serious question regarding news from Syria today...

First, here's a taste of the news currently circulating global news sources:

The United Nations is seeking more concrete evidence to establish whether President Bashar al-Assad’s government has used chemical weapons in its conflict with the rebels. While the United States and other countries say they believe the regime likely used the deadly nerve agent sarin, U.N. inspectors say the current evidence is not strong enough to meet its standard of proof.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Syria to grant access to U.N. investigators so they can collect samples from alleged attack sites and victims. Ban Ki-moon: "I take seriously the recent intelligence report of the United States about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. On-site activities are essential if the United Nations is to be able to establish the facts and clear all the doubts surrounding this issue. A credible and comprehensive inquiry requires full access to the site where chemical weapons are alleged to have been used. I again urge Syrian authorities to allow the investigation to proceed without delay and without any conditions." -From Democracy Now!

The question: Are chemical weapons really the last step that will get the US involved in Syria? Why? What about the wishes of the people? Why does the U.S. always have to "get involved" when there are so many issues at home? How could the U.S. actually "help"? The opposition is asking for assistance because they have been taking major hits from the Assad regime for months. They have asked for support in weapons. If any support will be provided, perhaps listening to them is a justicecentric step forward?

From a sustainability perspective, weapons are not. While the violence they bring forth is at the root of this issue, that IS what the people are asking for, not a full U.S. retaliation. By why are chemical weapons the deal breaker? The obvious answer is obvious, but the real question is for more than a year the opposition has been forced into refugee status, faced bombings and other unaccounted and accounted for acts of terror.

Although the use of chemical weapons brings a new horrific flavor to the conflict, why is that the last straw? Why is this conversation going where it's going now when these people have been brutalized for months on end? If chemical weapons weren't in the cards would the UN and US be ok with what's going on? Is that the way they've really felt? War is not sustainable. There has got to be another way for peace, justice and freedom in Syria...

Ernest Moniz named the new head of the EPA...

Is just business as usual in Washington. What a shame, but of course, it's nothing out of the ordinary, unfortunately. These are the moves where it's easy to see that the head of executive branch of the U.S. is not harnessing the power he has (although not as much as most think) to bring about the lasting change necessary to support means for a sustainable, just and peaceful world.

Mr. Moniz is a nuclear physicist best known by environmentalists for his love of fracking (see the attached picture). Have you seen the documentary Gasland yet (http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/)? You should educate yourself on the process of fracking and who's most impacted if you're not already well versed. The Gasland documentary does a great job.

While other appointees to the President's cabinent can also come under scrutiny, back to Mr. Moniz, one must wonder if placing him at the head of an agency that's supposed to protect the environment, yet supports nuclear means to achieve energy goals among other polluting means, is conflicting at the core. Nuclear energy creates waste that humans have not yet figured out how to adequately get rid of. The old answer for the U.S. was to impact Indigenous people (big surprise!) by dumping all the waste in Yucca Mountain, a sacred area for the Western Shoshone Nation. While that plan has been stricken down (not on the merits of social justice) there is still no way to deal with the waste never mind that with nuclear energy and waste, proliferation of nuclear weaponry is not too far behind. Is this really the best foot forward Mr. President? Does fracking and the Keystone Pipeline really have anything to do with being energy independent, or more so maintaining the status quo?

Here's some interesting background on the new head of the EPA:

 http://grist.org/news/meet-obamas-energy-secretary-pick-ernest-moniz/

The Case for Albert Woodfox

From Democracy Now! this morning a headline read:

Federal Court Orders Release of Angola 3’s Albert Woodfox for 3rd Time

A federal judge has once again ordered the state of Louisiana to release Albert Woodfox, a former Black Panther who has spent more than 40 years in solitary confinement. Woodfox and another prisoner of the "Angola Three" were convicted of murdering a guard at Angola Prison. The Angola Three and their supporters say they were framed for their political activism. On Tuesday, the same federal judge that ordered Woodfox’s release in 2008 again ruled Woodfox should be set free on the basis of racial discrimination in his retrial. It was the third time Woodfox’s conviction has been overturned, but prosecutors successfully reversed the two previous victories. The state is expected to appeal once again to keep Woodfox behind bars.

Why does Louisiana want to keep Mr. Woodfox in solitary confinement?

This is not the first or even second time his conviction has been called into question based on racial discrimination. This piece is more than two years old, but speaks to what's been going on in recent years regarding critical examination of Mr. Woodfox being help behind bars:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/albert-woodfox-angola-3

These pieces will also fill you in on the struggle:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-the-angola-3

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/angola-prison-3-herman-wallace-albert-woodfox-40-years-solitary-confinement 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/albert-woodfox-herman-wallace_n_873111.html

There are many other sources to educate yourself on the subject, so when the next person asks you why you care about defeating racism when "all men are created equal" you can act in solidarity with movements that are truly anti-racist and seek to eliminate this socially constructed form of oppression.
 

Big Pharma Defending Capitalism in Africa While the People Suffer

"Fire in the Blood" is a documentary that was shown at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. The film looks at the way large pharmaceutical companies helped support the death of millions of people by blocking the delivery of necessary AIDS drugs to tens of millions of people mainly in Africa, but largely across the "developing" world. The reason? Profit of course. The affordable generic AIDS drugs aren't how some of the biggest corps in big pharama like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, make the enormous profits they do. Rather it's their "designer" brands meant for the "first" world.

This documentary critically examines this process. Essentially big pharama, mostly in the U.S., has literally refused to let the countries that needs the drugs the most to get them. At the core of the issue is the beloved friend of world injustice, the WTO, who supports the block of the cheaper, generic drugs that wouls not only save peoples lives, but offer them a higher standard of living, due to a trade deal called the "TRIPS Agreement". You can check out more info about the film and subject matter as well at watch the trailer for the film over at http://www.fireintheblood.com/


Democracy Now! recently hosted a discussion with the film director, Dylan Mohan Gray, as well as Ugandan AIDS doctor Peter Mugyenyi. Peter was actually arrested for trying to import the generic drugs?!?!?!? Watch the video above or visit:

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/23/fire_in_the_blood_millions_die

to get better educated on the subject, big pharam and the WTO as a whole.

The Case of Egypt

When Muslim Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi beat out former Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Shafikhe he became the country's first democratically elected president. It was an enormoous victory for Egyptian people, and arguably helped fuel the fire of a peoples' uprisings now commonly referred to the Arab Spring. When Morsi took power he faced immediate issues with the ruling military council. However, in more recent days he has faced a even bigger problem; dealing with a largely upset local population. While the promise of Morsi's victory by democratic election spoke the possibility of a revolution of government by the people, sweeping reforms of power set in place to hold him as the ultimate authority, until a constitution is drawn, has what's caused Egyptian people to take to the streets in protest. Although Western media centers have largely negatively critiqued the uprisings in Egypt, playing the hegemony card during the movement proclaiming, "what will they do now with no government or leader," the promise of a democratically elected president has remained salient. That is, until Morsi decided to apply dictor-like rules on his people until a constitution is set in place. Even more recently has taken steps to absolve himself from judicial oversight. While people marched in protest today reportedly no less than eight Egyptian newspapers also held a strike due to alleged restrictions they feel Morsi is placing on freedom of speech in the proposed constitution. The promise was so bright in this grassroots for the people, by the people movement. In this day and age it is one of the most profound social movements of the time. Has it been killed by another elitist attempt to control power in the midts of political turmoil? Is Morsi doing what "must" be done in order to bring about stability to his country in a time of instability? Is there a way Egypt can still attain a sense of true democracy through this turmoil? For the people a supporter of peace, justice and sustainability would hope so. http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/211-hurt-in-Egypt-protests-over-charter-4095159.php http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/egypt-protests-islamists_n_2243741.html http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/world/meast/egypt-protests/?hpt=hp_t2

According To A New Report, Global Inequality Reaches Highest Level in 20 Years

Save the Children just released a report pointing to global inequalities in wealth are not only growing, but they are currently at their highest level in the past 20 years.

Here are a few words by the BBC:

Global inequalities in wealth are at their highest level for 20 years and are growing, according to a new report by Save The Children. While the charity acknowledges progress has been made in goals such as reducing child mortality, the report says this has been uneven across income groups.

Continuing inequality could hinder further progress in improving living standards, the charity says. The report comes ahead of a meeting of a high-level UN panel on poverty. "In recent decades the world has made dramatic progress in cutting child deaths and improving opportunities for children; we are now reaching a tipping point where preventable child deaths could be eradicated in our lifetime," Save the Children's chief executive, Justin Forsyth, said. "Unless inequality is addressed... any future development framework will simply not succeed in maintaining or accelerating progress. What's more, it will hold individual countries - and the world - back from experiencing real growth and prosperity," Mr Forsyth added.

Save The Children's researchers found that in most of the 32 developing countries they looked at, the rich had increased their share of national income since the 1990s. In a fifth of the countries, the incomes of the poorest had fallen over the same period. The gap has become particularly pronounced among children and affects their well-being as well as causing disparities in several key indicators, the charity says. For example, it notes that in Tanzania, child mortality in the richest fifth of the population fell from 135 to 90 per 1,000 births over the research period, while the poorest fifth saw hardly any progress with a modest fall of 140 to 137 per 1,000 births.

Here's the link to the full report:

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/Born_Equal.pdf After reading through this report what questions do you have?

WTF is up with Sanctioned Drone Bombing by the US?

Today, a story was released speaking to seven suspected militants that were killed due to an US drone bomb attack in Yemen.

A drone bombing is essentially an attack by an aircraft that is not flown by a human in the physical sense. It's argued that he CIA controls  these unmanned planes that have officially been described as an effort to deal with terrorism in Pakistan although more and more instances are taking place in Yemen. The US rational for these attacks is the "war on terror". Targeted militants have been killed, but the most alarming aspect to these efforts is the amount of innocent lives lost.

Here's a headline that speaks to the issue:

Drone attacks kill 80% innocent people: Malik (Pakistan Observer) Islamabad—Interior Minister Rehman Malik said Wednesday that the majority of those killed in drone attacks were innocent people. According to Malik, only 20 percent of those killed in drone attacks were militants while the rest were innocent people. Speaking to the media outside Parliament, Malik said there were 336 drone attacks conducted in Pakistan in which 2,300 people were killed. He added that 96 cross border attacks were launched from Afghanistan. When asked about an operation in North Waziristan, Malik claimed that no statements were made regarding this matter.

Earlier in Senate, the minister said that the government had not yet decided any operation in North Waziristan. He added that civilian and military leadership would take final decision regarding the operation. He said that head money for Taliban’s spokesperson Ahsanullah Ahsan has been set. He added that his photos would be released soon. Malik said that government would continue fighting against terrorists. The government would continue fighting against terrorists, he added. Names of those supporting Taliban should also come on front.Terming Taliban “Zaliman”, he said that government could talk with them if Zaliman surrender their weapons. —Online

Recently, hundreds marched in opposition to the attacks:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/world/asia/drone-protest-march/index.html

How can sustainability, peace and justice ever be reached when such a disregard for the life and environment of other people half-way around the world are treated in such a manner?

A few more resources to get educated:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-protest/index.html 

http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20121018140026 

http://observers.france24.com/content/20121009-pakistani-protesters-drone-attacks-inciting-more-

hatred-peace-march-imran-khan-south-waziristan-taliban-terror 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/10/07/pakistan-drones-protest.html 

http://www.cjr.org/feature/covering_obamas_secret_war.php?page=all