jueves, mayo 31, 2012

Apoyar la lucha contra Belo Monte, una lucha que aún no ha terminado


CGI rendition of the main dam, Belo Monte Belo Monte Dam is located in Brazil

Tomado del Boletín WRM http://www.wrm.org.uy/

El Movimiento Xingu Vivo para Sempre organizará en la ciudad de Altamira, Pará, Brasil, entre el 13 y el 17 de junio, en la víspera de la conferencia Rio +20, un encuentro llamado Xingu+23. Este número se refiere a los 23 años pasados desde 1989, cuando tuvo lugar en Altamira un histórico encuentro que, logró, en aquel entonces, detener el proyecto de embalses/represas sobre el Rio Xingu. Aunque la construcción de la hidroeléctrica de Belo Monte ya se inició a pesar de las numerosas irregularidades, ilegalidades y protestas, un gran número de ribereños, pescadores, indios, agricultores, poblaciones urbanas y defensores de la lucha pretenden reunirse durante cuatro días en una de las comunidades más impactadas por la represa, organizando actividades festivas, de discusión y de protesta para unir sus fuerzas nuevamente contra la realización de esta obra, que causará la devastación de 50 mil hectáreas de bosque amazónico, la violación de los derechos y la expulsión de miles de personas.
Para saber más sobre el evento, entrar en http://www.xinguvivo.org.br/x23

Para contribuir, haga clic en
http://www.vakinha.com.br/VaquinhaP.aspx?e=140562

File:Greenpeacebelomonte.jpg

Etiquetas: , ,

The Moral Challenge of ‘Kill Lists’


The Moral Challenge of ‘Kill Lists’

May 30, 2012
 
By Ray McGovern, ex-CIA analyst
 
Counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has been called President Obama’s “priest” as they wrestle with the moral dilemma of assembling a “kill list” of “bad guys,” a role that recalls how established religions have justified slaughters over the centuries.


Etiquetas: , , ,

The truth about WWF

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-industry-more-than-environment-a-835712.html

WWF Helps Industry More than Environment

Photo Gallery: Panda under Pressure
Photos
AFP
The WWF is the most powerful environmental organization in the world and campaigns internationally on issues such as saving tigers and rain forests. But a closer look at its work leads to a sobering conclusion: Many of its activities benefit industry more than the environment or endangered species.

Etiquetas: , ,

miércoles, mayo 30, 2012

Banano transgénico. Boletín N° 474 de la RALLT


Luxor, Banana Island, Banana Tree, Egypt, Oct 2004.jpg
 

En estos días se está realizando en Guayaquil - Ecuador el 1er. Congreso Internacional de Biotecnología y biodiversidad del banano, donde se tratará, entre otros temas, la ingeniería genética del banano. Compartimos con ustedes algunas informaciones sobre el tema. Boletín N° 474 de la Red por una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos.

 
RED POR UNA AMÉRICA LATINA LIBRE DE TRANSGÉNICOS
BOLETÍN 474


Coordinación RALLT

=====================================================


Contenido:


¿SÓLO LAS MODIFICACIONES GENÉTICAS PODRÁN SALVAR AL BANANO?

BANANOS TRANSGÉNICOS EN DESARROLLO

Noticias:

LISTO EL ENSAYO DEL BANANO AFRICANO MODIFICADO GENÉTICAMENTE PARA COMBATIR UN GUSANO QUE ATACA A SUS RAÍCES

COLECCIÓN INTERNACIONAL DE BANANO

Noticias de la Región:

CHILE: REGIONES MÁS CONTAMINADAS POR TRANSGÉNICOS Y PLAGUICIDAS, DE NORTE A SUR

Etiquetas: , , , ,

What Happened At Dos Erres


What Happened At Dos Erres

Originally aired 05.25.2012
In 1982, the Guatemalan military massacred the villagers of Dos Erres, killing more than 200 people. Thirty years later, a Guatemalan living in the US got a phone call from a woman who told him that two boys had been abducted during the massacre -- and he was one of them. ProPublica's print version: Finding Oscar.
This story was co-reported with Sebastian Rotella of ProPublica, Ana Arana of Fundación MEPI, independent journalist Habiba Nosheen and This American Life producer Brian Reed. Their essay “Finding Oscar,” which is accompanied by a timeline, slideshow and character guide, can be read at propublica.org and is also available as an eBook. Annie Correal helped with research and translations.
Ira tells the story of how Oscar Ramirez, a Guatemalan immigrant living near Boston, got a phone call with some very strange news about his past. A public prosecutor from Guatemala told Oscar that when he was three years old, he may have been abducted from a massacre at a village called Dos Erres. Ira also talks to Kate Doyle, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive, about the Guatemalan military's scorched earth campaign, which was going on when the massacre at Dos Erres happened. (4 minutes)
Reporter Habiba Nosheen tells the story of how investigators first heard of human remains at Dos Erres, and how they discovered what the Guatemalan military did there. (28 minutes)
Habiba's story continues. Nearly 16 years after investigators first started looking into the Dos Erres massacre, a prosecutor tracks down Oscar and asks him to take a DNA test to see if he is a survivor. But they find out much more. (25 minutes) Photos from Matthew Healey for ProPublica and Alex Cruz/El Periodico de Guatemala:

Etiquetas: , , ,

lunes, mayo 28, 2012

My Op-Ed for World Hunger Day


 

On World Hunger Day, blame should be rightly apportioned

By Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero, May 25, 2012

Monday (May 28) is World Hunger Day, and we must address rising food prices all over the planet.

Food prices rose 8 percent from December to March, the World Bank reports. But the escalating cost of food does not affect everyone in the same way. A typical American family spends no more than 10 percent of its budget on food, whereas the world’s poorest 2 billion spend between 50 percent and 70 percent of their meager income on food.

There has been no shortage of explanations for the bump in food prices: weather disasters linked to global warming, the biofuels boom, skyrocketing oil prices and the prosperous Indian and Chinese middle classes’ newly found taste for hamburgers.

But most commentators tend to keep pretty quiet about another very important factor that endangers food security: financial speculation in agricultural commodities.
 
Speculators deal in commodities that they neither produce nor consume. Their profits come from futures contracts, which are essentially bets that the price of a given commodity will rise or fall. These contracts are themselves commodities, traded among financial institutions.
The speculator does not work in the real world economy, in which goods and services are sold to real people, but works instead in the finance economy, where you can get rich by buying and selling stock without contributing anything to society. Just think of the comedy film “Trading Places” or the anti-hero Gordon Gekko in the Oliver Stone classic “Wall Street.”


There has always been speculation, as far back as ancient Greece. But today it’s a whole different game. As a result of the financial deregulation of recent years, speculation has rapidly grown to an alarming degree. Between 2003 and 2008, investment in indexes linked to commodities multiplied twentyfold, ballooning from $13 billion to $260 billion.

Olivier de Schutter, U.N. rapporteur on the right to food, has spoken up more than once about the dangerous link between uncontrolled speculation and hunger. And so have an increasing number of organizations, including Friends of the Earth and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

So when it comes to taking action against world hunger, rather than joining the aid bandwagon of Bono and Jeffrey Sachs, or embracing the biotech crops of Monsanto and the Gates Foundation, we would be better advised to rethink the faulty economics of so-called free markets.

None other than Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has repeatedly made warnings to this effect: “Neoliberal market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain interests. It was never supported by economic theory. Nor, it should now be clear, is it supported by historical experience.”

The interests that this free market fundamentalism serves are not those of the world’s hungry. They should not have to pay such a dreadful price for it — or for their food.

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero is a Puerto Rican author, journalist and environmental educator. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
You can read more pieces from The Progressive Media Project by clicking here.


Etiquetas: , ,

Noticias sobre transgenicos



Transgénicos en Ecuador, un interés de los Estados Unidos

RED POR UNA AMERICA LATINA LIBRE DE TRANSGENICOS


"¿Cómo puede la embajada lograr una posición más favorable para los transgénicos? ¿Se busca acaso romper nuestra Constitución para dar paso a intereses foráneos y de los grupos de poder del país?"
En los últimos años el Ecuador ha sido reconocido en el ámbito internacional por su Nueva Constitución pues en ella se enmarca el Buen Vivir como una forma innovadora de mirar la relación sociedad-naturaleza. Son muchos los temas que transversalmente van dando sentido a este principio, uno de ellos es la declaratoria del Ecuador como un país libre de cultivos y semillas transgénicos.

La elaboración de la Constitución fue un proceso participativo, en el cual la sociedad civil debatió y argumentó posturas y propuestas, su aprobación fue una fiesta democrática en la cual participó toda la población Ecuatoriana; consecuentemente los mandatos de la Constitución son una reivindicación colectiva de nuestras aspiraciones como sociedad.

Esa, nuestra decisión libre y soberana, se ve amenazada constantemente por el interés de los Estados Unidos, que en defensa de sus empresas transnacionales y con apoyo del agronegocio ecuatoriano intenta a toda costa introducir semillas y cultivos transgénicos en Ecuador. La presión de este país para que aceptemos transgénicos tiene una larga historia. En el 2000 el Ministro de Agricultura fue invitado a visitar sitios de producción de cultivos transgénicos, luego vino la idea de aprobar un Reglamento de AgroBioseguridad (1) , presentado por el MAG. En el 2001, la Embajada de Estados Unidos trajo al país al Dr. Wayne Parrott quien en varias conferencias dirigidas a funcionarios gubernamentales (2), hablaba de los beneficios de la ingeniería genética. Luego en la propuesta de ley de Biodiversidad (2002) cuya aprobación era también un interés de la Embajada de Estados Unidos (3), se incluyó un capítulo sobre Bioseguridad, que evidentemente sentaba las pautas para introducir transgénicos.

Estados Unidos llevó a cabo un importante trabajo para promover la ingeniería genética en Ecuador. A través del Cochran Fellowship Program periodistas y personas claves participaron en cursos cortos sobre biotecnología en Hawai y Michigan. La promoción también se hacía utilizando los recursos de los programas de ayuda alimentaria de la USDA. Así, en el convenio del 2002, bajo el Título I de la PL480 (compras a crédito) se establecía que una parte del dinero obtenido por la monetización se destine a desarrollar y diseminar material para consumidores y productores sobre los beneficios de la biotecnología moderna. De igual forma, en el convenio de 2004, FGR-518-2004/187-00, firmado bajo título de Alimentos para el Progreso, entre sus objetivos se señala “suministrar educación en temas de biotecnología y tecnología agrícola” (4).

Luego de aprobada la Constitución, el 22 de Julio de 2010, la embajada de Estados Unidos (5) volvió a organizar en Quito y Guayaquil un seminario para periodistas, con el mismo científico que vino en el 2001 y quien en esta ocasión hizo pública su propia interpretación de nuestra Constitución: Al Ecuador pueden ingresar semillas y cultivos transgénicos (6) .

Hace algunos meses, fue publicado un wikileak (7), una comunicación de la embajadora de Estados Unidos según la cual la aceptación de transgénicos en el país se encuentra en una encrucijada –por la Constitución y la Ley de Soberanía Alimentaria- y es necesario cambiar la percepción de la opinión pública a fin de que ésta sea favorable a la biotecnología y enfrente las protestas cuando la excepción constitucional (para introducir semillas y cultivos transgénicos) sea aplicada por el Presidente o la Asamblea Nacional, y/o se apruebe nueva legislación secundaria.

Otro aspecto importante citado en este documento y que debemos tomar en cuenta es que de acuerdo a la embajada, la introducción de la excepción constitucional fue posible gracias a la influencia y al lobby del agronegocio del país.

Ante esto nos preguntamos: ¿Cómo puede la embajada lograr una posición más favorable para los transgénicos? ¿Se busca acaso romper nuestra Constitución para dar paso a intereses foráneos y de los grupos de poder del país? Sí, pero seguramente este intento no tendrá mayor eco en el gobierno actual que dice defender ante todo sus decisiones soberanas, seguramente no se va a permitir tal atrevimiento y, al contrario, para defender el Buen Vivir, se apoyará la legislación secundaria presentada por la Conferencia Pluricultural de Soberanía Alimentaria (COPISA) , éste es un proyecto construido participativamente, cuyo fin es proteger la agrobiodiversidad del país; garantizar el mandato constitucional para mantener el país libre de cultivos y semillas transgénicas; y apoyar a las múltiples experiencias agroecológicas existentes en el país, que representan la construcción de la verdadera soberanía alimentaria: alimentos sanos, producidos sin dependencia, sin contaminación y sin contribuir al cambio climático.

(1) Propuesta de Reglamento sobre Bioseguridad para Organismos Genéticamente Modificados en el sector agropecuario. Albán M.A y Torres M.L. Informe final de consultoría no publicado. PSA/MAG/BID. Convenio MAG/IICA. Quito, mayo de 2000.

(2) Biotechnology Ecuador Standing Biotechnology Report 2005, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report Number: EC5008

(3) El 15 del 2004 en la oficina de The Nature Conservancy, TNC, en Quito, se llevó a cabo una reunión con los socios locales de esta organización, USAID y un representante de la embajada de Estados Unidos para plantear una estrategia de cabildeo a alto nivel con el fin de presionar a los miembros del Congreso Nacional para la aprobación en segundo debate de la Ley de Biodiversidad.

(4) Bravo A, 2007 Impactos de la introducción de alimentos transgénicos a través de los programas de ayuda alimentaria en Ecuador y Guatemala, CLACSO, Argentina.

(5) Ver aquí.

(6) El Expreso, 21 de Julio de 2010.

(7) (10QUITO54) Embassy Quito Request for Funding of Biotech Proposal. Ver aquí.
 
Monsanto prohibido en Polonia, Bélgica, Gran Bretaña, Bulgaria, Francia, Alemania, Irlanda y Eslovaquia
30 de Abril de 2012
Gobierno polaco prohibe el maíz MON810 transgénico de Monsanto

Las recientes protestas de apicultores y activistas anti-OGM tienen una conclusión exitosa. Los activistas exigían que el Ministro de Agricultura, Marek Sawicki prohibiera el MON810 en el país. La buena noticia es que sus protestas tuvieron éxito. El funcionario fijó otra polémica norma internacional contra los cuestionados transgénicos de Monsanto.
- "Además de vincularse destruir la salud humana produciendo una gama de dolencias", señaló Sawicki, "el polen procedente de la cepa GM podría ser devastador para la población de abejas que ya se redujo en el país". Acorde a la agencia AFP, Sawicki indicó que: "El decreto dictamina la prohibición total de la cepa del maíz MON810 en Polonia".

Apicultores polacos logran un triunfo contra Monsanto, que está exterminando las abejas con sus cuestionados cultivos transgénicos
El 9 de marzo, hubo una oposición similar a las cepas genéticamente modificadas de Monsanto. En esa fecha, 7 países europeos bloquearon la propuesta de la Presidencia danesa que permitía el cultivo de transgénicos en continente europeo. Los países que bloquearon esta propuesta son Bélgica, Gran Bretaña, Bulgaria, Francia, Alemania, Irlanda y Eslovaquia. Una semana después de este anuncio, Francia impuso una prohibición temporal para el MON810. En Lyon, Francia, el Tribunal dictó una sentencia después de que Paul Francois, un productor de granos, informó que Monsanto no proporcionó advertencias suficientes en la etiqueta del herbicida Lasso. La falta de advertencias causó daños en la población, como problemas neurológicos, incluyendo dolores de cabeza y pérdida de la memoria.
Tras el testimonio, el tribunal ordenó un dictamen pericial para verificar la relación entre Lasso y las enfermedades reportadas, así como también para determinar la suma a pagar por daños y perjuicios. Monsanto resultó CULPABLE, y esto allanó el camino para una acción legal similar en nombre de los agricultores en el futuro.
Además, en Francia, la rama agraria del Sistema de Seguridad Social halló alrededor de 200 efectos adversos dañinos para el ser humano y el medioambiente, desde 1996, en relación con los pesticidas de Monsanto.
La lucha contra Monsanto continúa en muchos países, no solo por sus herbicidas sino también por el resultante, sus nocivos productos transgénicos: La India comienza a alzarse contra la corporación, cerrando drásticamente al agro-gigante bajo cargos de "biopiratería". Y Hungría, recientemente destruyó 1.000 hectáreas de maíz modificado genéticamente.
La victoria en Polonia es otra victoria para los activistas anti-OMG de todo el mundo.
Por Abby Sakura BWN Mundo

Etiquetas: , , , , ,

domingo, mayo 27, 2012

Organic bytes, and GM mosquitoes

Moneybomb Monsanto: We’re Closing in on Our Goal! Your Donation Could Put Us Over the Top!


Our ‘Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto’ campaign continues to make history, as more individuals and more groups pitch in to help guarantee a $1 million matching gift – and the nation’s first victory in GMO labeling.
People and groups from every state in the US have been pitching in for this campaign. Why? Because we all know how much is riding on this victory in California. We’ve already seen GMO labeling laws make their way through legislatures in states like Washington, Vermont, and Connecticut, only to falter before they could be put to a vote. But the work pro-labelers have done in those states, and the publicity generated around their campaigns, have helped rally consumers in every state around the California campaign.
The California labeling law is our best shot at eventually guaranteeing consumers’ right to know on a national scale. This time, legislators can’t cave into Big Biotech – because this is a citizens’ initiative. And polls show that 90% of California voters support GMO labeling.
Big Food, Monsanto and the rest of the Biotech Bullies are revving up for a massive ad campaign to try to kill this initiative – and they’ve got a $60 million war chest to play with. We don’t need $60 million, because voters already support labeling 9 to 1. But we do need to run an effective campaign to counter the lies and propaganda that will soon hit the California airwaves.
We can do this – with your help. With just two days left, we need about $150,000. We’re counting on small donations of $5, $10, $20 to get us there. Your donation could be the one that puts us over the top!



Occupy Monsanto Week Begins September 17


In an effort to expose Monsanto's greed and hold the company accountable for their crimes, we are making Genetic Crimes Unit (GCU) Action Kits available for free to the first 50 groups who commit to Occupy Monsanto during the week of September 17th, 2012. Fill out the online form with your mailing address, email address, size, and basic info (date, time, and location) about your Occupy Monsanto plans for the week of September 17th and get your free kit!
Over the last 10 years Monsanto has spent over $52 million dollars making sure they get the most favorable legislation possible. Of that $52 million, nearly $11 million was paid to outside lobbying firms to lobby on behalf of Monsanto, while the rest of the total was spent on Monsanto's staff lobbyists.
When you’ve got billions of dollars in your coffers, you can afford to pay off political candidates & members of Congress. Follow this link to learn whether your Senator or Representative received donations from Monsanto’s Political Action Committee known as Monsanto Citizenship Fund between 2002 and the first quarter of 2012. If so, please contact them to say that you don’t support Monsanto’s efforts to genetically contaminate the world’s food supply.
In order to convince America's hardworking farmers that Monsanto's patented genes & toxic chemicals are safe, Monsanto has created a mobile advertising "unit" that will be spreading lies & pro-GMO propaganda around the United States this year. If your Genetic Crime Unit needs a good location to protect against further genetic contamination, go here for more information.

 

Stop GM mosquitoes in Florida

April 19, 2012
Office of Governor Rick Scott
State of Florida
The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
Dear Governor Scott,
The undersigned consumer and environmental groups urge you to prevent the experimental release of British biotechnology company Oxitec’s genetically engineered mosquitoes in the Florida Keys.
This experiment would be a first in the United States. The supposed purpose of this experiment is to determine if the Aedes aegypti mosquito population will be reduced, as genetically engineered males mate with wild females, passing on a genetic defect that kills their offspring before they reach adulthood. The company claims this would theoretically reduce the mosquito population and the prevalence of dengue fever.
While mosquitoes that breed themselves out of existence may seem like a new option for dealing with the threat of disease and an irritating daily fact of life for Floridians, it has yet to be proven that this engineered mosquito is safe for people or the environment – or that it can effectively reduce the spread of dengue fever.
This would be the first genetically engineered insect to be introduced in the United States with the intent to wipe out a wild population in the name of disease control. Oxitec has already released millions of GE insects into the wild in South America and the Caribbean without studying potential environmental or health risks. Now Floridians are set to be Oxitec’s next guinea pigs, despite the fact that the Florida Keys had no reported cases of dengue fever in 2011.
The release of the company’s transgenic mosquitoes by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District was planned to occur as early as spring 2012.
According to the Associated Press, during a two-month trial, between 5,000 and 10,000 of these transgenic mosquitoes would be released into an undisclosed 36-square-acre block near the Key West Cemetery.
The experiment raises serious concerns around the impact releasing genetically engineered mosquitoes could have on public health and the environment. For example, biting female mosquitoes could inject an engineered protein into humans along with other proteins from the mosquitos’ salivary gland. Oxitec has yet to conduct or publish any study showing that this protein is not expressed in the salivary gland and therefore cannot be passed on to humans. This is a real concern, even though officials only plan to release non-biting males, as genetically engineered females can also be accidentally released.
The company expects each batch to contain less than one percent females.
This is because mosquito pupae are tiny and sorting them for a large-scale release leaves plenty of room for error. Additionally, 3.5 percent of the insects in an Oxitec lab test survived to adulthood despite presumably carrying the lethal gene. These two facts combined mean that there will be a significant number of genetically engineered female mosquitoes in the environment that bite humans and spread disease. Since Aedes aegypti females bite many people in one feeding, it is able to spread disease even at low population levels. This means Oxitec’s technology might not even work in limiting the spread of disease while still exposing Keys residents to possible risks.
Despite the grave and growing public concerns that have been raised about the genetically engineered mosquitoes, there is no indication that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration or any other federal or state agency has evaluated the safety of the company’s planned release. Nor has there been an independent analysis to examine the public health or environmental impacts of this release. While it does appear Oxitec has a pending application, no agency seems to know who is actively responsible for considering it. Recent reports claim that despite a lack of clarity on which federal agency will have oversight over Oxitec’s transgenic mosquitoes, the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District is still interested in moving ahead with their field trial in 2012.
Communities near the proposed test areas should not become Oxitec’s laboratory for the field release of genetically engineered mosquitoes.
Since the federal government is not actively regulating these insects, Florida’s government should step up to protect Floridians and prohibit the release of these unregulated and uncontrolled mosquitoes in South Florida.
On April 3, 2012, the Key West City Commission voted 5 to 2 to pass a resolution objecting to the release of Oxitec’s genetically engineered mosquitoes. Please stand with Key West residents and their elected officials and oppose the release of these genetically engineered mosquitoes.
If you have questions or need more information, please contact Meagan Morrison at morrisonmeagan@yahoo.com or at (305) 879-3042.
Sincerely,
Florida Keys Environmental Coalition
Food & Water Watch
Friends of the Earth
GMO Free Florida
Sierra Club Florida
Cc:
Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam Florida congressional delegation

Etiquetas: , , ,

sábado, mayo 26, 2012

The Dinner Party: James Franco, Paul Theroux, and a Cowardly Display

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/dinnerpartydownload/2012/05/episode-150.html

Episode 150

James Franco Photo by Frank Busacca (Getty)

Episode 150: James Franco, Paul Theroux, and a Cowardly Display

This week: Actor/polymath James Franco rebels against beds... Preeminent travel writer Paul Theroux offers etiquette advice to globetrotters (and public radio hosts)... Nashville raconteur Todd Snider tells of his brush with NASCAR fame... The NY Public Library remembers Noel Coward... and Hollywood's top auctioneer remembers memorabilia. Plus: We learn the history of blue jeans, hear a new Twin shadow tune, and listen to some (Guinness) rock records. Read more...

Etiquetas: , ,

viernes, mayo 25, 2012

Hugh Laurie on NPR


Hugh Laurie's 'House': No Pain, No Gain

April 25, 2012
 
Hugh Laurie has received two Golden Globe awards and two Screen Actors Guild awards for his portrayal of Dr. Gregory House.
Fox Hugh Laurie has received two Golden Globe awards and two Screen Actors Guild awards for his portrayal of Dr. Gregory House.
 
April 25, 2012
For the past eight seasons, actor Hugh Laurie has played Dr. Gregory House on the Fox medical series House. House is brash, narcissistic, unsympathetic, addicted to painkillers, confrontational — and 100 percent American.
Laurie is none of those things.
"I am not playing House today, so I am dressed as an Englishman and speaking as an Englishman," he tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "I'm wearing a bowler hat and carrying a furled umbrella. It's nice to have a day every now and then off from the vocal exercises."
Those vocal exercises include letting his "throat go floppy" and lowering his vocal register. Still, there are certain words and phrases — "New York" and "murder" — that he says he just cannot master.
"I suppose it's R's," he says. "R's are problematic letters. But I do find that I cannot think of a single word or a single syllable that really comes out the same in English and American. ... Almost everything is alien to me. But I got more comfortable with it."
Laurie has had a lot of time to get comfortable. House, which is wrapping up its final season, has been on Fox for the past eight years. During that time, Laurie's character has diagnosed dozens of patients suffering from rare ailments, while continually mocking his colleagues and maintaining a serious addiction to Vicodin, which he uses to manage a chronic leg condition. (Dr. House walks with a cane.)
Playing a character with chronic pain — and a limp — did not come easily for Laurie, he says.
"I think pain is an extremely hard thing to empathize [with] moment to moment," he explains. "You often don't remember your own pain. That moment that you broke a limb or injured yourself ... the memory of the pain is hard to summon up and hard to relive, thankfully. ... And it's also hard to imagine someone else's."
Laurie spoke with physicians about House's injury to find out things like how his character would sleep and how he would move. But he says House's leg injury occasionally took a back seat to other more pressing issues, like how to stage a scene.
"It is just sometimes dramatically more important that he can skip over a desk with a certain amount of agility and brio, never mind the fact that he's obviously dragging a severely damaged leg with him," he says. "So it's a constant mixture of things, trying to make a judgment about what is believable, what is an accurate presentation of the pain that he's suffering — but also what actually plays a scene in the best possible way."
And limping continuously on screen for House has occasionally presented problems during other acting gigs, says Laurie.
"The first time I had an acting engagement outside of House, the first scene I did, oddly enough, was set in a hospital," he says. "And the director called 'action,' and I started limping. And I think that's a bigger problem for me now, that I just have a Pavlovian response to cameras. If I see a camera or if someone says 'action,' I will start limping."

The Peabody Award-winning series House is ending after eight seasons on Fox.
Fox The Peabody Award-winning series House is ending after eight seasons on Fox.

Etiquetas: , , , , ,

Especulación alimentaria


Especulación alimentaria. Boletín N° 473 de la RALLT


"El 61% de las cosechas de trigo y otros cereales están hoy bajo el control de los fondos de inversión especuladores. Este hecho se debe a la ausencia de marcos regulatorios, lo que ha permitido que las inversiones en productos alimentarios se hayan disparado pasando de 35.000 millones a 300.000 millones de dólares en tan sólo cinco años. Compartimos algunas reflexiones sobre este tema." Boletín N° 473 de la Red por una América Latina Libre de Transgénicos.

RED POR UNA AMÉRICA LATINA LIBRE DE TRANSGÉNICOS

BOLETÍN 473 

ESPECULACIÓN ALIMENTARIA 
 
Desde la crisis alimentaria del 2008, el precio de los alimentos no ha dejado de subir, y una de las razones es que, a pesar de que está bien establecido que esto se debe a la especulación de las commodities alimenticias, esta no ha cesado.
Según los estudios realizados, el 61% de las cosechas de trigo y otros cereales están hoy bajo el control de los fondos de inversión especuladores. Este hecho se debe a la ausencia de marcos regulatorios, lo que ha permitido que las inversiones en productos alimentarios se hayan disparado pasando de 35.000 millones a 300.000 millones de dólares en tan solo cinco años.
Según el Parlamento Europeo, el 50% del incremento del precio de los alimentos se debe a los movimientos especulativos.
En este boletín compartimos algunas reflexiones sobre este tema.
Coordinación RALLT
==============================================================
Contenidos:
GOLDMAN SACHS Y LA “BURBUJA ESPECULATIVA” ALIMENTARIA
EL TABLERO GLOBAL. GOLDMAN SACHS SE FORRA PROVOCANDO HAMBRUNAS
LA ESPECULACIÓN CON ALIMENTOS, LA NUEVA HERRAMIENTA DE LOS BANCOS PARA FORRARSE CON NUESTRA RUINA
Noticias:
MONSANTO PROHIBIDO EN POLONIA, BÉLGICA, GRAN BRETAÑA, BULGARIA, FRANCIA, ALEMANIA, IRLANDA Y ESLOVAQUIA

Etiquetas: , ,

jueves, mayo 24, 2012

Obama wrong about hunger in Africa


The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition: Nothing New About Ignoring Africa's Farmers

By Eric Holt-Giménez, originally published by Huffington Post, May 23, 2012
President Barack Obama wants to convince the world that he is actually a liberal after all.
First he not-so-hastily follows Vice-president Joe Biden's support for gay marriage to assure us he is a social liberal. Then, last week at the G8 meeting, he announces The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition -- a $3 billion corporate investment initiative to end hunger in Africa -- to remind us he is still an economic liberal.
Not that the world needs reminding.
Like Bush, Clinton and every other president since Ronald Reagan, Obama believes that proprietary technologies, unregulated global markets and the unchecked power of corporate monopolies will solve all our social, economic and environmental ills. Never mind that 30 years of economic liberalization has impoverished the farmers of the global South, kicked off global warming, pushed the number of hungry people up over 1 billion and dragged us into the largest world-wide economic depression since -- well, the last liberal Great Depression.
The New Alliance is an initiative to convince the world that government and industry are finally doing something about world hunger. But as one African civil society group pointed out, it is not new and it is not an alliance.
Industrialized governments have given less than 6 percent in new money of the $22 billion they pledged three years ago to rebuild southern agriculture. The monopolies that made record profits during the 2008 and 2011 global food crises also came up with several globally-touted initiatives to end hunger... these were so quickly forgotten one can't even find their websites anymore. Neither governments nor global corporations bothered to consult with those who have the biggest stake in rebuilding agriculture in Africa: the farmers.
There's a good reason why the 45 members of the New Alliance don't want to hear from the people actually growing the food in Africa... farmers would say that Africa is actually a rich continent and it is the continued extraction of wealth by foreign corporations that causes poverty and hunger -- that the first Green Revolution did not "bypass" Africa; it failed. A new one spearheaded by the same institutions presently spreading GMOs and land grabbing throughout the continent will do more harm than good.
Is that assessment harsh? Anti-colonial? Radical? Yes. It is also true.
Read this, from a letter addressed to the African Union and signed by 15 African peasant farmer federations:
Today we are faced with two contrasting aspirations in Sub-Saharan Africa: the desire to regain control of our development and, on the other hand, the temptation of an excessive reliance on external resources... [African governments] should accord the major advantages to the principal investors in agriculture, those who take the risks within the family enterprises, that is, the peasants, and not to urban or foreign sources of capital.
This last point is especially poignant because, as explained by USAID's rather inexperienced director, Dr. Rajiv Shah, government just can't do things like develop seeds, build silos, or establish distribution networks. For that we need the private sector, i.e. the monopolies. Dr. Shah is too young to remember the first Green Revolution, in which government did precisely those things. He is also too young to remember a world without rapacious global monopolies. Unsurprisingly, USAID wants the Alliance to help remove the risks for foreign investment in Africa so that Monsanto, Yara and other giants can combat hunger the old fashioned way -- by making a profit on it. Well, it happens that agriculture is inherently risky. If multi-billion dollar corporations aren't willing to take any risks to end hunger -- and with African states decimated after three decades of World Bank/IMF structural adjustment programs -- then it will fall upon poor farmers to take the risks. No wonder the New Alliance didn't consult with them.
African farmers got wind of it, though. Here's what they told their leaders in regards to having the global monopolies and the G8 decide their futures:
We must build our food policy on our own resources as is done in the other regions of the world. The G8 and the G20 can in no way be considered appropriate fora for decisions of this nature.
In case there was any doubt about which corporate projects African farmers specifically see as compromising the sovereignty of countries on the African continent, they identify them by name:
Three events have accentuated [our] doubts. First of all the misunderstandings around the principle of the green revolution proposed by AGRA (Bill Gates' Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa-Ed.). Then the World Economic Forum where 'Grow Africa' was launched. And finally, USAID's approval of the "New Alliance for Food Security." All are three are signals... which risk seriously compromising the realization of the original missions of [African] policies.
There are other alliances being built around the world to forge equitable and sustainable solutions to hunger. They not only consult with farmers, but are led by farmers. They rely on time-tested and internationally-recognized agroecological methods and ensure food security through food sovereignty -- the right of peoples to protect their own food systems. President Obama would do much better to build authentically new partnerships with them rather than engaging in business as usual with the corporations that brought us hunger in the first place.

Etiquetas: , ,

This American Life: Invisible made visible

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/464/invisible-made-visible


Etiquetas: , ,

Seeds of empire

Seeds of empire


EXCERPTS:
It can be difficult to believe, but the only crops of economic importance that are native to North America are sunflower, blueberry, cranberry and the Jerusalem artichoke (It is true that the native peoples of the continent also planted potatoes, beans and corn since before the whites came from Europe, but these were brought in from Central and South America). All other crops were imported from elsewhere, even the ones that the US currently produces in astonishing quantities, such as wheat, corn, rice and soy. “This simple fact of natural history has had important ramifications for the economic, political and social development of the United States”, according to University of Wisconsin professor Jack R. Kloppenburg's book First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology (2004 edition), the source of much of the information in this article.
******
The planting of rice in South Carolina was owed in great part to the introduction of a variety from Madagascar in the late XVIII century. Sorghum cultivation in Kansas and Texas became a viable proposition thanks to seed samples from China and Africa. The much celebrated California citrus industry owes much to Brazilian seeds brought in by a consul in 1871. And American cattle ranching, legendary among beef producers all over the world, owes its success partly to the introduction of lespedeza grass from Japan, Russian alfalfa, and African Johnson grass.
It is not only the introduction of species, but also of numerous varieties of the same species, which enhance biodiversity and bring in favorable traits to crops. A Turkish wheat variety provided the US crop with resistance to yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis), which has resulted in an estimated $50 million a year in savings in pest control. An aphid-resistant sorghum variety was brought in from India, which brings benefits estimated at $12 million a year. New Scientist magazine reported in 1983 that American barley farmers save $150 million a year thanks to a single gene from an Ethopian variety. According to the distinguished plant collector Hugh Iltis, the US tomato industry benefits from the introduction of Peruvian varieties with a high solid content to the tune of $5 million a year. It was reported in 1986 that the University of Illinois developed soy varieties that could be saving farmers and the food industry between $100 and $500 million annually in processing costs, using Korean varieties as genetic raw material. The US wheat harvest, the world's third largest, has benefited from the introduction of varieties from Japan, China, Russia, Palestine, Australia, Kenya, Egypt, Bulgaria, Greece, Brazil and Uruguay. Iran, that much maligned country, has provided the United States with valuable varieties of cauliflower, onion, pea and spinach.
 
The United States helped itself to all this exuberant and bewildering variety of agricultural plants at practically no cost at all, with no compensation or even acknowledgement to the peoples who spent centuries, even millenia developing and nurturing these crops. This appropriation was legitimized with the argument that seeds are the common heritage of humanity. But when that nation is asked to share its treasure, it changes its tune. In a 1977 letter to the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, the administrator of the US Agricultural Research Service (ARS) said that the collected seeds “would become the property of the US government”. Put in different words: what's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine. In the letter, the ARS administrator openly admits that his country does not always share freely its collected seeds: “Political considerations have at times dictated exclusion of a few countries.” In 1983 Canadian researcher Pat Mooney, founder of the ETC Group, reported that the US government had denied access to its seed collections to researchers from Albania, Cuba, Iran, Libya, the Soviet Union, Afghanistan and Nicaragua.

Etiquetas: ,