Populist Porn : Larry Flynt is ‘Nailin’ Paylin’

A heartbeat away: Palin portrayer Lisa Ann.

You want me to put what where?: Lisa Ann protrayer Sarah Palin.

Coming your way: a no-holes-barred porn spoof based on Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Doncha know?
By James Retherford / The Rag Blog / October 6, 2008

Eschewing Playboy’s airbrushed aesthetic, Hustler sleazemeister Larry Flynt is a purveyor of blue-collar pornography — wrinkles, pockmarks, pimples, and all. He likes to call it “populist porn,” and his viewpoint is supported by the $400 million empire this 66-year-old high school dropout has built from the dirt up in the past 40 years.

Uncowered by the Sacred Cows of rightwing America, free-speech activist and frequent defendant Larry Flynt also has had a healthy contempt for hypocrisy, moral crusaders, and Supreme Court justices — in 1983 he disrupted a high court hearing to call the justices “eight assholes and a token cunt.”

In 1978 one such “crusader” for “white” moral values fired a bullet that left Flynt paralyzed from the waist down. Thus unable to participate in the kind of sex sanctioned by the Christian right, Flynt has become what one might call a hands-on voyeur. He seems to take great personal pleasure in conjuring up ways to defile the core values of moral absolutism and then sitting back in his wheelchair to get off on the ensuing orgy of outrage.

Flynt’s new yet-to-be-released no-holes-barred porn spoof based on Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, provisionally entitled Nailin’ Paylin, may mark a new low — in Flynt’s value system, this is not a negative remark! — in the pornmaster’s long and unrepentant career. Finding a Sarah Palin look-alike actress through Craig’s List and throwing together a “quicky” flick in 10 days, Flynt-owned Hustler Video states in a press release that it “is eager to fulfill those sexual fantasies about this now-famous MILF and is putting Nailin’ Paylin on a fast track to hit streets in time for the election.”

Candidate Palin, a buxom former cheerleader AND beauty queen — these probably are the two most visited subjects in contemporary American pornography — with a “questionable” moral background (do the math on her marriage date and daughter’s birth date) and an unquestioning morally self-righteous stump speech, provides a veritable “vessel” to be filled by someone with Flynt’s taste for savaging moral hypocrites and their “sins of the flesh.”

Coming at the very time when voters, especially red-blooded beer-drinking American male voters (Joe Six-Pack), are wondering — and/or fantasizing — about this hot new political figure, Flynt has pushed his wheelchair into the center of the arena to offer up a revealing and penetrating version of the Palin story —also featuring, according to the Hustler Video press release, a bi-racial lesbian “threeway” with Hils and Condi, some backdoor action with the Russians, and ongoing sexual commentary by “Bill O’Reilly.”

Unanswered questions:

1. Will Flynt’s parody come closer to the real truth about the GOP veep candidate than the lipgloss coming from the Repugs’ erstwhile team of fiction writers?

2. Will Nailin’ Paylin compel fantasy-fueled male blue-collar voters to jerk their levers for McCain-Palin on November 4?

3. Will Larry Flynt sweep up a handful of Golden Dildos at the next AVN Adult Movie Awards Show?

4. What will the real Sarah say when she sees the film?

Gosh darn!

Pornmeister Larry Flynt. Photo by EPA.

Sarah Palin Biopic Details Announced
By Alex Balk / October 3, 2008

So that Hustler skin flick starring a “Sarah Palin lookalike?” The company sent out a press page with more details about it. You can read the first scene from the script here, (which is 100 percent genuine and not in any way made up even though it appears to be an obvious parody and contains enough elements of satire in it that even the densest of observers would logically assume that it was a fantastical creation.)

It’s called Nailin’ Paylin. It stars a sexy MILF! Bill O’Reilly is also spoofed in it. You can read the full release (hahaha, get it?) below. This looks like it’s going to be the best vice president-themed porn this year. It’s certainly gonna be way better than Vivid’s forthcoming Ridin’ Biden, the screenplay of which is a complete plagiarization of British video nasty Kinnock Thin Cock. Anyways:

Hustler Video Strikes Again With Palin Parody

BEVERLY HILLS — Once again when it comes to sex and politics, HUSTLER continues to be at the top of the game! Hustler Video could not resist the urge to spoof the MILF-tastic Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Let’s face it: Who wouldn’t want to see that sexy hockey mom taking it all off?!

Nailin’ Paylin, currently in pre-production, is being directed by Jerry T. Sexy MILF Lisa Ann will be playing the role of Sara Paylin. Nailin’ Paylin will feature five hard-core scenes, including a threeway with other parodied political figures, namely Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. Bill O’Reilly will also be spoofed as the announcer who dishes the sex scandals that will take place during the film.

Nailin’ Paylin will take the viewer on a naughty adventure to the wild side of that sexy Alaska governor. Sara Paylin will not only be showing us some girl-on-girl lovin’ but will also be nailing the Russians, who come knocking on her back-door (wink, wink) and in a flashback “young” Paylin’s creationist college professor will explain a “big bang” theory even she can’t deny!

Hustler Video is eager to fulfill those sexual fantasies of this now-famous MILF and is putting Nailin’ Paylin on a fast track to hit streets in time for the election!

Source / Radar / Oct. 3, 2008

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments

Stopping a Financial Crisis : How Sweden Did It

Sweden’s Bo Lundgren sought an ‘upside’ for the taxpayer.

‘Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks.’
By Carter Douherty

A banking system in crisis after the collapse of a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A market-oriented government struggling to stem the panic. Sound familiar?

It does to Sweden. The country was so far in the hole in 1992 — after years of imprudent regulation, short-sighted economic policy and the end of its property boom — that its banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent.

But Sweden took a different course than the one now being proposed by the United States Treasury. And Swedish officials say there are lessons from their own nightmare that Washington may be missing.

Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.

That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.

“If I go into a bank,” said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden’s deputy minister of finance at the time, “I’d rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer.”

Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today’s dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States.

But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P. Some officials say they believe it was closer to zero, depending on how certain rates of return are calculated.

The tumultuous events of the last few weeks have produced a lot of tight-lipped nods in Stockholm. Mr. Lundgren even made the rounds in New York in early September, explaining what the country did in the early 1990s.

A few American commentators have proposed that the United States government extract equity from banks as a price for their rescue. But it does not seem to be under serious consideration yet in the Bush administration or Congress.

The reason is not quite clear. The government has already swapped its sovereign guarantee for equity in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance institutions, and the American International Group, the global insurance giant.

Putting taxpayers on the hook without anything in return could be a mistake, said Urban Backstrom, a senior Swedish finance ministry official at the time. “The public will not support a plan if you leave the former shareholders with anything,” he said.

The Swedish crisis had strikingly similar origins to the American one, and its neighbors, Norway and Finland, were hobbled to the point of needing a government bailout to escape the morass as well.

Financial deregulation in the 1980s fed a frenzy of real estate lending by Sweden’s banks, which did not worry enough about whether the value of their collateral might evaporate in tougher times.

Property prices imploded. The bubble deflated fast in 1991 and 1992. A vain effort to defend Sweden’s currency, the krona, caused overnight interest rates to spike at one point to 500 percent. The Swedish economy contracted for two consecutive years after a long expansion, and unemployment, at 3 percent in 1990, quadrupled in three years.

After a series of bank failures and ad hoc solutions, the moment of truth arrived in September 1992, when the government of Prime Minister Carl Bildt decided it was time to clear the decks.

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the opposition center-left, Mr. Bildt’s conservative government announced that the Swedish state would guarantee all bank deposits and creditors of the nation’s 114 banks. Sweden formed a new agency to supervise institutions that needed recapitalization, and another that sold off the assets, mainly real estate, that the banks held as collateral.

Sweden told its banks to write down their losses promptly before coming to the state for recapitalization. Facing its own problem later in the decade, Japan made the mistake of dragging this process out, delaying a solution for years.

Then came the imperative to bleed shareholders first. Mr. Lundgren recalls a conversation with Peter Wallenberg, at the time chairman of SEB, Sweden’s largest bank. Mr. Wallenberg, the scion of the country’s most famous family and steward of large chunks of its economy, heard that there would be no sacred cows.

The Wallenbergs turned around and arranged a recapitalization on their own, obviating the need for a bailout. SEB turned a profit the following year, 1993.

“For every krona we put into the bank, we wanted the same influence,” Mr. Lundgren said. “That ensured that we did not have to go into certain banks at all.”

By the end of the crisis, the Swedish government had seized a vast portion of the banking sector, and the agency had mostly fulfilled its hard-nosed mandate to drain share capital before injecting cash. When markets stabilized, the Swedish state then reaped the benefits by taking the banks public again.

More money may yet come into official coffers. The government still owns 19.9 percent of Nordea, a Stockholm bank that was fully nationalized and is now a highly regarded giant in Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea region.

The politics of Sweden’s crisis management were similarly tough-minded, though much quieter.

Soon after the plan was announced, the Swedish government found that international confidence returned more quickly than expected, easing pressure on its currency and bringing money back into the country. The center-left opposition, while wary that the government might yet let the banks off the hook, made its points about penalizing shareholders privately.

“The only thing that held back an avalanche was the hope that the system was holding,” said Leif Pagrotzky, a senior member of the opposition at the time. “In public we stuck together 100 percent, but we fought behind the scenes.”

Source / New York Times / Posted Sept. 22, 2008

Thanks to Jim Retherford / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Change Rocks : The Boss Rallies Pennsylvania

Around the world, we remain the repository of people’s dreams. A thousand George Bushes and Dick Cheneys cannot tear that house down.

I want my house back, I want my country back. I want my America back.

Bruce Springsteen / Philadelphia / October 4, 2008

50,000 see Bruce rock for Barack
By Patrick Furey / October 4, 2008

Nearly fifty thousand supporters gathered on a sunny afternoon to see Bruce Springsteen hold a free “Change Rocks” concert in Philadelphia today. Spanning the length of Benjamin Franklin Parkway, from the Franklin Institute to the Art Museum, people from across the Philadelphia region and the state of Pennsylvania packed themselves in to find a good spot to watch The Boss rally for change and encourage people to register to vote.

Organizers from local Campaign for Change offices addressed the crowd, urging all unregistered Pennsylvanians to register to vote and do their part to register others. Preceded by Philadelphia singer-songwriters Nora Whitaker and Amos Lee, Springsteen was introduced on stage by volunteer extraordinaire Elaine Griffin, whose volunteer work is a prime example of the grassroots efforts that make up this campaign.

Walking onstage to thunderous applause, Bruce Springsteen smiled and declared, “I’m not Barack Obama, but I’ll do my best.” Armed only with his guitar and his harmonica, Springsteen performed a solo acoustic set of classics, including “The Promised Land” and “Thunder Road,” urging the dedicated crowd to sing along.

Near the end of his set he spoke a few words in support of Barack Obama. Reflecting on his thirty-five years of writing songs about America, Springsteen talked passionately about the promise of this nation and what he sees as the “distance between the American promise and the American reality,” adding that “Barack Obama has measured that distance in his own life and in his own work.”

Strumming his guitar as he spoke, Springsteen lauded Barack’s ability to lead us in rebuilding our country together, describing the United States as a “house of dreams.” Looking back over the last eight years, and looking forward to the next eight, he added, “I don’t know about you, but I want my house back.” To wild cheers, he concluded, “I want my country back.”

As his final song, Springsteen performed Woody Guthrie’s seminal “This Land Is Your Land” as the crowd sang along. Holding up his guitar after finishing his set, The Boss declared, “It’s up to you now!” Urging all Pennsylvanians to register and volunteer, he requested, “Let’s build that house together.”

Source / Kevin Hartnett’s Blog / My.BarackObama

Springsteen performs ‘The Rising’ at Pennsylvania rally

Thanks to S. M. Willhelm / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

When the Common User Questions the Economic Justice of Capitalist Executive Compensation

Steve Schwarzman, Chairman and CEO Blackstone Group (BX)
2007 Total compensation: $350.7 million

I wonder why Paulsen didn’t hit upon the billionaires and the 25 HIGHEST PAID MEN IN THIS COUNTRY for that money!
By Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog / October 5, 2008

Check this link; you’ll see some of his ‘cronies’ are among the HIGHEST PAID MEN IN THIS COUNTRY. Shit, they could have easily raised $700 or $850 billion just among themselves – using America’s taxpayers to bail out the shit they created, while seriously being over-paid! What in the hell is this all about, and when are we going to stop shooting ourselves in the foot by falling prey to our own greed; weakness, and failure to live prudently….

In so many ways, we are just as ‘guilty’ of being tempted, as those who clearly have tempted us and succeeded.

Here’s the link.

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Prince Charles Rejects Genetic Engineering

Prince Charles has again stirred controversy with his strong views. Getty Images.

Charles targets GM crop giants in fiercest attack yet
By Geoffrey Lean / October 5, 2008

In a provocative address to an Indian audience, the Prince echoes Gandhi with a stinging attack on ‘commerce without morality’.

It is less than two months since Prince Charles was on the receiving end of a fusillade of scientific, political and commentariat criticism for voicing, yet again, his concerns about GM crops and foods. He was widely accused of “ignorance” and “Luddism”; of being too rich to care about the hungry, and even of trying to increase sales of his own organic produce. It was put about that Gordon Brown was angered by his intervention.

Yet the Prince has responded by stepping up his campaign, making his most anti-GM speech yet, in delivering – by video – the Sir Albert Howard Memorial Lecture to the Indian pressure group Navdanya last Thursday. And he made it clear that he was going to continue. “The reason I keep sticking my 60-year-old head above an increasingly dangerous parapet is not because it is good for my health,” he said ” but precisely because I believe fundamentally that unless we work with nature, we will fail to restore the equilibrium we need in order to survive on this planet.”

True to his word, he plunged straight into the most controversial and emotive of all the debates over GM crops and foods by highlighting the suicides of small farmers. Tens of thousands killed themselves in India after getting into debt. The suicides were occurring long before GM crops were introduced, but campaigners say that the technology has made things worse because the seeds are more expensive and have not increased yields to match.

The biotech industry strongly denies this, but two official reports have suggested that there “could” be a possible link.

Prince Charles expressed no doubts in his lecture, delivered at the invitation of Dr Vandana Shiva, the founder of Navdanya, and one of the leading proponents of the technology’s role in the deaths. He spoke of “the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties”.

Much of the controversy surrounds claims of failures by a Monsanto GM cotton called Bollguard. The GM company says that “farmers in India have found success” with it, and cites a survey in support. Its opponents produce evidence of their own to show the opposite.

But Prince Charles did not stop there. Broadening his offensive, he said that “any GM crop will inevitably contaminate neighbouring fields”, making it impossible to maintain the integrity of organic and conventional crops. For the first time in history this would lead to “one man’s system of farming effectively destroying the choice of another man’s” and “turn the whole issue into a global moral question.” He quoted Mahatma Gandhi who condemned “commerce without morality” and “science without humanity”. He added: “One must surely ask the question whether – if only from a precautionary point of view – it might be wise to keep some areas of the world free from GM-based agriculture.”

The Prince attacked the contention that “GM food is now essential to feed the world”, saying that the evidence showed that modified crops’ yields were “generally lower than their conventional counterparts”. He called them “a wrong turning on the route to feeding the world in a sustainable or durable manner” and “a risky and expensive distraction, diverting attention and resources away from those real, long-term solutions such as crop varieties which respond well to low input systems that, in turn, do not rely on fossil fuels.” There was substantial evidence “to show that a growing world population can be fed most successfully in the long term by agricultural systems that manage the land within environmental limits”.

Recent research had shown, he added, that organic farming techniques had increased yields in Brazil by 250 per cent and in Ethiopia were up fivefold, while the world’s biggest international agricultural study – headed by Professor Bob Watson, now chief scientist at Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs – had backed organic farming, rather than GM to tackle word hunger.

Kirtana Chandrasekaran of Friends of the Earth said: “Prince Charles is right that GM crops and industrial farming are profiting big businesses, not feeding the world’s poorest.”

Source / The Independent

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Ron Ridenour: Sounds of Venezuela, Part VI

Venezuelan flag (left) and banner of Mision Zamora

Click here to view the entire series.

Sounds of Venezuela
Part VI: The Green Revolution, 2
By Ron Ridenour / The Rag Blog / October 5, 2008

I had only observed cooperative farming. I wanted to participate. So I planned a bus trip to Carocote, which knowledgeable Diego said is a more productive cooperative located in the adjacent municipality of José Rafael Revenga.

Carocote is a mountain range area previously owned by the same Vollmer family. This 390 hectare area lay fallow in 2003 when one of the first land occupations took place. Forty-six families came from nearby towns of Sabaneta and Tasajera to claim the soil. And once again, Chavez intervened to accomplish the mission.

There is no level area here except a space bulldozed out for the 26 new houses finished a year ago. Only 25 families remain; the others left because of no housing facilities and lack of income. Five of those families which left, however, built their own ramshackle houses at the very top of this mountain range and grow their own crops. I was told that they do better than the cooperative. The National Institute of Land (INT), which oversees Mission Zamora, still considers them part of the mission and assists them with credits and equipment, showing quite a bit of flexibility for a “dictatorial” government, as the right-wing opposition and Yankees refer to it.

Zamora Mission hopes to reorganize the ownership and use of agricultural unused lands for eradicating latifundiums. This is a constitutional guideline framed within the transformation process that Venezuela is experiencing, to reach equality and social equity fulfilling Article 307 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Nancy, one of the five elected cooperative leaders, took me to the empty house used for visitors. The houses here are just like those at Quebrada Seca. As I was arranging my bunk bed, I found stacks of information pamphlets promoting the constitutional reform referendum voted on last December. It would have qualitatively improved the rights, benefits and power of the poor and working class, but it failed to pass by one percent of the vote. The greatest disappointment was the failure of three million voters, who had voted for Chavez as president, to go to the polls. They were a large part of the 44% abstention. Chavez forces engaged in internal analysis and self-criticism. One of the main reasons for its failure was the lack of organizing for it; too few doors knocked on. And here before me was evidence: many hundreds undelivered, unused pamphlets.

Two Cuban advisors lived next door to the visitor’s house. With typical Cuban hospitality, Rudys immediately invited me into his house and asked if I had had lunch. He fed me leftovers from his Cuban prepared lunch of black beans, rice, yucca and a bit of meat. Rudys was eager to speak with me as he had seen the “contra golpe” TV interview and knew I had lived in Cuba.

Rudys had taken a three-year agriculture education in his home province of Pinar del Rio, north of La Habana. He’d been at Carocote 16 months and would be here for two years. The advisors get a vacation in Cuba at mid-term. Rudys was glad to be helping Cuba’s good neighbor Venezuela. He was also concerned about the great degree of thievery and insecurity that people experience. This must contribute to the fact that few Venezuelans invite people inside their houses. Despite the close cooperation these families experience here everyone locked their doors. I was told they did not have internal thievery but people from the town sometimes come looking for something to steal. Just the week before, someone had set fire to dry grass on a hillside, which burned some trees, but the residents were able to put it out before it attacked their young crops.

I hooked up with Nancy and part of her team, one of six. Two members were not present. The coop’s president, Nancy’s husband, was in Cuba for a two-week training course. On the way to their plot of carrots, a 20-minute walk, we passed seven long nurseries. They were well built steel structures. Nancy explained that they would be used for tomatoes and other vegetables but were just short of being completed.

“We should have had them functioning by now, but one big problem is that our motor pump was stolen.”

The carrot patch was near the end of the cultivatable area. Like the other crops, all the rows are dug on hillsides, making sowing, cultivating and harvesting quite difficult and even painstaking. The terrain here does not allow for tractors. Most of the weeds had to be pulled up by hand, if one wanted to take up the roots. But the others used hoes to cut them above the roots. There were far more weeds than carrot plants. In the two and one-half hours we worked—instead of the designated four—I cleaned four rows, revealing very few carrots. In some places plants were two even three meters apart. Most of this crop had already been lost to weeds. I had done this work when I lived in Cuba and know that it is not a welcome task but this was below par.

I asked Nancy why there were so many weeds and why the team didn’t have seeds with them to sow where carrot plants had been choked. She was embarrassed by my questions, admitting that she should have thought of bringing seeds. “Next time.”

Ricardo, the other Cuban advisor, later told me: “The most important thing for farmers is consciousness, not the back. If they cultivated more often, it would be easier to work the hoe and there would be more plants.”

In the evening, I had a long conversation with another neighbor, Luis, who gave me an overall view of their history.

“In the beginning, most of us still worked for wages nearby. Some of us built make-shift living quarters while we were here preparing the earth. Just clearing the earth and irrigating by hand took us three years, and there was the dispute about ownership too. It wasn’t until 2006 that we began to be full-time farmers. And INT gave us a 200BF monthly stipend to make ends meet. That was terminated this year in the hope—and with gentle pressure—that we will produce enough to pay ourselves.

“Although about 50 hectares are cultivable, we only have 10 or 11 in seed. We will soon have 15 hectares planted. The majority of our crops are vegetables, some potatoes, a few herbs, and a couple hectares in plantain and cambur”—the Venezuelan banana.

“Unfortunately, we have not yet begun ecological farming methods, but we hope to.”

“Each crop takes between three and six months from seed to maturity, so we are harvesting and selling several times a year. Our teams are economically independent from one another and sell on the local markets, especially to Mercal.

“We decide what we will grow but INT helps us with earth analysis, and the mission’s principle is based on producing necessary products at low costs and prices. We undercut the speculating supermarkets and the big plantation owners who hoard products.”

Luis’s wife, Juanita, is one of the adults who do not work the land but work in the home and take major responsibility for the children. Had the December 2007 referendum passed, she like all housewives would have received a government wage for that work.

“Our lives have improved so much,” Juanita said softly with a smile as she joined us.

“Chavez has accomplished so many good things. I am so proud to be Venezuelan now. But there are people who accuse our president of being responsible for all that is not good, for all that goes wrong. Some say he robs. What a lie that is. The truth is that the opposition is the thief; the rich are thieves. And everybody knows that all previous presidents were thieves, so some people just assume that Chavez is as well.”

guacharaca variable (Ortalis guttata). Photo source.

Early next morning, after a hearty breakfast at home, I went to find a team to work with. None were about. Everyone was at home. I took a stroll over the hillside passed a plot of young plants and down to the stream that crossed the mountain. I climbed up its bank under tall trees. The gentle rolling sound was suddenly overcome by a chattering flock of guacharaca. These turkey-sized birds cackle similarly as well yet fly more like predators. Locals hunt them for their red meat. Once they settled, another sound crashed into my ears from upstream. I followed its call to the foot of a waterfall cascading ten meters into an inviting pool. Stripped in a flash, I dived into the blue paradise. After a refreshing swim, I crawled upon a large warm rock. Bathing in the sun, one of the world’s greatest waterfalls sparkled behind my closed eyes. Venezuela harbors Angel Falls, or “Kerepakupai merú”. At 979 meters, it is the planet’s highest free-falling waterfall.

After a leisurely early swim and sun-bath, I returned to the residential compound and found Enrique sitting contemplatively on his porch.

Enrique is, at 57 years of age, a new farmer. A former petroleum worker, he had worked his way up to production chief for a large oil company. Workers tripled production during his time as chief but they received none of the extra profits. Enrique took the issue up.

“You know what the owners’ bosses did? They fired me. It didn’t matter to them that I was an excellent foreman for them. What mattered is that I crossed the line to speak up on behalf of their productive workers. In their eyes, this was treason. It was then that I became a determined follower of Hugo Chavez.”

Enrique was an initiator of the cooperative. He looks upon his present life optimistically. He views the future as one in which the poor and the conscious working class of the Third World take the offensive against a decaying capitalism.

“It will not be far away when an explosive crisis will bring much of the working class within the rich lands on the side of their historic brothers and sisters around the world.

“Today, I live for our fellowship, our common life. I now earn about 5,000BF a year instead of 36,000 but I am a happy man. My children bloom with free education and health care, and we all live tranquilly.”

But Enrique is not naïve or fundamentalist.

“We still live as egoists in this land. We still are affected by the capitalist disease, greed. Our consciousness still lacks power.”

Enrique wanted to talk about Barak Obama.

“Obama could be the alternative man for capitalism-imperialism for three to four years. He won’t do much for the poor and workers. He’d be a good trading man for big capitalism. He can talk better with Third World rich leaders, blacks, Arabs, Latin Americans. But he’d disappoint many of his hopeful, idealistic followers. Maybe this would bring about a greater awareness of the real nature of capitalism-imperialism, no matter the spokesman’s color or gender, and maybe a radicalization would take off.”

I left this homegrown polilogue and headed home. I passed a group of boys playing soccer. During a pause, I asked them how they felt living here. All of them expressed contentment. No worries; plenty to eat; transport to a school where they thrived. Good Cuban doctors in town.

My third day at Carocote was a rest day, Sunday, so I would return to La Victoria. But first, I wanted to talk with the oldest cooperativist. At 68, Pedro is a happy man with eight children and eight grandchildren—or is it six, mused the gray-haired black man.

“My memory fails me. But I remember how it was living here as a child. I was born in this same area. There was nothing. None of the governments before Chavez did anything for the poor, and we were the vast majority. We lived in tin-covered straw sheds with no water or electricity. We couldn’t go to school. Nobody knew how to read or write. We grew corn. Coño how things have changed since Chavez! Look at this house I have. My wife’s in town where we also have a room. She’s sick and can’t get about. She gets what care can be given, and it’s the Cuban doctors who are caring for her.

“Now we have land and houses. I plant cambur y ocumo. I hope Chavez continues leading and goes the way of Fidel. The bad ones, those who have the money, don’t want him. The President is with the people.”

Yeah, Pedro told it like it is! The man with the big heart, a man who came from their roots, the brave one standing up against Goliath—this is a leader!

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged | Leave a comment

Levy: Israeli Policy in Gaza Needs Modification

This is not the specific photo that Levy references.

Twilight Zone / Blindfolded
By Gideon Levy / October 4, 2008

Take a quick look at the photo before you. We took it last fall by chance. In the course of another interminable wait at the Hawara checkpoint, on our way to another story in Nablus, we saw this man being arrested. Bingo, the game of the checkpoint soldiers. We didn’t know his name, why he was arrested or when he’d be released, if ever. But we noticed his proud bearing – solitary, upright. His eyes were already covered by the IDF-issue flannel, the type meant for cleaning guns, and his wrists were about to be bound with plastic handcuffs. We seemed more upset by his sudden arrest than he was. After 41 years, the Palestinians are used to it, that on any ordinary day, on the way to or from work, everything might be abruptly turned upside down.

This was a routine year, another year of the occupation of which no end is in sight. From Rosh Hashana 5768 to Rosh Hashana 5769 our forces killed 584 Palestinians, 95 of them minors. Many fewer than in 2002, when 989 were killed; many more than in 2005, with 190 killed. Eighteen Israelis were also killed in the past year, many more than in the previous year, when just five were killed, and much less than in 2002, when 184 Israelis were killed. All in all, an average year for bloodshed.

All of this was observed by Israeli society with eyes covered. Even the nearly 60 Palestinians who were killed on one black summer day in Gaza barely earned a mention in the newspapers. With eyes covered, Israeli society continued to look at the routine of the occupation, the mothers in labor who lost their babies at checkpoints, the farmers victimized by lawless settlers, the night raids, the unemployment, the poverty and the hope that died long ago.

In the past year we’ve barely heard about life under siege in Gaza. For two years now, we, the handful of Israeli journalists who seek to fulfill their journalistic mission, have been prohibited by Israeli orders from entering Gaza. When I questioned Defense Minister Ehud Barak a few weeks ago he seemed unaware of the ban. He instructed an aide to look into it, but of course we never heard back. us. It’s not all that surprising that Israel’s defense minister hasn’t heard about Israeli journalists being prevented from covering Gaza under orders from his own defense establishment: Gaza doesn’t interest anyone in Israel.

And so another year has passed, and our eyes remain blindfolded.

With the tiny flashlight still in our possession we tried here, during the past year, to shine a few pale beams onto the routine of life under the occupation. It’s thankless work whose harvest few want, but we persevered. A few gleanings from the shadowy backyard of the state, the only democracy in the Middle East.

In the middle of one night in early 5768 IDF soldiers charged into homes in the Ein Beit Ilma refugee camp in Nablus, hunting for a wanted man. They went from one dwelling to the next by wrecking the walls. Gaping holes in the living rooms of meager homes, kitchens destroyed, and one terrified little girl standing amid the rubble, washing dishes. A few weeks later it was the turn of an old couple in Nablus. For an entire night the Wazirs were alone, trembling with fear in their small house while gunfire and explosions sounded outside, until an order to leave the house was issued. Abdel Wazir, the uncle of the legendary Abu Jihad (Khalil al Wazir), walked outside and was immediately shot dead by soldiers. He was 71, the oldest shahid.

Then we told the story of Ma’ida al-Akel, who went to Jordan to visit her ailing mother and was barred from returning, possibly forever, to her husband and six children. The following week we described the Hashlamouns of Hebron. Nora and Sami were placed under administrative detention – no trial, no charges. The grandmother of their six children is doing her best to look after them.

The 63-member Qa’abneh family, Bedouin, were cut off from their source of livelihood by the separation fence near Bir Naballah. In the Tarqumiya area, 150 refugees from 1948 became refugees a second time when they were expelled from their houses this year, due to construction of the checkpoint. Mohammed Ashkar was shot in the head point-blank killed during riots at Ketziot Prison; at home, his brother Lo’ai, paralyzed in the legs from Shin Bet torture, waited for him. Another prisoner, Imad Khotri, tortured by “Major Effi” from the Shin Bet, was left paralyzed in the arms, in Kishon Prison. Unemployed gardener Firas Kaskas was killed on a nature hike with friends at a wadi near Ramallah, leaving behind three daughters – shot at very long range by soldiers.

The IDF, the Border Police and the Shin Bet weren’t alone: Last year was mainly the year of the settlers. In recent months their rampages have escalated terribly, while the IDF and police stand idly by – and in at least one instance, join in. They sowed fear and destruction in a reprisal action in the village of Al-Funduq: Five settlers from Havat Gilad beat up shepherd Hashem Ahmed, 51, so badly he needed hospitalization. On several occasions settlers from Asael have attacked members of the Abu Awad family, shepherds from the South Hebron hills, and destroyed all their meager possessions. In the wake of the article on this case a good-hearted, well-known Israeli who wished to remain anonymous made a very generous donation to the family and a doctor Physicians for Human Rights arranged for four of the family’s children, who have a serious skin condition, to be examined at his hospital. A neighboring family, the Abu Qabeitas, were attacked by settlers from Sussia and Beit Yattir. They set fire to homes, poisoned sheep and even fired mortars.

Killed in the line of duty: Palestinian police officer Mohammed Salah, who dared to stop a car of Israeli undercover agents at a police checkpoint in Bethlehem. They killed him right after he opened the door of their car to check it. And then there were the babies born under a bad sign: Kifah Sider was forced to give birth on the road in the freezing cold winter in Hebron, after being delayed at the Tel Rumeida checkpoint. Her baby is healthy, but the Abu Radas were less lucky: For 75 minutes Mu’ayyad begged in vain for his wife to be allowed through the Hawara checkpoint to get to the hospital in Nablus. She gave birth – to a stillborn – at the checkpoint.

Meanwhile, Fawziya al-Daraq arrived at the Tuk Karm checkpoint after a major heart attack. Her husband pleaded for them to be allowed through to the hospital in Tul Karm. They were turned away from the checkpoint, and Fawziya died.

Ghassan Burqan also wanted to get through a checkpoint, to reach his home in Hebron’s Tel Rumeida quarter. Ghassan was carrying a new washing machine on his head, a gift for his wife. The Border Police officers claimed he tried to attack them with the washer, and destroyed it, Fortunately, the military judge released him, and a loyal Israeli reader bought him a new washing machine.

Omar Alian’s family was forced to wait 12 hours after he died of cancer at his parents’ home before they were permitted to return his body to the other side of the checkpoint sealing off Jerusalem’s Sheikh Sa’ad neighborhood. On another occasion, Israeli soldiers fired at a new Mercedes-Benz taxi at the Gush Etzion junction, with a family, including a baby, inside. When they found out they’d endangered the life of an innocent family they confiscated the taxi for “investigation.” It was returned a few days later, ruined.

Soldiers stole thousands of shekels worth of jewelry from Mohammed Abu Arkub, a barber. In a late-night search a neighbor, tile-layer Sami Huatra, was shot twice for no reason, and left to bleed for a long time. Fadi Darabiya was kicked so hard in the groin by soldiers that he lost a testicle. Other soldiers shot a nearly blind youth, Ahmed Sabarna, from Beit Umar, when they suspected he was somehow throwing rocks at them.

“Captain Joe,” as one army officer is known, left behind threatening, Mafia-style fliers in Azun, in the name of the Israel Defense Forces. “Captain Joe will come into the village and shoot deadly gunfire at the residents, arrest the children and shut down the shops,” warned his missives. Another “captain,” from the Civil Administration, was responsible for the destruction of the spectacular terraces of the Beit Ula fields. Two years of hard work and a major contribution from the European Union down the drain in two hours.

This year soldiers also abducted two shepherds in the Jordan Rift Valley and held them prisoner all night, while other soldiers helped search for them. The father of the young videographer from Na’alin was also arrested by soldiers. Jamal Amira sat in prison for 26 days, for no reason. His only sin: the video shot by his daughter, Salam, who dared to document the shooting of a bound Palestinian by a soldier and brigade commander in Na’alin.

After all this and more, many were amazed that members of a delegation of human rights activists from South Africa who visited Nablus with us this year, including two Supreme Court of Appeals justices, said the Israeli occupation was much worse than apartheid. Wishing everyone another good year of occupation.

Source / Haaretz

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ask a Tuvaluvian If Global Warming Is a Myth

The Pacific island of Tuvalu is facing a near certain death as global warming raises the sea level.

Sinking Tuvualu wants our help as ocean levels rise
By Brad Crouch / October 4, 2008

THE first nation likely to be overwhelmed by climate change wants Australia to accept its entire population if sea levels continue to rise.

Tuvalu, in the South Pacific, is one of the world’s lowest-lying nations and faces inundation within a generation by rising tides linked to mankind’s impact on the climate.

In a week where Ross Garnaut delivered his climate change report, the Tuvalu issue poses a question for Australia: Do we take on other countries’ problems as well?

In a twist with far-reaching implications, Tuvalu Government officials and community elders are hoping in a worse-case scenario Australia will accept the entire population of about 10,000 and allow them to continue to function as a sovereign nation, in the hope of one day returning to their island home.

Tuvalu Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia visited Canberra in August in what Tuvalu officials described as a “secret visit” to float the migration plan. Australian officials have refused to comment on the meeting.

Such an unprecedented environmental evacuation could become the model for other low-lying nations such as Kiribati and the Maldives, which face being swept away by rising tides.

Tuvalu has previously approached Australia and New Zealand with pleas to open up a migration channel — Australia’s previous government twice refused, but NZ now accepts 75 migrants a year.

Data from groups including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the CSIRO indicate mass evacuation may need to happen within decades.

A gauge installed in 1993 shows the sea level at Tuvalu has been rising by 5.7mm a year.

Most of Tuvalu is just 1m above the high-tide mark and water already bubbles up through the porous coral during high tides, flooding the land during king tides.

Projections show that over the next century sea levels will rise by up to 0.8m, making Tuvalu uninhabitable.

The nation already faces problems from chronic flooding, storm surges and king tides.

Several islands have been lost to the sea in the past decade and there has been widespread shoreline erosion and salt contamination of areas used to grow the staple root crop pulaka.

Research by the Tuvalu Meteorological Service shows the nation, which has just 26sqkm of land area, has lost several per cent of that in recent years.

Tuvalu Government spokesman on climate change Kilifi O’Brien said the Government was drawing up contingency plans for a mass evacuation.

But he said any such evacuation would revolve around maintaining Tuvalu as an entity.

“If we lose our land we risk losing our identity,” Mr O’Brien said.

“We know if the worst comes to the worst, we would have to relocate.

“But we would be looking at taking one sovereign country to another — we would want to keep our economic exclusion zone, our United Nations seat and so on. We would want to keep our identity as Tuvalu, in another location.

“The Government is considering how to do this, and Australia is certainly seen as an option.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith declined to be interviewed about whether Australia would take Tuvaluans as refugees or whether the Government would allow a sovereign nation to operate within Australia.

But in a statement his office said Australia would, where necessary, consult with others in the region “how best to respond to the needs of people displaced by the impact of climate change”.

The Niue Declaration on Climate Change, recently agreed by Pacific Islands Forum leaders, including Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, recognises the desire of the Pacific peoples to continue to live in their own countries and the importance of retaining the Pacific’s social and cultural identity.

The [Australian] Federal Government has committed $150 million over the next three years to climate adaptation needs in the Asia-Pacific.

Source / Perth Now

And then there’s this, Tuvalu as the first nation that exists only virtually:

Tuvalu’s sinking, but its domain is on solid ground
By Kevin Manney / April 28, 2004

Of all the dot-com bubble fantasies gone awry, none could be more bizarre than the story of the tiny island nation of Tuvalu.

In the late-1990s, Tuvalu was supposed to get rich by selling access to its Internet domain, which happens to be .tv — funny, since the entire nation has not a single broadcast TV station.

If all went as planned, by now the 11,000 or so Tuvaluans would be living in McMansions, driving to the beach in Hummers and getting regular Botox treatments.

Instead, the money is more of a trickle, and Tuvalu has a much bigger problem: The entire Tuvalu land mass — nine slender South Pacific islands and atolls — is apparently doomed to sink beneath the ocean. Earlier this year, Tuvalu came the closest yet to vanishing.

Oddly enough, Tuvalu might then leave a legacy imagined only in science-fiction novels. It could become the first virtual nation — a country that exists only on the Internet. If Tuvalu’s land disappears, its population will disperse, yet Tuvalu under international law will remain a sovereign nation even though its only “real estate” will be the .tv Internet domain.

While all this is going on, neighboring South Pacific island nation Palau is started down a similar path. It recently signed over rights to its domain — .pw — to a Massachusetts tech company that promises a more reasonable financial outcome for the Palauans. Of course, it helps that Palau is not about to burble beneath the waves.

This South Pacific tale begins amid the 1990s madness for Web addresses, when some addresses were selling for millions of dollars. Speculators bought up every word in the dictionary — even the likes of hookworm.com and supercilious.com — certain they could sell each one of them for a bundle to some start-up.

Then people realized it was possible to register a Web address in another country and use its domain. That would open up whole new swaths of Web real estate. Every country has its own top-level domain — Afghanistan is .af; Ghana is .gh. Since the Net is boundary-less, Amazon.gh could theoretically be as accessible as Amazon.com.

Of all the world’s countries, none had a more exploitable domain assignment than Tuvalu. The letters TV are linked to entertainment in just about every language.

So entrepreneurs from the USA, Japan and Europe descended on Tuvalu, where the prime minister works in a two-bedroom house and most of the population subsists on the fish caught each day.

The first guy offered $5,000 but shortsightedly backed out when the parliament held out for $10,000. By the time it was over, Tuvalu had a 12-year contract to share revenue from .tv registrations to be marketed by a start-up company called DotTV, which was backed by $50 million from California high-tech incubator Idealab.

Tuvalu expected a windfall. DotTV predicted every entertainment company would want a .tv address. At the time, its executives cited examples such as sony.tv, nbc.tv and zee.tv — the last for India’s Zee TV network.

This being the era when people talked of initial public stock offerings before a company’s bathroom needed its first replacement roll of toilet paper, DotTV anticipated a big IPO. The company even said it would create a .tv portal.

Of course, in 2000 the dot-com bubble blew apart, and the value of Web addresses dove like a pelican after a fish. No .tv boom ever happened. Today, nbc.tv is a dead end, sony.tv is for sale, and zee.tv bounces to sheeraz.com, the Web site of Southeast Asian television entrepreneur Sheeraz Hasan.

According to Web monitor Hitwise, the most popular .tv site is Fox’s kids site, foxbox.tv. It gets a market share one-hundredth that of the top television-based Web site, espn.com. In the meantime, DotTV was sold to Internet company VeriSign, and recent news reports say Tuvalu’s Internet revenue is used primarily to pave roads.

That alone would be a heck of a dot-bust sob story, but then there’s the part about Tuvalu sinking.

The islands are, at best, 15 feet above sea level. Unusually high tides have started flooding the islands — not by creeping up the beaches, but by bubbling up through the ground, as if the islands were leaky boats. Prime Minister Saufatu Sopoaga has been jetting around the world in a panic, telling anyone who will listen that Tuvalu will be the first victim of global warming. As sea levels rise, tourists might soon be able to see Tuvalu only by snorkel.

Now, that brings up a question: What happens to a domain if a nation disappears?

VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin tells me that a defunct country’s Internet domain lives on. For instance, you can still find addresses on .su — the domain for the Soviet Union.

Anyway, as Galvin points out, Tuvalu would not necessarily cease to exist. Apparently, the laws of the sea say that a country is a country, even if underwater. Sopoaga has said in speeches, “Our sovereignty would not be threatened. Our claim would be maintained on this spot.”

Which is how you get to the point where Tuvalu could have a government, a people — albeit a diaspora — but no territory. Yet Tuvalu would exist on the Internet as .tv. Sci-fi novels such as Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash predict virtual nations. Tuvalu might someday be revered as a trendsetter.

Along the way, we can watch Palau’s adventure unfold. This year, it sold rights to .pw to a Woburn, Mass., company called PW Registry, which wants to market the domain for “personal Web” sites. “Individuals will eventually establish a permanent presence on the Internet, just like companies do,” says PW Registry founder Tom Barrett. And .pw would be the place for them, he says.

Palau could turn out to be a better story. The nation isn’t starting with mania-driven expectations. Its 20,000 citizens are also counting on a future in tourism. It is building its first golf course and later this year will launch its national airline, which will consist of a single Boeing 737.

The only thing I can’t figure out is why this hasn’t happened yet in the Bahamas.

Its domain: .bs.

Kevin Maney has covered technology for USA TODAY since 1985. His column appears Wednesdays. Click here for an index of Technology columns. E-mail him at: kmaney@usatoday.com.

Source / USA Today

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Post-Bailout : Why the Stock Market Still Plunged

Unemployment, tempera on paper by Ben Shahn, 1938. © Private Collection/Christie’s Images / The Bridgeman Art Library.

It’s the economy, stupid….
By Steve Russell / The Rag Blog / October 4, 2008

Why, I was asked off line, did the market dive after the bailout passed?

First, the bailout was not about the Dow Jones/S&P/NASDAQ but about the LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate).

However, the straight answer is that the smart money had already priced in the bailout as a lead pipe cinch after the Senate moved things a few notches to the right to capture House Repugs. I would have thought moving to the right would cost votes on the left but that turned out not to be the case as every chamber of commerce in the country was in a blind sweat panic over new collateral requirements and drying up lines of credit. You don’t think a car dealer owns those new cars on his lot, do you?

Anyway, after the big dive the market came back to an equilibrium slightly lower than it was before the far left and the far right joined hands and jumped off the cliff.

The Friday dive was about more dire economic news, principally the unemployment numbers. Those numbers and the LIBOR are directly related, so here’s hoping we can at least slow down the bleeding when the “toxic assets” become sort of liquid again.

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Abstinence Only : Sex Education as Politics


Annual funding for abstinence-only is close to $175 million
By Scott Murray / October 1, 2008

When Alfred Kinsey published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, he included a stern word of caution to his readers: “as long as sex is dealt with in the current confusion of ignorance and sophistication, denial and indulgence, suppression and stimulation, punishment and exploitation, secrecy and display, it will be associated with a duplicity and indecency that lead neither to intellectual honesty nor human dignity.” In the 60 years following Kinsey’s groundbreaking study, the decision-making establishment of the U.S. has consistently ignored his rebuke, preferring to pursue harmful policies that further their own reactionary agendas.

One of these policies is abstinence-only sex education, which teaches that remaining abstinent until marriage is the only safe and acceptable option for adolescents and teens. These courses avoid all discussion of contraceptives and their use or only emphasize the alleged failure rate of common devices like condoms and the birth control pill. Since 1982, the federal government has spent over $1.5 billion subsidizing abstinence-only programs which, according to the Guttmacher Institute, are used in over one-third of public school districts in the United States. Annual funding for abstinence-only now stands at nearly $175 million, more than double the amount spent at the beginning of the Bush presidency.

The prevalence of abstinence-only programs in the education system illustrates the severe democratic deficit in the United States. For decades, the American population has overwhelmingly opposed abstinence-only sex education, and for good reason: the programs are medically inaccurate, misrepresent the evidence on which they claim to be based, and are rooted in sexist and fundamentalist attitudes. However, despite widespread popular disapproval, those in positions of power, including President Bush, have not only allowed abstinence-only curricula to flourish in American schools, but have worked tirelessly to ensure their proliferation both at home and abroad at the expense of comprehensive sex education.

Public Opinion

In a book review for the journal Critical Sociology, Lesley Shore writes that public opinion polls taken as early as the 1960s “revealed widespread support for comprehensive sex education” among Americans. Little has changed since then. A 2004 survey, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), found that over 90 percent of parents felt it was “very or somewhat important” to have comprehensive sex education in public schools. In addition, two-thirds of American voters expressed support for comprehensive sex education and 67 percent of the adult population favored “comprehensive sex education programs that included information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraceptives.” These findings were confirmed earlier this year, at the state level, when the University of Minnesota published a report detailing how nearly nine out of ten Minnesota parents support comprehensive sex education programs that “[include] information about abstinence and prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.” The study also found that Minnesota’s “overwhelming” support for comprehensive sex education cut across gender, age, race, class, and political lines. Minnesota is not unique in this regard as opposition to abstinence-only is so widespread that nearly 20 states, including Minnesota, have rejected Title V sex education funding because of the federal government’s stipulation that it be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs.

Teenagers and young adults, like their parents, extensively support comprehensive sex education as well. According to one survey by Tina Hoff (KFF), 82 percent of teens ages 15-17 and three-quarters of young adults ages 18-24 favored sex education curricula that included information on “how to protect yourself from HIV/AIDS and other STDs,” “the different types of birth control that are available,” and “how to bring up sexual health issues such as STDs and birth control with a partner.” Reflecting the attitudes of American parents and teens, a number of influential professional groups have also issued statements opposing abstinence-only sex education, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the National Education Association, and the American School Health Association.

Contrary to impressions, support for abstinence-only sex education is limited even among Christians in the United States, who traditionally are expected to take strong conservative positions on issues of sexuality. According to one survey cited by Susan Rose the journal Social Forces, eight in ten people who identify as conservative Christian support comprehensive sex education in high schools, and seven in ten support it in middle schools. Another study, carried out by NPR and the Kennedy School of Government, found similar results: nearly nine in ten people who describe themselves as “conservative Evangelical” or “born-again Christians” favor the teaching of human sexuality in schools. (No significant evidence exists on the attitudes of American Jews and Muslims regarding sex education, although some of them—such as those belonging to the Union for Reform Judaism—have publicly spoken out against abstinence-only programs.)

The American public opposes abstinence-only sex education for a number of sensible reasons. First, the programs are remarkably and consistently inaccurate. The most comprehensive analysis of the medical accuracy of abstinence-only courses was carried out, incidentally, by a U.S. House of Representatives committee in 2004. This widely-cited review, often referred to as the Waxman report, discovered that over 80 percent of federally funded abstinence-only curricula contained “false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.” The courses were found to teach, among other things, that pregnancy occurs once out of every seven times a couple has intercourse using a condom, that 10 percent of abortions result in sterility, that HIV can be transmitted through sweat and tears, and that a human being has 48 chromosomes. Abstinence-only programs are also known to teach that touching another person’s genitals can “result in pregnancy,” that a 43-day-old fetus is a “thinking person,” and that half of the gay male teens in America are infected with the AIDS virus. Some members of Congress, namely the Republicans who endorsed the 2002 Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Protection Bill, have attempted to deflect such criticism, arguing that “it would be impossible to agree on what information is medically accurate.”

Click to enlarge image.

Second, in addition to containing “false, misleading or distorted” sexual health information, abstinence-only programs misrepresent the evidence on which they are based. One of the most instructive examples is found in AC Green’s Game Plan, a federally funded abstinence-until-marriage program produced by the Illinois-based Project Reality. Early in the student workbook, it quotes a 2001 survey conducted by the National Campaign to End Teen Pregnancy as saying that American teens desire a “strong message…that they should abstain from sex” until marriage. This is inaccurate. The quotation, which is found on the second page of the survey, actually reads that American teens desire a “strong message…that they should abstain from sex until they are at least out of high school,” a sentiment that is at variance with the abstinence-only ethic. In fact, that same paragraph, and indeed the rest of the survey, goes on to report that both parents and teens strongly desire a “greater emphasis on contraception” in sex education courses, findings conveniently—and likely consciously—omitted from the student workbook. Such misrepresentations are much too common in abstinence-only programs, and should trouble those who believe that adolescents and teens deserve honest sexuality education.

Third, many Americans strongly object to the sexist and fundamentalist attitudes expressed by abstinence-only sex education programs. According to the previously cited Waxman report, several courses “present [gender] stereotypes as scientific fact,” especially those related to women and girls. One popular curriculum, Why kNOw, teaches that “men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments,” while women “gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships.” Another program, WAIT Training, lists “financial support” as one of the “five major needs” of women, while listing “domestic support” as one of the major needs of men. Choosing the Best, the most popular federally funded abstinence education program, regales students with a tale of a knight who rescues a princess from a dragon. The dragon soon returns to seek revenge, but the princess advises the knight to slay the dragon with a noose and poison. The tactic works, but the knight believes he fought dishonorably and feels “ashamed.” In the end, the knight does not marry the princess, but rather a village maiden—and “only after making sure she knew nothing about nooses or poison.” The “moral of the story,” it concludes, is that “occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man’s confidence or may even turn him away from his princess.”

Further stereotypes abound. Many abstinence-only programs teach students that “men are always ready for sex,” while women “often need hours of emotional and mental preparation.” In a talk delivered on the Google campus, sex educator Violet Blue quotes the Why kNOw curriculum as saying that “girls are responsible for boys’ inability to control their sexual urges,” a statement which implies that girls are at fault if they are harassed, sexually assaulted, or even raped. Glencoe Health, a secular abstinence-only health textbook produced by education giant McGraw-Hill, discourages premarital sex by teaching that sexually active teens, presumably girls, “risk developing a reputation among peers as someone who is ‘sexually easy'”—a sanitized way of telling young women that if they have sex, their classmates are expected to call them a “slut”—just as they did publicly to Harvard student and sex blogger Lena Chen earlier this year after participating in a debate at her school.

Patricia Miller, a journalist and reproductive policy analyst, explains that the federal government’s earliest abstinence-only policies had religious motivations, beginning with President Reagan’s Adolescent Life and Family Act which “frequently promoted specific religious values” until successfully challenged by the ACLU in 1993, following a ten-year court battle. The religious right recovered soon after, though, when Democrat Bill Clinton supported a funding provision for abstinence-only programs in his 1996 welfare reform bill. The measure, which allotted $50 million a year in subsidies to abstinence education curricula, was not drafted by medical professionals or educators, but by “representatives from the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, and other conservative groups,” who in turn cooperated with Heritage Foundation policy analyst and abstinence-only champion Robert Rector.

Although many abstinence-only courses do not explicitly reveal their Christian foundations, there are a number that do. In an official newsletter accompanying the widely-used Why kNOw curriculum, for example, the author laments contemporary social mores, writing that “no longer were we valued as spiritual beings made by a loving Creator.” The author closes the letter by signing “In His Service.” True Love Waits, a popular program produced by LifeWay Ministries, aims to “[teach] students the Biblical standards for purity,” and desires to create a generation of teens that will “[live] for the glory of God with sails raised for revival” and be “prepared for Biblical, lifetime marriages.” Sex Respect, which reaches students in over 20 countries and bills itself as “the world’s leading abstinence education program,” informs visitors to their website that their abstinence courses are consonant with Catholic doctrine.

The Democratic Deficit

The federal government’s shaping of sex education funding programs, its appointment of extreme reactionaries to high positions of sexual policy planning, and the feeble opposition to abstinence-only waged by congressional Democrats vividly illustrate the fact that the United States is little more than a formal democracy where opportunities for public participation are limited to selecting leaders from a pool of virtually indistinguishable candidates, with identical financial backers and only marginally different interests.

To begin, the programs that fund sex education in the United States are structured in such a way that they support only abstinence-until-marriage curricula at the expense of comprehensive sex education courses. According to Section 510 of the Social Security Act, which was authorized during the Clinton administration, sex education programs in the United States are eligible for Title V federal funding only if their “exclusive purpose” is to “[teach] the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.” Sex education courses receiving federal funding must also preach that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity,” and that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.” Furthermore, abstinence-only programs receiving federal funding are not reviewed by the federal government for factual or medical accuracy, which explains why the Waxman report discovered “serious and pervasive problems with the accuracy of abstinence-only curricula” that permeate the American education system.

With a little investigation, it is easy to learn why sex education funding programs, like many other public health policies in the United States, are so morally draconian: key decision-making positions regarding sexual policy are held by extreme conservative reactionaries who are selected based on ideological conformity rather than professional qualification. There are several examples of these officials who currently sit in high positions of sexual authority or have done so in the recent past. Thomas A. Coburn, now a junior senator from Oklahoma, served as co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, where he pledged to “challenge the national focus on condom use for preventing the spread of [HIV]” and lamented what he called the “gay agenda” that has “infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country” and “wield extreme power.” Robert George, a member of the eminent President’s Council on Bioethics, wants laws passed to outlaw masturbation, and the former chair of the Council, Leon Kass, has spoken out against sexual indecencies like the licking of ice cream cones in public, since “eating in the street is for dogs.” Susan Orr, who recently resigned from her position as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, was a senior director at the archconservative Family Research Council and advocates “abstinence over making contraceptives more available.” She also has called birth control providers “collaborators with the culture of death.”

Orr’s successor has not yet been named (at the time of writing), but the nature of Washington’s previous appointees does not bode well for the future. Dr. Eric Keroack, Orr’s immediate predecessor, is a prominent abstinence advocate who sits on the Medical Advisory Council for the Abstinence Clearinghouse. He is a staunch opponent of abortion who has stated that contraceptives are “demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality, and adverse to human health and happiness.” Dr. Alma Golden, who held the Deputy Assistant Secretary position before Keroack, characterized contraceptive education and distribution programs as merely offering teens “free condoms for their weekend party” and worked to put “more emphasis on ‘abstinence-only'” in the family planning programs she helped administer.

Although many staunch abstinence-only advocates hold high office in the United States government, there are state officials that are opposed to such programs. Unfortunately, these dissenters have put forth a dubious effort in trying to curb abstinence-until-marriage sex education courses and have even consciously contributed to expanding it to make political gains elsewhere. The Waxman report, for instance, which represents the federal government’s harshest and most notable internal critique to date, contained no policy recommendations or suggestions whatsoever. Another report, published by the Government Accountability Office in 2006, was similarly weak—its strongest suggestion was that federally funded abstinence-only programs should be made to “sign written assurances in grant applications that the materials they use are accurate.” Neither of the government reports called for the abolition of abstinence education programs.

Congressional Democrats, who typically oppose abstinence-only programs, signed on to a bill last June that increased funding for abstinence-only by $27 million, just weeks after issuing a misleading promise to “end abstinence-only funding.” The reason for this maneuver, according to Democratic officials, was to gain “leverage—namely Republican allies in Congress—in fights to come with Bush over domestic spending,” demonstrating clearly their committed opposition to abstinence-only sex education while being conciliatory during a recent congressional hearing on abstinence-only where the discussion “rarely moved beyond championing the value of pre-marital abstinence,” according to Bob Roehr of Pride Source Media Group, and ended in the mild suggestion that block grants be created for states to spend on comprehensive sex education, if they so choose.

The continued expansion of abstinence-only sex education programs, coupled with the unfailing pragmatism of the alleged opposition party, illustrates the severe democratic deficit in the United States. As with many other public policy issues—including healthcare, domestic spending, and the war in Iraq—public opinion is held in extremely low regard and often dismissed as “politically unrealistic.” Those who oppose abstinence-only sex education cannot and should not rely on their elected officials to effect positive social change. The need for popular mass action in support of comprehensive, candid, and inclusive sex-education programs has never been greater, and there are many opportunities for action. Students and teachers can participate in noncooperation, refusing to take part in or teach from curricula that preach only abstinence-until-marriage. Members of the community, including health professionals, educators, and concerned families can organize neighborhood sex education seminars that provide adolescents with the reproductive health information they desperately want and need. As long as abstinence-only sex education is allowed to flourish unchallenged, young people in the United States will suffer a form of indoctrination that leads “neither to intellectual honesty nor human dignity.”

[Scott A. Murray is an undergraduate student of rhetoric, gender studies, and human sexuality from central Illinois.]

Source / Z Magazine

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

We Will Pay Because God Loves the Rich

And as we all know, worms do not rise up in revolt. That takes a backbone.

Speaking in the Tongues of Brokers: The Bailout in Plain English
By Joe Bageant / October 2, 2008

Any number of cultural historians have noted the American belief that success is a sign of God’s favor. And over the past couple of decades he has had a downright love fest with the already-rich. So much so that the richest 400 Americans now have more money stashed away than the combined bottom 150 million Americans. Some $1.6 trillion bucks.

This was accomplished by selling off or shipping out every available asset, from jobs to seaports, smashing usury and anti-monopoly laws, raiding the public coffers and manipulating the medium of exchange and blackmailing the peasantry regarding common needs such as heath care and energy to keep their asses warm … to name a few. The ultimate coup was to convince the entire nation that the well being of the rich, meaning the well being of Wall Street, was indeed the common man’s well being.

All went well for a while. People went into credit card hock up to their noses in order to provide 26% credit card interest to Wall Street, etc. And when that became untenable, flimsy mortgages were cranked out by the millions ensuring that every American who could hold a crayon could sign to purchase a home. To facilitate this all sorts of shaky ‘mortgage instruments’ were created – balloon, (sign here Jeeter, you’re gonna flip it in a year and make a hundred K on this house trailer) interest only, and finally negative balance mortgages where you only paid part of the interest and the rest was rolled back into the principal balance. And joy of joys you could refinance a couple of times while the inflated value of these houses was on the way up. Life was good for everybody. The bill was never gonna come due because, god in his wisdom, had deemed that capitalism would defy the second law of thermodynamics and expand forever. So every time a bank made a mortgage loan of say, $400,000, even though the debtor had never even made a payment yet, the loan was declared a bank asset and another $400,000 was loaned against it. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Bank yelled whoopee and printed another $800,000 in currency. Of course at some point the country had to run out of customers, so the loans got easier and easier. No matter that debt is not wealth. Wink and call it that and most folks won’t even look up from their new big screen high resolution digital TVs.

Problem was that all the jobs to pay for this stuff were stampeding off toward places in China with names containing a lot of Xs, Zs and praying for a vowel. It was becoming clear that the entire economy was running on fumes. In fact less than fumes. It was running on the odor of paper. Mountains of the stuff. Bundles of mortgages and very strange securities and derivatives of unknown origin and value. Paper that stated its own worth and signed by some mystic hand no one could quite identify though the blurry signatures looked to read Greenspan, Paulson and Bernanke.

But there was a rub. Things reached the point where there simply was not anything left to defraud the public out of, nothing left to steal from the nation’s productive capability, no matter how much paper Jeeter and Maggie signed for that trailer house, no matter how secure Brian and Jennifer out there in Arlington Virginia and Davis California thought they were. So the only thing left to do was steal from future generations of Americans and accept an I.O.U. which the government would happily sign on behalf of the people and enforce. By the wildest coincidence, under the Bush administration this I.O.U. happened to tally up to about $700 billion.

Seeing the oncoming train of financial disaster, the financiers just about wet their pants, and screamed “We want it all now! And if we don’t get it the “economy” will lock its brakes and crash. Remember, we control the medium of exchange. Nobody gets a paycheck if we don’t. Remember that it’s lines of credit from us that back every working man’s and woman’s paycheck in the country. So pay the hell up”

Folks, they’ve got us all by the nuts and nipples. McCain knows that. Obama knows that. In the end, regardless of the so-called dissenters in the House and the Senate, we will pay up. It’s election season and the dissent is for show. So it looks like we will get some “concession.” For example, we will get shares in these “toxic assets” that are stinking up the joint. The rich need to dump them and dump them fast. In another magnanimous concession, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will raise the insurance on “our savings” to $250,000 (how many readers have 250 K in the bank?). But it will be redeemable in even more inflated currency amid an inflationary environment. And, in case you didn’t know, the FDIC has up to ten years to pay up on that insurance. So don’t get any ideas about running off to Mexico, to which by the way, we are a net debtor nation.

We will pay. We will pay because the European banks holding all that bad paper we wrote demand that we make good on it so even more of their banks will not fail. We will pay because the Chinese, the Japs and everyone else will cut off the loan tap with which we pay the interest (not the principal) on our exploding super nova of national debt. We will pay because God loves the rich. We will pay because we will not be offered any other choice. We will pay because George Bush worked hard for all those Ds in school and became the first MBA president. We will pay because our media has internalized the capitalist system so thoroughly they can only talk in Wall Speak. We will pay because the only language we have to describe our world is that of our oppressors because we have been taught to think in Wall Speak. We will pay because we hitched our wagon to last stage capitalism and even though the wagon has now two wheels over the cliff and roars forward, we don’t know where the brake handle is located. And because we don’t know any better or understand any possible resistance to the system because we have been kept like worms in a jar and fed horse shit.

And as we all know, worms do not rise up in revolt.

That takes a backbone.

Joe Bageant is author of the book, Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches from America’s Class War. (Random House Crown), about working class America. He is also a contributor to Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance from the Heartland (AK Press). A complete archive of his on-line work, along with the thoughts of many working Americans on the subject of class may be found on ColdType and Joe Bageant’s website, joebageant.com.

Source / CounterPunch

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Ron Ridenour: Sounds of Venezuela, Part V

Blas Castillo, 57, works on Fundo Bella Vista, a farm cooperative sanctioned by the Venezuelan government. Photo: David Rochkind/Polaris, for The New York Times

Click here to view the entire series.

Sounds of Venezuela
Part V: The Green Revolution, 1
By Ron Ridenour / The Rag Blog / October 4, 2008

I wanted to see how the new farm cooperatives were operating, and I needed a break from the house I lived in and from city life. I lived in an upstairs bedroom across the hall from a young woman, who spent most of her time locked inside her room watching TV. My room contained essential and rustic furniture. The sagging mattress had metal springs sticking through. The bathroom had a flush toilet and a single-stream shower. The plaster and paint in the kitchen and living room downstairs were cracking and falling. Caked dirt permeated all appliances and shelves. Fifty meters from this house stood a noisy car firm. Albeit a small city, La Victoria screams with noise from car alarms and horn-honking drivers, from ghetto-blasting radios, and boisterous children and adults (la bulla).

The upper classes complain that the Chavez government has limited the number of vehicle imports, although in the two previous years 600,000 private cars were imported. The government seeks to diminish importation and increase national production in all areas. It already produces many of its military vehicles and tractors, and it has just begun to produce its own cars for private sales in a joint venture with Iran. The “People’s Car” will sell for a modest $7,000 — new imported cars sell for four times that at a minimum. The first 20,000 cars are planned to role off the assembly line in 2009. Furthermore, the millions of Venezuelan drivers are privileged to have what must be the world’s cheapest fuel. While a liter of bottled water costs the equivalent of $1.40, the now nationalized gasoline costs about $.04 cents (100 centavos in national currency) a liter, or $.15 cents a gallon, which is 35 to 45 times less the price of gasoline in the warring-for-oil United States.

Early one morning in February, Diego borrowed his girl friend’s car and drove me to a low mountain range where Quebrada Seca’s farm cooperative is located. He told me some of its history and I had done some research.

I had read Central Bank figures, which show that the government had increased financing of agricultural production by 738% between 2004 and 2007. About five million of the nation’s 30 million hectares of cultivable land have been expropriated and turned over to about 200,000 people, most of them not farmers. In many cases, the very land titles have been contested. Some lands had simply been seized decades or hundreds of years ago by those with great local power and weaponry.

The Chavez government inherited a “one-crop” economy based on oil, mostly owned by US and British companies. In 1935, 60% of the work force was rural, mostly in agriculture. By 2000, only 12% of the population was rural. In 1998, only 6% of GNP came from agricultural production, the lowest rate in all of Latin America. And three-quarters of the land was held by five percent of landowners. Under Chavez food production has doubled but demand has also grown, even more than national supply. So it has been necessary to increase foodstuff imports, which come mainly from the new regional economic alliances, Mercosur and the Venezuela-Cuba ALBA initiative and now four more member nations.

The fact that the government has several times increased wages and pensions dramatically is a major cause for the increase in demand and consumption. On worker’s day, May 1, 2008, Chavez announced that the minimum monthly wage and minimum pension is to be the equivalent of $560, placing Venezuelans minimum incomes 2.6 times higher than the entire continent average.

Diego told me that, three years ago, about 150 people occupied this mountainous area of 1000 hectares owned by a wealthy German family. The Vollmers had long ago immigrated to Venezuela and became the largest agro-landowners in Aragua state. Like many wealthy plantation owners much of their land lay fallow. Who owns land and how it is used is fundamental to whether a society is based on capitalist market enterprise or socialist fellowship. And large private property owners have been the core power for hundreds of years before Chavez. His new national assembly passed a law allowing the government to expropriate idle land and redistribute it to landless peasants and other poor people. In October 2005, a comprehensive land reform was implemented with the name Mission Zamora. This occurred following President Chavez’s first public speech advocating a socialist system. He did so at the 2005 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

“Everyday I become more convinced…that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington,” he said.

“It is impossible within the framework of the capitalist system to solve the grave problems of poverty of the majority of the world’s population. We must transcend capitalism. But we cannot resort to state capitalism, which would be the same perversion as the Soviet Union. We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project and a path…a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything. That’s the debate we must promote around the world…”

Diego introduced me to the cooperative’s secretary and one of the two Cuban advisors. With his recommendation, and my CV from eight years working in Cuba, I was warmly welcomed and permitted to go about the farm and speak with whom I wished. Diego drove back and I went on my own. At the entrance to the farm land stood a large billboard sign. It read (English translation):

“Quebrada Seca. Free Town. Agriculturally Productive People. Socialist Future.”

After two kilometers cross mainly brush land, I came across a coop team. Three women and one man were cultivating a plot. Juleen spoke for them.

“This year we’ve started a new work structure, hoping this will allow a surplus. Last year I was cultivating peppers and we lost the crop. We didn’t earn anything. The only way we’ve survived is due to a small annual stipend from the Ministry of Agriculture — which it stopped this year — plus credit for seed and farm tools. But now we plough the land with our bare nails, because our three tractors are broken down and we don’t have money for repairs. So, you ask, how do we eat?” chuckled chubby Juleen.

“We get help from our families who live and work in cities. And here we all help each other, we share what we have. Most families are headed by a man and a woman and one of them usually works outside on the weekends, at least one day a week. My husband and I alternate. He works at manual labor and I wash and iron clothes in Quebrada Seca. We each earn 30BF a day. We have no money for anything other than essentials, never for vacations, because then we work for cash in the town.”

It was nearly time for lunch so we starting the long walk up a steep hill toward the housing complex. Working hours are from 07:00 to 11:00, followed by a three-hour lunch break, and then back to work from 14:00 to 18:00. On the way up, the four new farmers spoke about their three-year history. When Mission Zamora started almost all the plantation owners protested expropriations. They went to court, which would tie up the question of land ownership for years.

In the last three years, Chavez has often intervened to convince landowners to release fallow lands, sometimes offering compromises so that peasants and relocated city folk could get started. That was the case here. The government offered assistance on long-term credit with low or no interest rates to start farming. This included new housing for those who stay on. The houses are about 80m2, made of concrete and some wood, with tile roofs and floors. It usually takes up to a year to construct the houses in each cooperative and costs between 80,000 and 120,000BF to build. The first five years of residence is free. Once they reach the end of that time, a decision will be made about how much each cooperative family will pay. The objective is that full ownership is turned over to the families after 20 years.

“That’s the best thing about being here, our houses” garrulous Juleen said, beaming. “You’ll see.”

The new farmers explained that production relations have changed three times in so many years. First everyone worked as one collective but it was difficult to motivate all to work equally hard. Most had never tilled soil. The second year, they broke into ten teams of four to six each. Still it didn’t work. Now each team is independent and is responsible for its own economy. There are only 57 residents left, 25 farmers work in five teams. Seven of them have taken farming courses. In theory, thirty percent of the total cooperative’s income should go back into the coop to pay off state credits. Seventy percent is shared internally. However, since real production has been so low almost no payment on credits has been forthcoming. The government does not press them.

“We have technical assemblies each week. There’s one this afternoon. Here we plan and learn together. We used to haggle about who works well or not but there was no way to determine this objectively. Then we decided individual income on the basis of just showing up for work. That didn’t work either. Now each team has equal status, responsibility and income from proceeds. But, in reality, there is no income to divide. Yeah, we’ve sold what little we’ve produced to local markets, to Mercal, but it doesn’t make ends meet,” I’m told.

Mercal is a mission, which seeks to increase the country’s food sovereignty, providing access to quality produce, especially grains, dairy and meat at subsidized prices, averaging about 40% of the chaotic supply-demand system’s prices. From its initiation, in 2002, the items sold in local Mercals, usually located in private homes, has increased from just 15 elements to 400. The Ministry of Agriculture’s figures early this year indicate that 12 million people shop at Mercal’s 15,677 locations, meeting about 67% of the nation’s needs. The woman owner of the house where I stayed is coordinator of the local Mercal.

Twenty-seven new houses sit just under the peak of this mountain. They look like the 50 recently built in the local town and 10,000 more across the nation — a figure that lags behind the goal of building homes for everyone by 2021, which means more than one million. This project — Mission Hábitat — is part of the incentive for new farmers, and they are pleasant structures.

While Juleen and a neighbor woman prepare lunch for their families and me, I wonder about the fresh-smelling environment. The kitchen, which opens to a patio, has what is essential: refrigerator, gas stove, sink with drinkable water from nearby wells, cabinets and drawers. This house has two bedrooms and six beds. There’s an extra room. Two tiled bathrooms serve this family of six with shower and flush toilet. The living room has seating place for the entire family — sofa and two stuffed chairs — and there is a dining room. The ceiling is high, about five meters, and wood-paneled. There are many windows and good ventilation. Everything is clean and shiny. Each house has a small yard area. Some grow a few vegetables and herbs. In the center of the complex is a playground with swings, slide and teeter-totter.

Juleen’s husband comes in. He is a bit shy but answers a couple of questions. The kitchen hardware came with the house; the furniture they bought on credit and some were gifts. They also have a radio. As yet there is no television signal or telephones.

After a great lunch of fruit, two vegetables, beans, pasta and chicken, we walk down to the main building where assemblies occur. On the way, Juleen complains that the children must walk to and from school an hour a day.

“Some cooperatives have mini-buses to transport children to school and adults to shop at markets, but we don’t. The future: I don’t know. We don’t work as much or as hard as we should. We have internal problems. We have a five-member executive committee elected every six months. They receive no money for this service and are workers too. Sounds good in theory but our first president stole money. We fired him but he still hasn’t been tried. Our new president spends little time here. He mostly confines himself to his own production of 500 chickens for eggs and meat. We buy much of his produce.”

Twenty farmers came to the assembly and a few children. An advisor from the ministry came to speak about the “green revolution”, combating plagues organically. A Cuban advisor spoke of Cuba’s success in this. They explained how they could get funguses and combative insects from government laboratories to replace costly insecticide sprays. Over time, production would increase in quality and quantity.

People listened attentively and asked questions. Suddenly the meeting was interrupted by a dog fight and subsequent laughter. The assembly ended with an account of what land was planted in what. Only about a fourth of the 100 cultivatable hectares were under seed.

I walked back to town for the bus, a bit down by what I had seen and heard. Making a “green revolution” with city folk is not a quick process, but it had started.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged | 1 Comment