Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 01.29.06

[David Shove (shove001]

            P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R     01.29.06

1. Sensible vigil      1.29 12noon
2. Green Party         1.29 12noon
3. AntiWarMN volunteer 1.29 1pm
4. Legacy project      1.29 2pm
5. Mee Moua/run 1/film 1.29 2pm
6. KFAI/Indian         1.29 4pm
7. IRV house party     1.29 6:30pm
8. Bicking/action      1.29 7pm

9. Met Council         1.30 10am
10. Union/McCollum     1.30 11am
11. Salvador elections 1.30 2pm
12. AI/Augustana       1.30 7pm
13. Nuremberg/TV       1.30 time?

14. Tim Wise        - Chocolate city?
15. Peter Montague  - The US chemical-regulation system is a farce
16. Douglas Fischer - Study: half of breast cancers tied to environment
17. ed              - me me me me me (poem)

--------1 of 17--------

From: skarx001 <skarx001 [at] umn.edu>
Subject: Sensible vigil 1.29 12noon

The sensible people for peace hold weekly peace vigils at the intersection
of Snelling and Summit in StPaul, Sunday between noon and 1pm. (This is
across from the Mac campus.) We provide signs protesting current gov.
foreign and domestic policy. We would appreciate others joining our
vigil/protest.


--------2 of 17--------

From: Stephen Eisenmenger <stephen [at] mngreens.org>
Subject: Green Party 1.29 12noon

1/29/06 -- The Green Party 5th District membership meeting will be held at
the Lyndale Farmstead Rec Center, 3900 Bryant Ave. South.  Starts at noon.
Contact Stephen Eisenmenger (612) 747-2854.


--------3 of 17--------

From: hoang74do <jade.dragon [at] gmail.com>
Subject: AntiWarMN volunteer 1.29 1pm

Come help us this Sunday at 1PM to prepare for upcoming demonstrations and
actions. This spring promises to be an eventful one with a Valentines
inspired bridge vigil on the Wednesday, February 15th to our joint
anti-war conference with AWOL (the Anti-War Organizing League)at the
University of MN on March 4th to the protest to commemorate the third
anniversary of the US war against Iraq on March 18th. There's lots coming
up and a lot to do. For that, we need your help! We will be painting
signs, doing flyer drops and other outreach efforts. Come join us if you
can!

Sunday January 29
Anti-War Committee 1313 5th Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 room 213

For more info, call us at 612.379.3899
Check out our website at http://www.antiwarcommittee.org


--------4 of 17--------

From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Legacy project 1.29 2pm

Sunday, 1/29, 2 to 4 pm (1:30 orientation), Legacy Project 2006 kickoff
(organization to take back MN House by electing progressives in targeted
areas), Faith Mennonite Church, 2720 E. 22nd St., Mpls. FFI:
LegacyProject [at] comcast.net


--------5 of 17--------

From: Bob Spaulding <r_spaulding [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Mee Moua/run 1/film 1.29 2pm

Film follows Moua's run

A documentary chronicling the rise of Sen. Mee Moua, DFL-St. Paul, to
become the first elected legislator of Hmong descent in American history
will be shown Sunday at the Minnesota History Center.

"The Time is Right for Mee" tells the story of the St. Paul attorney's
victorious first campaign for the Minnesota Senate during a special
election in 2002. The effort resulted in a mass mobilization of first-time
voters in the Hmong-American community.

Moua will make an appearance at the 2 p.m. Sunday screening.  Filmmaker
Foung Heu will introduce the film and take questions after the show.
Admission is free.

from http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/13724021.htm

This film tells the story of Mee Moua's remarkable first campaign for the
Minnesota Senate. An accomplished attorney and community advocate when she
decided to run in 2002, Moua nonetheless faced an uphill battle to win the
Democratic primary with only three weeks to spare.  The result was a
massive mobilization of new citizens into registered voters and her
triumph as the first Hmong-American elected official in America. Born in
war-torn Laos in 1969, Moua fled at five with her family to a Thai refugee
camp before resettling in the United States in 1978. Working her way up
from the public housing projects of Appleton, Wisc., Mee Moua graduated
from Brown University in Rhode Island, earned her Masters in public
affairs from the University of Texas at Austin and her J.D. from the
University of Minnesota Law School. Moua is currently Senator (DFL) for
St. Paul District 67 and serves as the Senate's Majority Whip. The film
was created by the local team of Foung Heu and Noel Lee.

from http://events.mnhs.org/calendar/Results.cfm?
EventID=1527&CFID=724797&CFTOKEN=85719110


--------6 of 17--------

From: Chris Spotted Eagle <chris [at] spottedeagle.org>
Subject: KFAI/Indian 1.29 4pm

KFAI's Indian Uprising for January 29, 2006

Part Two: MOUNTAINS MADE ALIVE: NATIVE AMERICAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH SACRED
LAND by Emily Cousins, Cross Currents, Winter 96/97, Vol. 46.  See
attached pdf

"The phrase "sacred land" is used frequently these days, both by Native
Americans trying to protect land and by non-Natives sensitive to this
cause. Yet despite its increased use, the meaning of the phrase remains
elusive to many non-Natives, who relate to land mostly through property
lines or hiking trails. Traditional Native American cultures, on the other
hand, have defined geography through myth, ritual ceremonies, and spirit
power. This difference highlights perhaps the widest gulf between the two
cultures. It also represents a place where we must meet, as both cultures
face environmental crisis.

European settlers arrived in this country thinking they could teach the
indigenous people how to live off the land. Perhaps it is time for
non-Natives to listen to the experience of people who have lived here for
thousands of years. What we stand to learn is not how to appropriate Native
customs and ceremonies, but how to respect the land and the traditions it
sustains..."

"Since the land is comprised of living beings, most Native American
cultures have a tradition of entering into relationships with the land.
Relating to non-human beings is possible because, unlike Western
categories which draw dichotomies between human and animal, animate and
inanimate, natural and supernatural, most Native American traditions
stress interrelatedness among all things. This relatedness is most often
rooted in the perception of a shared spiritual reality. that transcends
physical differences. Some believe this common essence is the life breath,
others refer to it as the presence of the Great Spirit."

Emily Cousins is a writer and editor living in Missoula, Montana. She has
collaborated with Joseph Epes Brown on a book entitled Teaching Spirits:
Towards An Understanding of Native American Religious Traditions, Oxford
University Press, 2001.  Excerpts of this article appear in that volume.
http://www.crosscurrents.org/mountainsalive.htm

* * * *
Indian Uprising is a one-half hour Public & Cultural Affairs radio program
for, by, and about Indigenous people & all their relations, broadcast each
Sunday at 4:00 p.m. over KFAI 90.3 FM Minneapolis and 106.7 FM St. Paul.
Current programs are archived online after broadcast at www.kfai.org, for
two weeks.  Click Program Archives and scroll to Indian Uprising.


--------7 of 17---------

From: Amanda Tempel <atempel [at] visi.com>
Subject: IRV house party 1.29 6:30pm

Mandy and Mark Tempel, Liz Wielinski, Dorian Eder, Molly Richardson, Katie
Fournier, Rep. Phyllis Kahn and other SD59 activists invite you to:

Dessert for a Cause House Party:
An event to support the
Minneapolis Better Ballot Campaign

Sunday, January 29
6:30-8:30pm

At the home of Mandy and Mark Tempel
1706 Tyler St NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413

RSVP and Directions: (612) 788-9094 or atempel [at] visi.com

Join us for a lively discussion with appetizers, desserts and wine
(non-alcoholic choices available). We'll also demonstrate how IRV works
with an actual election to determine the favorite dessert of the night.

Open Donation.  Please contribute whatever you can afford.
Your contribution is appreciated even if you cannot attend.

To request accommodations, please contact the host. Contributions are not
tax deductible. Checks can be made out to the Minneapolis Better Ballot
Campaign and sent to 3606 Harriet Ave. S, Minneapolis, MN 55409.


--------8 of 17--------

From: dave [at] colorstudy.com
Subject: Bicking/action 1.29 7pm

Hello again to my campaign volunteers and supporters,

As I've said before, politics is not just about elections!  So I am hoping
that we can continue what we have started together. We shouldn't just pack
our things and go away for four years.  We have done some real organizing
in the 9th ward, and we've talked to a lot of people about important
issues.  Now we must build on what we've done, not just to be ready four
years from now, but to work for change in our ward and in our city in the
meantime.

I have gotten a lot of positive feedback about continuing our work. I have
also talked to people from the other Green campaigns in the city, and it
appears that it may make sense to organize on a broader scale than just
Ward 9.  It is time to kick off our continuing "campaign" with an
organizing meeting.  Our goals, how we organize, and what we do depend on
YOU!  The turnout and level of interest expressed will determine how
ambitious we can be.  Your ideas will determine what we do and how we do
it.

Here are the details:
        WHEN:  Sunday, January 29th, 7:00pm
        AT:  My house, 3211 22nd Ave. S., Minneapolis (first floor)
        DIRECTIONS:  I live just over two blocks south of Lake St. on 22nd
Ave.  22nd Avenue is just west of the Lake Street stop of the Hiawatha
light rail.  There is also good bus service along Lake St.

Please come!  If you can't make it, please call or email to let me know
if you're interested, and to give any input that can help guide us.
This is not just for people who consider themselves Green Party members!
It is for anyone who feels they can work with Green Party members as you
have in my campaign.

I know many of you are very busy, often due to other ongoing political
work.  While considering running for City Council, my main concern was
diverting activists from the very important work they were already doing.
I really appreciate your willingness to devote your limited free time to
my campaign.  If you must now return to other priorities, I understand.
If so, please let me know if there is any way that our continuing efforts
can network with or support the groups or causes you are working on.

I have a lot of thoughts about what we should consider doing and why.
For a summary of my analysis of the campaign, its accomplishments, and
what me might do to build on those, check the front page of the campaign
website, http://davebicking.org/

I've been busy since the election and have attended a number of different
city meetings and events (much more than I had time to do during the
campaign).  It has been a real education, and I have seen some
opportunities for us to have an effect.  At the meeting, I'll tell you
about one success than resulted from just paying attention.

The rest of this email is what I've been thinking about regarding our
possible strategy.  What we really do is up to you, these are only
suggestions.  I'll talk about goals, actions to achieve those goals,
issues, scope, and organizational form.  Sorry about the length of all
this - read what you like, there won't be a pop quiz at the meeting.  I
am very interested in your ideas - if you can contact me before the
meeting with suggestions, that would be great, and might help make the
meeting more productive.  I believe that we are very close to being able
to take some productive action, without endless meetings and discussion.

GOALS and ACTION PLAN:

Firstgoal:  Prepare for next round of city elections.  By:

--Maintaining visibility of past candidates who may want to run again.
[This includes me:  I currently intend to run again if you want me to.  I
just might get an opportunity long before the current four year term is
over - Gary Schiff is considering running for County Board against Peter
McLaughlin next year.  If he does that and wins, there would be a special
election for the open City Council seat.  See the Mpls Observer online
"Ballot Box" for their speculation and some comments from me:
http://www.mplsobserver.com/ballot_box]

--Recruit, prepare, and support new candidates.
--Maintain and expand our databases and other information needed for
campaigns.
--Monitor actions and voting records of possible opponents.
--Build the credibility of candidates and the party through effective
action on issues that matter to people.
--Outreach to the broader community.  Maintain and expand the contacts we
made during our campaigns.
--Party building and fund-raising.

Secondgoal:  Advocate for progressive positions on city issues.  By:
--Discuss and prioritize those issues where we can make an important and
effective contribution.
--Monitor the agendas and actions of City Council, Park Board, School
Board, and other governmental bodies, so we can intervene and participate
in a timely and effective manner.
--Put pressure on City Council and others regarding the issues we care
about.  Encourage openness in government.  Support our allies, such as Cam
Gordon.
--Participate as individuals or as a group in existing organizations and
coalitions.
--Research important issues and spread that information widely.  Educate
ourselves and the community.
--Gather and distribute, for ourselves and the wider community, logistical
information to allow public input and participation.  For example, dates
and locations of government meetings, neighborhood meetings, and public
hearings.
--Educate ourselves and others on the processes, agencies, and funding
of city government.

[This is all very ambitious - we have to start with a few of these. But
almost right away, we can start by sharing the information we each have,
and alerting each other to things that are happening.]

POSSIBLE ISSUES TO WORK ON:
--Twins stadium deal (it is not dead!) and other corporate welfare.
--Police brutality, harassment, and racial profiling.  Also poor police
service and response times in poor communities.
--Homelessness and low-cost housing.
--Development issues and neighborhood plans.
--Transportation:  pedestrian, biking, bus, LRT, PRT, roads, parking.
--Support of small independent businesses.  Anti-Walmart, anti- big-box
campaigns.
--Racism, immigrants' rights
--Voting rights and methods, IRV
--Jobs, wages, unemployment, welfare
--Environment and energy, sustainability
--Education
--Parks, libraries and other public services
--YOUR issues!

[I'm probably missing some - we have to prioritize, based on importance,
and what you're interested in.]

GOVERNMENTAL BODIES TO WATCH:

[I'm thinking we should limit our scope to city issues.  That is where the
Green Party currently has the greatest strength and impact that we should
build upon.  We ran ten candidates in Mpls this year!  Seven got past the
primary, and two won and are holding office.]

--City Council and its committees
--Park Board
--Library Board
--School board
--Neighborhood organizations
--Other boards and authorities: Charter commission, Civil Rights
Commission, Civilian Review Authority, transportation advisory boards,
Midtown Greenway Coalition, etc.  We may be able to have some members on
some of these.
--County and State government, as they relate to city issues.

ORGANIZATIONAL FORM:

--Should we be a Green Party local?  OR just a group associated in some
way with the Green Party?  There are some clear advantages to being a
Green Party local - links to a State Party, organizational support,
fund-raising.  But I don't want to exclude our allies who are still linked
to the DFL, or who are otherwise not ready to consider themselves Green
Party members.  Would they work within a Green Party local?  Most of the
Green Party campaigns had active volunteers who generally consider
themselves more DFL than Green.

--Should it be city-wide, OR focused on just the 9th Ward?  I'm pretty
sure there has been enough interest expressed to form a viable 9th Ward
group.  But if there is substantial interest from others outside the 9th
Ward, a city group would be preferable.  If we are large enough, perhaps
people could meet and do most of their work on a local ward basis, with a
city-wide coordinating group.

--If there is enough interest, there should probably be smaller groups
working on particular issues.  The overall group could support those
interests - mobilize people for public hearings, write to council members,
etc.  Hopefully we could draw non-members and non-Greens into these issue
sub-groups.

--One immediate need is to set up a listserve.  That would seem to be the
best way to get information out about government meetings, public
hearings, etc.  Perhaps there could be two - one just for announcements
like that, and a different one for those who want to discuss issues.

Well, that's it for now.  If you've gotten this far, I hope you'll let me
know what you think, what are your ideas? See you Sunday night,

Dave Bicking 612-276-1213


--------9 of 17--------

From: Doug Petty <lsmaller [at] ties2.net>
Subject: Met Council 1.30 10am

State of the Region 2006

Whether we like it or not, St. Paul is part of a larger metropolitan
region. The legislature has given the Met Council management, governing,
or oversight authority for six essential infrastructure systems in the
metropolitan region.

Metropolitan Council Chair Peter Bell will present the annual State of the
Region 2006 on Monday, Jan. 30, 10-11:30 a.m. (doors open at 9:30)in the
Minnesota History Center's 3M Auditorium (345 Kellogg Blvd. W. in St.
Paul). More information can be found at
http://www.metrocouncil.org/news/2006/news_522.htm

"The challenges remain significant as the region prepares to site a light
rail line or busway in the Central Corridor, evaluate how existing water
supplies will meet growth needs and continue the work of ensuring the Twin
Cities remains one of the nation's most livable, most vital
metropolitan areas. - Peter Bell.

The Who's Who of the Metropolitan Region will be there.  Will you?


--------10 of 17--------

From: stpaulunions.org <llwright [at] stpaulunions.org>
Subject: Union/McCollum 1.30 11am

As President Prepares "State of the Union," McCollum Hears From Minnesota
Families About the Condition of Our Community and Our State

How are President Bush's Priorities Impacting the Security of Minnesota
Families?

Congresswoman Betty McCollum (MN-04) will hear from families, college
students, health professionals, workers and retirees and others about the
condition of our community and our state at 11am Monday, January 30th in
room 200 of the State Office Building.  On Tuesday evening, President Bush
will pitch his priorities and world view during the annual State of the
Union address.

"Next Tuesday, the president will use this State of the Union address to
make a sales pitch to the American people, but I believe the most
effective way to learn about the condition of our nation is to listen to
our families," said McCollum.  "How are the Bush administration's
priorities and policies impacting our family security here in Minnesota,
including the economy, education, health care, retirement security?  I
look forward to hearing directly from families and individuals from the
East Metro area."

Congresswoman Betty McCollum (MN-04), college students, health
professionals, workers, and retirees
Listening session about the state of the union
Monday, January 30, 11am-12noon
State Office Building - Room 200 - St. Paul MN


--------11 of 17--------

From: Ernest Jenkins <erjenkins [at] msn.com>
Subject: Salvador elections 1.30 2pm

MON JAN 30, 2pm

Presentation to International Election Observers for El Salvador March
2006 that will observe elections of local office holders, representatives
to the National Assembly and for elected representatives to The
Centroamérica Parliament at Minnesota Veterans for Peace, Chapter 27, St
Stephens Community Center, 2123 Clinton Avenue South, Minneapolis MN 55404
(612.821.9141) Wayne Wittman contact


--------12 of 17--------

From: Gabe Ormsby <gabeo [at] bitstream.net>
Subject: AI/Augustana 1.30 7pm

Amnesty International - Augustana Homes Seniors Group meets on Monday,
January 30, 7-8pm in the party room of the 1020 Building, 1020 E 17th
Street, Minneapolis. For more information contact Ardes Johnson at
612/378-1166 or johns779 [at] tc.umn.edu.


--------13 of 17--------

From: Stephen Feinstein <feins001 [at] umn.edu>
Subject: Nuremberg/TV 1.30 time?

Monday, Jan 30 and Tuesday Jan 31, 2006, TPT Channel 2, repeated on TPT
Channel 17 on Tuesday January 31 at 8PM.  AMERICAN EXPERIENCE: The
Nuremberg Trial.

"On November 20, 1945, the 22 surviving representatives of the Nazi elite
stood before an international military tribunal at the Palace of Justice
in Nuremberg, Germany. The ensuing trial pitted US Chief Prosecutor and
Supreme Court Judge Robert Jackson against Hermann Goering, the former
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime
Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man
in the Third Reich. For Jackon this trial would make the statement that
crimes against humanity would never again go unpunished."


--------14 of 17--------

Chocolate City?
By Tim Wise
January 28, 2006
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-01/27wise.cfm
ZNet Commentary

If you're looking to understand why discussions between blacks and whites
about racism are often so difficult in this country, you need only know
this: when the subject is race and racism, whites and blacks are often not
talking about the same thing. To white folks, racism is seen mostly as
individual and interpersonal - as with the uttering of a prejudicial
remark or bigoted slur. For blacks, it is that too, but typically more:
namely, it is the pattern and practice of policies and social
institutions, which have the effect of perpetuating deeply embedded
structural inequalities between people on the basis of race. To blacks,
and most folks of color, racism is systemic. To whites, it is purely
personal.

These differences in perception make sense, of course. After all, whites
have not been the targets of systemic racism in this country, so it is
much easier for us to view the matter in personal terms. If we have ever
been targeted for our race, it has been only on that individual, albeit
regrettable, level.

But for people of color, racism has long been experienced as an
institutional phenomenon. It is the experience of systematized
discrimination in housing, employment, schools or the justice system. It
is the knowledge that one's entire group is under suspicion, at risk of
being treated negatively because of stereotypes held by persons with the
power to act on the basis of those beliefs (and the incentive to do so, as
a way to retain their own disproportionate share of that power and
authority).

The differences in white and black perceptions of the issue were on full
display recently, when whites accused New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin of
racism for saying that New Orleans should be and would be a "chocolate
city" again, after blacks dislocated by Katrina had a chance to return. To
one commentator after the other - most of them white, but a few blacks as
well - the remark was by definition racist, since it seemed to imply that
whites weren't wanted, or at least not if it meant changing the
demographics of the city from mostly African American (which it was before
the storm) to mostly white, which it is now, pending the return of black
folks.

To prove how racist the comment was, critics offered an analogy. What
would we call it, they asked, if a white politician announced that their
town would or should be a "vanilla" city, meaning that it was going to
retain its white majority? Since we would most certainly call such a
remark racist in the case of the white pol, consistency requires that we
call Nagin's remark racist as well.

Seems logical enough, only it's not. And the reason it's not goes to the
very heart of what racism is and what it isn't - and the way in which the
different perceptions between whites and blacks on the matter continue to
thwart rational conversations on the subject.

Before dealing with the white politician/vanilla city analogy, let's
quickly examine a few simple reasons why Nagin's remarks fail the test of
racism. First, there is nothing to suggest that his comment about New
Orleans retaining its black majority portended a dislike of whites, let
alone plans to keep them out. In fact, if we simply examine Nagin's own
personal history - which has been obscured by many on the right since
Katrina who have tried to charge him with being a liberal black Democrat -
we would immediately recognize the absurdity of the charge. Nagin owes his
political career not to New Orleans' blacks, but New Orleans' white folks.
It was whites who voted for him, at a rate of nearly ninety percent, while
blacks only supported him at a rate of forty-two percent, preferring
instead the city's chief of police (which itself says something: black
folks in a city with a history of police brutality preferring the cop to
this guy).

Nagin has always been, in the eyes of most black New Orleanians, pretty
vanilla: he was a corporate vice-President, a supporter of President Bush,
and a lifelong Republican prior to changing parties right before the
Mayoral race.

Secondly, given the ways in which displaced blacks especially have been
struggling to return - getting the run-around with insurance payments, or
dealing with landlords seeking to evict them (or jacking up rents to a
point where they can't afford to return) - one can safely intuit that all
Nagin was doing was trying to reassure folks that they were wanted back
and wouldn't be prevented from re-entering the city.

And finally, Nagin's remarks were less about demography per se, than an
attempt to speak to the cultural heritage of the town, and the desire to
retain the African and Afro-Caribbean flavor of one of the world's most
celebrated cities. Fact is, culturally speaking, New Orleans is what New
Orleans is, because of the chocolate to which Nagin referred. True enough,
many others have contributed to the unique gumbo that is New Orleans, but
can anyone seriously doubt that the predominant flavor in that gumbo has
been that inspired by the city's black community? If so, then you've never
lived there or spent much time in the city (and no, pissing on the street
during Mardi Gras or drinking a badly-made Hurricane at Pat O'Brian's
doesn't count).

If the city loses its black cultural core (which is not out of the
question if the black majority doesn't or is unable to return), then
indeed New Orleans itself will cease to exist, as we know it. That is
surely what Nagin was saying, and it is simply impossible to think that
mentioning the black cultural core of the city and demanding that it will
and should be retained is racist: doing so fits no definition of racism
anywhere, in any dictionary, on the planet.

As for the analogy with a white leader demanding the retention of a
vanilla majority in his town, the two scenarios are not even remotely
similar, precisely because of how racism has operated, historically, and
today, to determine who lives where and who doesn't. For a white
politician to demand that his or her city was going to remain, in effect,
white, would be quite different, and far worse than what Nagin said. After
all, when cities, suburbs or towns are overwhelmingly white, there are
reasons (both historic and contemporary) having to do with discrimination
and unequal access for people of color. Restrictive covenants, redlining
by banks, racially-restrictive homesteading rights, and even policies
prohibiting people of color from living in an area altogether - four
things that whites have never experienced anywhere in this nation (as
whites) - were commonly deployed against black and brown folks throughout
our history. James Loewen's newest book, Sundown Towns, tells the story of
hundreds of these efforts in communities across the nation, and makes
clear that vanilla suburbs and towns have become so deliberately.

On the other hand, chocolate cities have not developed because whites have
been barred or even discouraged from entry (indeed, cities often bend over
backwards to encourage whites to move to the cities in the name of
economic revival), but rather, because whites long ago fled in order to
get away from black people. In fact, this white flight was directly
subsidized by the government, which spent billions of dollars on highway
construction (which helped whites get from work in the cities to homes in
the 'burbs) and low-cost loans, essentially available only to whites in
those newly developing residential spaces. The blackness of the cities
increased as a direct result of the institutionally racist policies of the
government, in concert with private sector discrimination, which kept
folks of color locked in crowded urban spaces, even as whites could come
and go as they pleased.

So for a politician to suggest that a previously brown city should remain
majority "chocolate" is merely to demand that those who had always been
willing to stay and make the town their home, should be able to remain
there and not be run off in the name of gentrification, commercial
development or urban renewal. It is to demand the eradication of barriers
for those blacks who otherwise might have a hard time returning, not to
call for the erection of barriers to whites - barriers that have never
existed in the first place, and which there would be no power to impose in
any event (quite unlike the barriers that have been set up to block access
for the black and brown).

In short, to call for a vanilla majority is to call for the perpetuation
of obstacles to persons of color, while to call for a chocolate majority
in a place such as New Orleans is to call merely for the continuation of
access and the opportunity for black folks to live there. Is that too much
to ask?

Funny how Nagin's comments simply calling for the retention of a chocolate
New Orleans bring down calls of racism upon his head, while the very real
and active planning of the city's white elite - people like Joe Cannizaro
and Jimmy Reiss - to actually change it to a majority white town, elicits
no attention or condemnation whatsoever from white folks. In other words,
talking about blacks being able to come back and make up the majority is
racist, while actually engaging in ethnic cleansing - by demolishing black
neighborhoods like the lower ninth ward, the Treme, or New Orleans East as
many want to do - is seen as legitimate economic development policy.

It's also interesting that whites chose the "chocolate city" part of
Nagin's speech, delivered on MLK day, as the portion deserving
condemnation as racist, rather than the next part - the part in which
Nagin said that Katrina was God's wrath, brought on by the sinful ways of
black folks, what with their crime rates, out-of-wedlock childbirths and
general wickedness.

In other words, if Nagin casts aspersions upon blacks as a group - truth
be told, the textbook definition of racism - whites have no problem with
that. Hell, most whites agree with those kinds of anti-black views,
according to polling and survey data. But if Nagin suggests that those
same blacks - including, presumably the "wicked" ones - be allowed to come
back and live in New Orleans, thereby maintaining a black majority, that
becomes the problem for whites, for reasons that are as self-evident as
they are (and will remain) undiscussed.

Until white folks get as upset about racism actually limiting the life
choices and chances of people of color, as we do about black folks hurting
our feelings, it's unlikely things will get much better. In the end, it's
hard to take seriously those who fume against this so-called reverse
racism, so petty is the complaint, and so thin the ivory skin of those who
issue it.

Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a
Privileged Son (Soft Skull, 2005) and Affirmative Action: Racial
Preference in Black and White (Routledge, 2005). He can be reached at
timjwise [at] msn.com


--------15 of 17--------

IN 2005 THE WHEELS CAME OFF THE U.S. CHEMICAL-REGULATION SYSTEM
By Peter Montague
rachel [at] rachel.org
Subject: Rachel's News #839: Failure of Chemical Regulation
Thursday, January 26, 2006
www.rachel.org

The wheels came off the U.S. chemical regulatory system in a very public
way in 2005. The Wall Street Journal published a 4-part series showing
that the system is scientifically bankrupt because it is based on
assumptions that are simply wrong.

Despite these revelations, bureaucratic inertia allowed the system to keep
on trucking, but I suppose that's to be expected. Acknowledging the harsh
truth would be too devastating, personally, for the well-intended,
hard-working civil servants who have devoted their lives to the
proposition that a chemical regulatory system like ours could somehow
protect human health and the environment from the industrial poisons that
are intentionally discharged in multi-billion-ton quantities year after
year into the air, water, and soil that make life possible.

Think of it - 1800 brand-new chemicals gushing into commercial channels
each year, without the responsible parties being required to provide any
detailed health or safety testing data. Armed with minimal (or no) health
and safety data, the government then has a scant few months in which to
prove that one or another of these 1800 new chemicals poses an
"unreasonable risk" to human health or the environment. If by some miracle
the government feels is can meet that scientific and legal burden and it
orders the responsible party to produce some safety-test results, the
responsible party can go to court to dispute the government's order. In
court, even a modest-sized corporation like Monsanto can field an army of
junkyard-dog lawyers to oppose the government; the government, for its
part, has been shredded and downsized by decades of tax cuts, so its legal
staff is a gaggle of relative pipsqueaks compared to any major chemical
corporation's.

Given such a system, what are the chances that industrial poisons will NOT
be released into the environment in harmful quantities? Zero. The system
was designed to fail from the get-go in 1965. What's amazing is that all
of us have been able to convince ourselves for 40 years that the U.S.
chemical requlatory system is basically sound - that if we all just keep
pretending it is working, somehow it will work.

"Oh, our emperor is a wearing a fine set of threads, isn't he? Yes, yes,
look at that golden raiment glinting in the sunlight.... [40-year
pause]... Oh my, isn't that his willy I'm seeing?"

Today, I doubt you could find a single federal scientist who actually
believes in his or her heart that the chemical regulatory system is
presently protecting the public adequately from unwanted assault by
industrial poisons. But of course they could never admit anything like
that in public - for one thing, they'd be fired or sent to Siberia (or
Kansas) almost immediately.

It may be years before the full extent of the system's essentially-total
failure is acknowledged in Washington - if ever - but to anyone who reads
the Wall Street Journal carefully, the U.S. chemical regulatory system now
looks like a 40-year-old jalopy, rusted out, gussied up every four years
with a fresh paint job of promises, its credibility sustained mainly by
the "Ooohs and aaahs" of the chemical corporation flaks who designed and
built the system 40 years ago and who are desperately hoping no one will
notice that their baby is a tangled heap of legal junk that has NEVER
protected workers, moms, or babies - not to mention the fish, birds,
beasts and vegetables that most of us eat, and the water we drink.

What's odd is that the truth leaked out in 2005 not through the nation's
"newspaper of record," the New York Times (which continues to oooh and
aaah that the system will be ready to roll any day now - all that's needed
is more research) but through the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). This leads me
to believe that the editors of the Journal must have seen clouds of
liability lawsuits on the horizon for their main readers, the corporate
elite, and they felt they simply had to raise a warning flag by revealing
a modicum of the truth.

The truth, it turns out, ain't pretty, when you get it in concentrated
bites - like four long stories by a powerful WSJ writer named Peter
Waldman.

In a series that began in July, the WSJ told its readers that, "For
years... something about modern living has driven a steady rise of certain
maladies, from breast and prostate cancer to autism and learning
disabilities."

In the very next paragraph the WSJ said "one suspect that is drawing
intense scrutiny" from scientists is "the prevalence in the environment of
certain industrial chemicals at extremely low levels - minute levels
previously thought to be biologically insignificant."

The third paragraph contains this bomb shell: "An especially striking
finding: It appears that some substances may have effects at the very
lowest exposures that are absent at higher levels."

Striking indeed. The WSJ goes on to explain that this "especially striking
finding" runs contrary to the basic premise of the science of toxicology
which was established 500 years ago by the Swiss physician (and alchemist
and astrologer) Paracelsus: "The dose makes the poison."

If the "dose makes the poison" then tiny doses should be assumed non-
poisonous, shouldn't they? The entire chemical regulation system is built
on that assumption (as is the science of toxicology) - but it now turns
out that this assumption doesn't necessarily hold true. A striking
finding, indeed. More like a Richter-8 earthquake. As the WSJ said, "the
new science of low-dose exposure is challenging centuries of accepted
wisdom about toxic substances and rattling the foundation of environmental
law" - because U.S. environmental laws are ALL based on the assumption
that tiny doses don't have any biological consequences.

To its great credit, the WSJ doesn't flinch and doesn't stop there. It
immediately asks the obvious question: "But what if it turned out that
common substances have essentially no safe exposure levels at all?" And it
immediately offers a hard-edged answer: "That was ultimately what the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency concluded about lead after studying its
effects on children for decades."

So there's no safe dose of lead for children, EPA acknowledges, yet U.S.
industry is allowed to continue to use about 260,000 metric tons of lead
each year all of which eventually enters the environment and gets into
air, soil, water, and the food chain. That fact alone sums up the
effectiveness of the U.S. regulatory system.

But it gets worse. The WSJ immediately points out that "...scientists have
found that with some chemicals, traces as minute as mere parts per
trillion have biological effects. That's one-millionth of the smallest
traces even measurable three decades ago, when many of today's
environmental laws were written." No wonder our laws have failed us - they
were based on false assumptions about the biological effects of low doses
of chemicals.

Having completely discredited the basis of the nation's environmental
protection laws, the WSJ goes on to lob another grenade into the crowd:
"Some chemical traces appear to have greater effects in combination than
singly, another challenge to traditional toxicology, which tests things
individually." Whatever remained of traditional toxicology has now been
blown to smithereens (more on this below).

Now the WSJ starts blasting away with some evidence to back up its frontal
assault on toxicology and the nation's failed structure of environmental
protection laws:

** "Tiny doses of bisphenol A, which is used in polycarbonate plastic baby
bottles and in resins that line food cans, have been found to alter brain
structure, neurochemistry, behavior, reproduction and immune response in
animals....

** "Minute levels of phthalates, which are used in toys, building
materials, drug capsules, cosmetics and perfumes, have been statistically
linked to sperm damage in men and genital changes, asthma and allergies in
children. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected
comparable levels in Americans' urine....

** "A chemical used in munitions, called perchlorate, is known to inhibit
production of thyroid hormone, which children need for brain development.
The chemical has been detected in drinking-water supplies in 35 states, as
well as in fruits, vegetables and breast milk....

** "The weed killer atrazine has been linked to sexual malformations in
frogs that were exposed to water containing just 1/30th as much atrazine
as the EPA regards as safe in human drinking water....

** "Since the review panel met in 2000, scientists have published more
than 100 peer-reviewed articles reporting further low-dose effects in
living animals and in human cells.

The WSJ then goes on to give examples of chemicals that cause biological
effects at low doses but no such effects at high doses - thus standing
Paracelsus and the science of toxicology on their heads. The mechanism
seems to be that some hormone-disrupting chemicals at low doses latch onto
the "hormone receptor sites" on cells and trigger unnatural biological
responses, such as brain and reproductive system abnormalities. At higher
doses the same chemical overwhelms the hormone-receptor system and the
whole system shuts down, producing no biological response at all.

The WSJ then gives an example of chemicals that, taken alone, produce no
biological response, but taken together add up to produce a response:
"Environmental chemicals don't exist in isolation. People are exposed to
many different ones in trace amounts. So scientists at the University of
London checked a mixture. They tested the hormonal strength of a blend of
11 common chemicals that can mimic estrogen [female sex hormone].

"Alone, each was very weak. But when scientists mixed low doses of all 11
in a solution with natural estrogen - thus simulating the chemical
cocktail that's inside the human body today - they found the hormonal
strength of natural estrogen was doubled. Such an effect inside the body
could disrupt hormonal action."

WSJ goes on to describe the response of U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA): "In 2000, a separate EPA-organized panel, after reviewing 49
studies, said some hormonally active chemicals affect animals at doses as
low as the 'background levels' to which the general human population is
subject. The panel said the health implications weren't clear but urged
the EPA to revisit its regulatory procedures to make sure such chemicals
are tested in animals at appropriately small doses.

"The EPA hesitated. It responded in 2002 that 'until there is an improved
scientific understanding of the low-dose hypothesis, EPA believes that it
would be premature to require routine testing of substances for low-dose
effects.'...

In other words, EPA's position is, "We don't even know enough to test for
these effects."

It must be obvious that as time has passed, our ignorance of chemicals has
grown, not diminished. We know that combinations of chemicals are
important. Each year, we add 1800 new chemicals into the mix and so we
know less and less about what's going on, year after year, because the
environment becomes ever so much more complicated. We are not making
scientific progress - we are losing ground in the struggle to understand
what we are doing to ourselves and to all the other creatures with whom we
share the planet.

To summarize:

** Chemicals at low doses sometimes cause biological effects that are not
present when the same chemicals are present in high doses.

Obvious implication: Almost all chemical-safety testing done during the
past 40 years has been with high doses, on the erroneous assumption that
"the dose makes the poison." Therefore - as a panel of experts told the
EPA - testing needs to be done with low doses as well as high doses. But
EPA says we don't even know enough to begin testing. In other words, much
of the chemical testing completed during the past 40 years needs to be
re-done but the government hasn't a clue about how to begin.

** Chemicals at levels that are biologically insignificant can combine
with other chemicals at levels that are biologically insignificant - and,
in so doing, can create biologically-significant combinations.

Obvious implication: Chemicals need to be tested in combinations, not
merely one at a time. But there aren't enough laboratories on earth to
test all the possibly-relevant combinations. There are 80,000 chemicals in
current commercial use. Suppose we wanted to test only 1000 of them, and
we wanted to test all possible combinations of 11 chemicals out of the
1000, How many test would be required?

The answer is 23,706,860,441,577,319,154,916,000 experiments.[1] That's 23
million million million million safety tests. According to WSJ, EPA is
hoping to develop new techniques that would allow them to do 15,000 safety
tests in a year - and at that rate they could test all 11-chemical
combinations of 1000 chemicals in only 1,580,457,400,000,000,000,000,000
years (1.5 million million million million years).

OK, this is ridiculous. But suppose EPA wanted to test something more
realistic, like all 3-chemical combinations of only 1000 chemicals. It's
still impossible - it would require testing 166 million combinations and,
at 15,000 tests per year, it would take 11,000 years to complete. So we're
never going to be able to test chemicals in combinations in any thorough
way - even though the scientific literature is full of statements saying
"We need to test chemicals in combination and we're working on it." Such
statements are just eye wash, perhaps intended to keep us believing that
the current chemical regulatory system can work if we just keep pretending
that it can.

[To be continued]

[1] The formula for combinations like these is n!/(r!*(n-r)!) where n is
the total number of chemicals, r is the number of chemicals in each
subcollection and n! means "n factorial" -- see any basic introduction to
statistics or probability.

[The rich need third yachts and fourth mansions. If they have to poison
us to do so, who are we to step on their dreams? Pledge now to give your
life and those of your family and descendents to them. -ed]

--------16 of 17--------

STUDY: HALF BREAST CANCERS TIED TO ENVIRONMENT
By Douglas Fischer
Oakland (Calif.) Tribune, Jan. 24, 2006

Analysis of 350 studies finds half of cases are unrelated to genetic
risk or lifestyle choices

As many as half of all new breast cancers may be foisted upon women by
pollutants in the environment, triggered by such items as bisphenol-A
lining tin cans or radiation from early mammograms, according to a review
of recent science by two breast cancer groups.

Their report, "State of the Evidence," released Tuesday [Jan. 24],
buttresses what many researchers increasingly suspect: that repeated low
doses - particularly in early childhood - to chemicals normally
considered harmless can have a profound effect.

It also suggests that, for half of the 211,240 woman diagnosed with breast
cancer in 2005, lifestyle choices and genetics played no role.

"You just can't blame it on lifestyle factors, like when you have
children, or if you have children," said Nancy Evans, health science
consultant for the Breast Cancer Fund and the report's principle author.

"Half the cases are not explained by genetics or the so-called 'known risk
factors." There's something else going on."

The report, by the San Francisco-based groups Breast Cancer Fund and
Breast Cancer Action, analyzed the findings of more than 350 experimental,
epidemiologic and ecological studies assessing breast cancer.

Breast cancer rates have climbed steadily in the United States and other
industrialized countries since the 1940s. In the U.S., for instance, one
in seven women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime,
almost triple the rate in the 1960s.

Researchers believe less than one in 10 cases occur in women born with a
genetic predisposition for the disease. Instead, the report says, recent
science makes very clear the cancer arises from a multitude of factors,
from slight genetic mutations to altered hormone production to even
radiation.

For instance, the report cited a study from Tufts University that found
that exposing pregnant mice to extremely low levels of bisphenol-A altered
the development of the mammary gland in their offspring at puberty.

And that alteration makes the gland more susceptible to breast cancer,
Evans said.

Bisphenol-A, originally developed as a synthetic hormone in the 1930s,
today is used as an additive to make plastic shatterproof and to extend
the shelf-life of canned goods. Nearly 6 billion pounds are produced
annually.

Industry has long maintained there is no evidence repeated low doses of
compounds such as bisphenol-A can have such deleterious effects. A
legislative effort to ban some of these chemicals from children's toys
failed last week after industry scientists argued there was no cause for
concern.

"A lot of work has been done on those issues," said Lorenz Romberg, a
former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientist who now works as a
consultant and testified before the Legislature on behalf of the chemical
industry last month. "When you look at this body of evidence in total, we
didn't find any evidence that there is a marked, repeatable-across-
laboratories effect that has any clear scientific standing."

But the report, Evans said, makes clear there is no one culprit for rising
breast cancer rates. What happens, for instance, when bisphenol-A or any
several estrogen-like synthetic compounds on the market gets combined with
the harm from a few low-dose X-rays?

No one knows, but new research from the National Academy of Sciences
suggests there is no safe radiation dose: The lowest possible dose still
increases cancer risk. Yet the American Cancer Society still recommends
women over age 40 have a mammogram, despite evidence such procedures are
not effective until women are 50 years old.

"We have to have a replacement for mammography. It's so aggressively
promoted, especially for young women," Evans said.

But does the chance of early detection outweigh the risks?

"I'm not saying they should or shouldn't," Evans said. "They need to be
aware of the risk. An additional 10 years of radiation is not
insignificant."

The report, "State of the Evidence," Contact Douglas Fischer at
dfischer [at] angnewspapers.com.

Copyright © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers


--------17 of 17--------

 me me me me me
 me me me me me me me
 me me me me me

     --ruling class bedtime haiku prayer


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments