by Roxanne -

Healthy Food is a Luxury for the Rich

Photo R. Meshar

This article from U.S. News and World Report and this article in Yahoo News both detail new research that shows eating a healthy or nutritious diet is a luxury the poor can’t afford. But access to healthy food is a HUMAN RIGHT.

Keep in mind we subsidize poor eating options (or bad-for-you food) by subsidizing (meaning we give U.S. tax dollars to) corn mega-farmers. This means we are, therefore, subsidizing all businesses that use corn or corn related products such as corn oil, flavorings, flours, syrups and corn animal feeds.

In effect we subsidize soda pops, chicken, beef, corn oil, a myriad of processed food ingredients, restaurants that serve chicken, beef, soda and companies that make foods like corn chips and cereal (can your say Coca Cola, Kraft, McDonald’s and General Foods?). Big business tries to use corn ingredients because corn-based ingredients are cheaper for them to buy.

Dairy farms that feed corn to cows are also subsidized, meaning cheeses, milk, yogurt, eggs and other dairy products are cheaper due to our tax subsidies.

But we could subsidize healthy food. Why don’t we demand subsidies for fruits and vegetables instead?

Similarly, OUR subsidies put farmers in other countries – those whose governments don’t subsidize their produce – out of business. Think about farmers in Mexico and Central America who come north looking for work after our subsidy policies have put them out of business.

When I was in Juarez, Mexico – I actually saw stacks of produce crates at the market stamped “U.S.A.” They were being sold for prices cheaper than Mexican farmers could grow it. We put them out of business in a predatory way. This is what is meant by “economic terrorism.”

People migrate north then – because they can’t feed themselves using their own agricultural products – thanks to us.

In 2006, I spoke with a young couple getting preparing to cross the border. They had a 2-year old child. I asked, “Why would you take a small child on such a dangerous trip?” He said simply, “If we stay here we starve.”

While we have a right to protect our borders, all rights are NOT created equal. Every person has an even higher right, which is to protect his or her own life.

The next time you open your refrigerator and assume food will be inside — realize that this is not true for most of the world’s population. You are rich by their standards. And remember that access to healthy food, like clean water and clean air, is a human right.

You may also like “Fresh – The Movie,” Are We So Different? and What Can You and I Do?

 

by Roxanne -

“It Takes a Pillage” – Bulldozed Homes

Here’s a Yahoo article from Time by Stephen Gandel, “Bulldoze: The New Way to Foreclose”. Gandel states near the article’s end;

Certainly, the idea that we are at the point where banks would be better off knocking down houses that reselling them shows there is still something very wrong with the housing market. But what is clear is that banks and others are at the point where they are ready to try something new to boost the housing market. And that is a good sign for the future.

Really? Wow. Bulldozing will “boost the housing market” or “is a good sign for the future”? Talk about clueless . . . then again, who owns the media?

Let’s review:

Push dubious sub-prime loans on consumers, collect fees/points from consumers, illegally fail to pay fees to county title recorders via MERS, illegally break up and resell the same bad loan to numerous investors, hedge these same loans to collect BIG profits because the loans were set up to fail, collect interest, payments & foreclosure fees from the homeowners, collect bailout $$ from U.S. citizens, resist any loan modifications, then bulldoze these homes.

Can you say “loot and pillage”?

Seriously, how is stealing life savings, evicting millions of families from their homes and bulldozing them any different from the pillaging done when one country is invaded or conquered by another?

And all of this is being done with the sanction of a government you and I elect and pay, in order to represent OUR interests.

Ask yourself, “For whose future is this a good sign?” Who benefits?

At last check, within hours of appearing on Yahoo News, this article garnered 6,531 comments – overwhelmingly negative. Most along the lines of “Bulldoze the banks!” Maybe people are beginning to wake up.

You may also like Home Prices Free Fall, Financial and Economic Crisis an Accident? Think Again, and Greek’s Resist Public Bank Bailout.

 

by Roxanne -

Why the Fake Budget Crisis?

Here’s an excerpt from an article by Shamus Cooke that offers his explanation – and a credible one – of why politicians are manufacturing the budget crisis. In my opinion, it certainly isn’t concern about spending a few hundred billion, considering these same politicians handed over trillions of dollars to big investment banks and, even now, can’t account for where that money went.

So why the big debate over raising the debt ceiling for a few hundred billion that would benefit millions of Americans? Cooke’s main reasoning is quoted below. Read the full article “Trillion Dollar Hair Splitting: The Fake Budget Debate in Washington D.C.” at GlobalResearch.ca.

Better yet he goes on to explain why resistance to big cuts at the local level is so important to stopping them. Read on.

“As the President wages a “battle” over secondary budget issues, such as how best to make $4 trillion in cuts, the main issues are already agreed upon. Economist Richard Reich helps explain:

“…the Democratic leadership in Congress refuse to refute the Republicans’ big lie — that spending cuts will lead to more jobs. In fact, spending cuts now will lead to fewer jobs. They’ll slow down an already-anemic recovery. That will cause immense and unnecessary suffering for millions of Americans”

“The president continues to legitimize the Republican claim that too much government spending caused the economy to tank, and that by cutting back spending we’ll get the economy going again.” (April 10, 2011).

This two-party big lie is not an accident, but an expression of a deeper held belief: that the U.S. government must be directed to meet the needs of the super wealthy who own U.S. corporations. Holding this belief requires that you gut social programs (since corporations hate paying taxes) and privatize everything publicly owned (so corporations can own them for profit).

As long as both Democrats and Republicans agree to these deeper beliefs, the country will shift continually to the right, with social programs and living standards evaporating. However, the stronger that labor and community groups unite and fight to save these social programs, the harder will it be to cut them; out of such a struggle will emerge practical solutions to solving the deficit problems of the country, such as dramatically increasing the taxes on the rich and corporations so that jobs can be created and social programs saved.”

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).

You may also like Prisons For Profit, Life of Water; Water of Life.

 

 

by Roxanne -

How Much is Enough?

Photo SpilledMilkCatering.com

Two thirds of the world lives on less than $2 a day. Our own U.S. and European trade policies and lifestyles contribute to this situation rather than help alleviate it. Net: We make this situation worse, not better. My own lifestyle makes this situation worse not better (watch Story of Stuff or read about the example of the Mathare Valley in Dispossessed to see why this is true).

That my own everyday lifestyle contributes to someone else’s daily hunger is painful for me to think about. Once I know this I am morally culpable if I choose to do nothing. This means I have to ask myself, “How much is enough?” and “How much is too much?”

Underpinning these questions is the understanding that my “right to own” or “my ability to purchase” doesn’t trump all other rights. Our society already recognizes this. We allow for eminent domain for example. This means private property can be taken when necessary for public use or the common good. In the case of hunger, my right to own/purchase is superseded by others’ rights to eat and to live.

So what does this mean in terms of my own life choices? For me, it means that I only steward the resources in my care. I don’t take them with me when I die. They have landed in my care only because of our inability to distribute equitably through our existing economic system. Further, it means that my excess resources must be used to help others lift themselves out of poverty. Finally it means that I should strive to use the least amount of resources that I possibly can until everyone has their basic needs met.

This is difficult. For example, it’s hard to look at my life and know that just in air travel I am using more fuel per person in one trip than in a lifetime of driving. It’s painful to see how much water I waste every day – even when I try to remember to use less.

But still, I feel that I should keep trying and keep learning. I can’t pretend any longer that I don’t know how most of the world lives. I have been to Juarez, Mx. I have seen hunger in south Minneapolis and even in Eagan. I can’t insulate myself from their suffering any longer. We are all connected. They are a part of me. What I do and how I live matters to their well being and their well being is critical to my own. I want to live in a world without war, without terrorism, without pollution, without fear, stealing and corruption caused by lack of basic necessities and human care. My own choices matter.

So I continue seeking new ways to pare back, use less and free up resources that rightly belong to others. I continue to ask what is my “excess”? My own moral sense requires it. It’s about becoming the person I wish to be and being at peace with my own integrity.

Many of the postings on this blog witness my struggle with this question. It is my motivation for not buying clothing for a year and donating that money instead. Posts that demonstrate redecorating through recycling and reuse are another example of freeing up resources and limiting what I consume. Similarly my interest in purchasing local, fair trade and eco-friendly products whenever possible.

I must ask myself, “Does my desire for a new car (or new XXX) trump someone else’s right to eat?” More and more the answer for myself is “No”. I used to think that my purchasing a new car supported others’ salaries in that industry. But now I think that I should be supporting industries that use those same skills in a way that directly works to solve the problem of poverty (see my post on the Non-Profit Economy).

Many others are asking these questions too. How much is enough? How much is too much? Even though we will each respond in our own way and with different answers, it is important we struggle with the question.

In the end, our personal spirituality is intimately woven into our lifestyle choices and our involvement for change in our communities. This logically means that morally a spirituality that doesn’t motivate us toward working to end hunger and suffering is a spirituality not worth anything at all.

There is a book entitled How Much Is Enough? by Arthur Simon that also struggles with this question and a new book Enough: why the World’s Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty by Roger Thurow and Scott Kilman that updates what we know about hunger today. Go deeper. Learn more.

You may also like Budget Policy Choices, On Osama bin Laden’s Death, Non-Profit Economy and The Secret of Wealth From Ancient Babylon.

by Roxanne -

Why We Should Listen

Two thirds of the world’s population live on $2 per day or less. The world’s poor are mainly women and children. Capitalism alone can’t solve global poverty. This is because capitalism can’t provide equal access to resources and markets.

So what can we do? We can listen and learn from local people with local wisdom. Like Mary’s Pence ESPERA Funds, Jacqueline Novogratz – a previous financial executive – has a better idea about what we can do. Listen to her here on TED Talks.

She has a number of TED talks dating from 2006. Most are 10 minutes or less and worth listening to.

“Why you should listen to her:

One of the most innovative players shaping philanthropy today, Jacqueline Novogratz is redefining the way problems of poverty can be solved around the world. Drawing on her past experience in banking, microfinance and traditional philanthropy, Novogratz has become a leading proponent for financing entrepreneurs and enterprises that can bring affordable clean water, housing and healthcare to poor people so that they no longer have to depend on the disappointing results and lack of accountability seen in traditional charity and old-fashioned aid.

The Acumen Fund, which she founded in 2001, has an ambitious plan: to create a blueprint for alleviating poverty using market-oriented approaches. Indeed, Acumen has more in common with a venture capital fund than a typical nonprofit. Rather than handing out grants, Acumen invests in fledgling companies and organizations that bring critical — often life-altering — products and services to the world’s poor. Like VCs, Acumen offers not just money, but also infrastructure and management expertise. From drip-irrigation systems in India to malaria-preventing bed nets in Tanzania to a low-cost mortgage program in Pakistan, Acumen’s portfolio offers important case studies for entrepreneurial efforts aimed at the vastly underserved market of those making less than $4/day.

It’s a fascinating model that’s shaken up philanthropy and investment communities alike. Acumen Fund manages more than $20 million in investments aimed at serving the poor. And most of their projects deliver stunning, inspiring results. Their success can be traced back to Novogratz herself, who possesses that rarest combination of business savvy and cultural sensitivity. In addition to seeking out sound business models, she places great importance on identifying solutions from within communities rather than imposing them from the outside. ‘People don’t want handouts,’ Novogratz said at TEDGlobal 2005. ‘They want to make their own decisions, to solve their own problems.’

In her book, The Blue Sweater, she tells stories from the new philanthropy, which emphasizes sustainable bottom-up solutions over traditional top-down aid.” – TED Talks.

You may also like Does Everyone Have a Voice? and What Can You and I Do?