The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner | January 26, 2009 05:10 PM
On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, requiring him to testify regarding his role in the Bush Administration's politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The subpoena calls for Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009.
Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. That "absolute immunity" position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates. President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as "completely misguided."
"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way," said Rep. Conyers. Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added, "Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk."
The AP write-up:
The House Judiciary Committee chairman subpoenaed former White House adviser Karl Rove on Monday to testify about the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and prosecution of a former Democratic governor.
The subpoena by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., continues a long-running legal battle with ex-President George W. Bush's former White House political director. Rove previously refused to appear before the panel, contending that former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.
The subpoena commanded Rove to appear for a deposition on Feb. 2 on the firings of U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Conyers also demanded testimony on whether politics played a role in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
Bush upheld Rove's legal position, but Conyers said times have changed.
Story continues below
"That 'absolute immunity' position ... has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as 'completely misguided,'" Conyers said in a statement.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment.
"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way," Conyers said.
The change in administrations may affect the legal arguments available to Rove, Conyers said.
"Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk," Conyers said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/conyers-subpoenas-karl-ro_n_161044.html
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Turley: Obama 'Accessory' To War Crimes If No Prosecution
By David Edwards and Ron Brynaert
January 27, 2009 "Raw Story" -- - A few weeks ago, George Washington University Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley, while appearing on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, essentially said that the Obama administration would "own" any war crimes -- such as the reported waterboarding of 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- if it chose to look the other way. On Monday's show Turley went a little further and suggested that if Obama impedes investigations or prosecution that he wouldn't just be an "apologist," but also an "accessory."
Olbermann started the segment by reading a statement released by the Obama administration in response to last week's allegations from a former NSA analyst that President Bush's national security agency targeted news organizations for surveillance and even pried into personal records like finance and travel."
The response stated, "As the president made clear [last week] his administration is ensuring that all programs are conducted in accordance with our values and the rule of law. There will be no exceptions."
Olbermann noted that that was similar to claims made by Bush the last few years, insisting that "all programs were conducted consistent with our values and rule of law," even though most experts have pointed out that methods such as waterboarding are considered torture, inhumane and against the law.
"How much daylight might there be between that and any of the analogs from the Bush White House?" Olbermann asked Turley, who immediately responded, "Not much."
Turley pointed out that the Obama administration response was written "in the future tense. You weren't asking whether he would do these things. Nobody thinks that Obama is George Bush. I think we believe that he's better than these past programs. But people are not asking about the future. We are asking about the past."
"It takes a lot to avoid a very simple truism," Turley argued. "That, if true, these would be crimes and we prosecute crimes. We call people criminals who commit them. It is very easy to say. All you need is the principals and the courage to say it."
Turley said that he had "very little sympathy for the people that committed this torture. I've heard President Obama say we don't want talented people at the CIA looking over their shoulders. Well those talented people in this circumstance would be torturers."
"But in reality nobody thinks that they're going to be prosecuted," Turley continued. "They have something called the estoppel defense where they can say that they were told by people like John Yoo and others that what they did was legal. That does not protect the president and the vice president, and they're the ones and the people just below them who deserve to be investigated and they must be prosecuted if they've committed war crimes or we will shred four treaties and at least four statutes."
[Turley has more background about the estoppel arguments at his blog.]
"And the problem here is it wouldn't make Obama an apologist it would make him an accessory," Turley argued. "He would be preventing the investigation of war crimes. How could he go from that and say that he's all about the rule of law?"
Referring to the fresh Rove subpoena, Turley said that "we could have an interesting fight where George Bush comes in and says 'I'm still claiming executive privilege' when the current president is saying we don't recognize it. Indeed. Obama's people could prosecute Rove and others and I think that the federal courts would give much greater rate to the man currently in the Oval Office than the man who just left it."
Olbermann agreed that "the current executive is the one who gets to decide what executive privilege is."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21857.htm
January 27, 2009 "Raw Story" -- - A few weeks ago, George Washington University Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley, while appearing on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, essentially said that the Obama administration would "own" any war crimes -- such as the reported waterboarding of 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- if it chose to look the other way. On Monday's show Turley went a little further and suggested that if Obama impedes investigations or prosecution that he wouldn't just be an "apologist," but also an "accessory."
Olbermann started the segment by reading a statement released by the Obama administration in response to last week's allegations from a former NSA analyst that President Bush's national security agency targeted news organizations for surveillance and even pried into personal records like finance and travel."
The response stated, "As the president made clear [last week] his administration is ensuring that all programs are conducted in accordance with our values and the rule of law. There will be no exceptions."
Olbermann noted that that was similar to claims made by Bush the last few years, insisting that "all programs were conducted consistent with our values and rule of law," even though most experts have pointed out that methods such as waterboarding are considered torture, inhumane and against the law.
"How much daylight might there be between that and any of the analogs from the Bush White House?" Olbermann asked Turley, who immediately responded, "Not much."
Turley pointed out that the Obama administration response was written "in the future tense. You weren't asking whether he would do these things. Nobody thinks that Obama is George Bush. I think we believe that he's better than these past programs. But people are not asking about the future. We are asking about the past."
"It takes a lot to avoid a very simple truism," Turley argued. "That, if true, these would be crimes and we prosecute crimes. We call people criminals who commit them. It is very easy to say. All you need is the principals and the courage to say it."
Turley said that he had "very little sympathy for the people that committed this torture. I've heard President Obama say we don't want talented people at the CIA looking over their shoulders. Well those talented people in this circumstance would be torturers."
"But in reality nobody thinks that they're going to be prosecuted," Turley continued. "They have something called the estoppel defense where they can say that they were told by people like John Yoo and others that what they did was legal. That does not protect the president and the vice president, and they're the ones and the people just below them who deserve to be investigated and they must be prosecuted if they've committed war crimes or we will shred four treaties and at least four statutes."
[Turley has more background about the estoppel arguments at his blog.]
"And the problem here is it wouldn't make Obama an apologist it would make him an accessory," Turley argued. "He would be preventing the investigation of war crimes. How could he go from that and say that he's all about the rule of law?"
Referring to the fresh Rove subpoena, Turley said that "we could have an interesting fight where George Bush comes in and says 'I'm still claiming executive privilege' when the current president is saying we don't recognize it. Indeed. Obama's people could prosecute Rove and others and I think that the federal courts would give much greater rate to the man currently in the Oval Office than the man who just left it."
Olbermann agreed that "the current executive is the one who gets to decide what executive privilege is."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21857.htm
Jimmy Carter's Wise Counsel
By Ivan Eland
January 21, 2009
Editor’s Note: The Washington Establishment is divided among those who want President Barack Obama to pursue the “realist” foreign policy of George H.W. Bush, those who favor the neo-liberal policies of Bill Clinton and those who still want George W. Bush’s neocon approach (albeit a bit toned-down).
However, in this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland says Obama would be well advised to seek advice from another former President, Jimmy Carter:
At the request of President-elect Barack Obama, President George W. Bush convened an awkward meeting of all living former presidents at the White House to meet, and presumably give advice and encouragement to, the new guy.
The body language of the participants in the summit photo, taken in the Oval Office, said it all.
The President-elect was amiably chatting with George H.W. Bush, the current President’s father. Could it be that Obama was complimenting the elder Bush on his “realist” foreign policy — of which Obama claims to be a fan?
Right next to these two political lovebirds were another harmonious duo. Also visibly enjoying each other’s company were the modern-day champions of U.S. military interventionism on the left and right — Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Clinton was a Wilsonian liberal who was the titleholder in terms of numbers of military adventures, most of them for ostensibly “humanitarian” reasons. He intervened militarily or threatened to use force in Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and North Korea.
The younger Bush, a neoconservative (a right-wing Wilsonian), was the champion in terms of deeply enmeshing the United States in two unnecessary nation-building quagmires simultaneously — Iraq and Afghanistan.
Standing apart from the others in the summit photo — and looking mighty uncomfortable — was Jimmy Carter. Could it be that the interventionism, actual or professed, of all the others made him a little squeamish?
While not perfect, Carter — in keeping with the original vision of the nation’s Founders — exhibited more restraint militarily than the rest. Although he began giving aid to the Afghan mujahadeen, his objective was to annoy the Soviets and give them another Vietnam.
(Ronald Reagan, Carter’s successor, later opened the floodgates to massive aid, tried to win the war, and thus much more significantly enabled a future threat to the United States.)
Carter’s only overt military foray, which ended in failure because of the incompetence of the U.S. military, was the attempted rescue of U.S. hostages at the U.S. embassy in Iran.
Even this mission exhibited restraint; when the hostage-takers stormed the U.S. embassy, under international law this action was the same as attacking American soil.
Although Carter could have conducted a retaliatory military assault against Iran, he correctly surmised that the diplomatic hostages would have been killed.
Although the rescue mission failed, the hostages were eventually freed without the Carter administration having made any concessions to their captors (unlike the macho Ronald Reagan’s astonishing sale of heavy weapons to this same radical Iranian regime, which was a state sponsor of terrorism, to ransom U.S. hostages in Lebanon).
Carter is the most underrated modern president — in fact, he usually gets bad reviews. Yet people have trouble remembering many specifics about why he was so awful.
You cannot have prosperity and liberty if you are always at war. Whereas other recent presidents have seemed oblivious to this fact, the Vietnam experience seems to have made Carter realize it.
Carter consciously used military power reluctantly and only as a last resort. The Founders would have been pleased. He also gave the Canal Zone — a U.S. colonial chunk of Panama — back to its rightful owners.
On the domestic front, Carter did make some mistakes, but he also inherited stagflation caused by the Vietnam War and past presidents’ poor economic policies.
At first, he made it worse but then nominated Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volcker restricted the money supply and drove inflation out of the economy; and this tight-fistedness contributed greatly to the prosperity of the Reagan and Clinton years. (Regrettably, it was disastrously abandoned in the George W. Bush era.)
In addition, Carter was able to reduce government spending as a portion of GDP and increase economic efficiency by deregulating the transportation, communication, energy, and financial services industries.
In short, maybe Carter stood apart in the summit photo because he stood above the rest of the men in performance while in office.
Obama seems headed toward pursuing the socialist policies of George W. Bush at home and the realist policies of George H.W. Bush abroad.
Although realist policies are better than the Wilsonian interventionist policies of Clinton and George W. Bush, Obama looks like he will pursue a maximalist, rather than a minimalist, version of that school’s policies.
He is already doubling down in the Afghan quagmire and is making noises about doing more militarily in Darfur.
But Obama seems open to outside advice. Instead of just sending Jimmy Carter on peace and humanitarian missions overseas, Obama should invite Carter to a one-on-one session in the Oval Office and learn from the modern master at practicing the Founders’ preferred policy of military restraint.
Obama might also learn that domestic benefits might accrue from eliminating U.S. overextension abroad — for example, improvement in the nation’s finances and economy.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
http://consortiumnews.com/2009/012109a.html
January 21, 2009
Editor’s Note: The Washington Establishment is divided among those who want President Barack Obama to pursue the “realist” foreign policy of George H.W. Bush, those who favor the neo-liberal policies of Bill Clinton and those who still want George W. Bush’s neocon approach (albeit a bit toned-down).
However, in this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland says Obama would be well advised to seek advice from another former President, Jimmy Carter:
At the request of President-elect Barack Obama, President George W. Bush convened an awkward meeting of all living former presidents at the White House to meet, and presumably give advice and encouragement to, the new guy.
The body language of the participants in the summit photo, taken in the Oval Office, said it all.
The President-elect was amiably chatting with George H.W. Bush, the current President’s father. Could it be that Obama was complimenting the elder Bush on his “realist” foreign policy — of which Obama claims to be a fan?
Right next to these two political lovebirds were another harmonious duo. Also visibly enjoying each other’s company were the modern-day champions of U.S. military interventionism on the left and right — Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Clinton was a Wilsonian liberal who was the titleholder in terms of numbers of military adventures, most of them for ostensibly “humanitarian” reasons. He intervened militarily or threatened to use force in Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and North Korea.
The younger Bush, a neoconservative (a right-wing Wilsonian), was the champion in terms of deeply enmeshing the United States in two unnecessary nation-building quagmires simultaneously — Iraq and Afghanistan.
Standing apart from the others in the summit photo — and looking mighty uncomfortable — was Jimmy Carter. Could it be that the interventionism, actual or professed, of all the others made him a little squeamish?
While not perfect, Carter — in keeping with the original vision of the nation’s Founders — exhibited more restraint militarily than the rest. Although he began giving aid to the Afghan mujahadeen, his objective was to annoy the Soviets and give them another Vietnam.
(Ronald Reagan, Carter’s successor, later opened the floodgates to massive aid, tried to win the war, and thus much more significantly enabled a future threat to the United States.)
Carter’s only overt military foray, which ended in failure because of the incompetence of the U.S. military, was the attempted rescue of U.S. hostages at the U.S. embassy in Iran.
Even this mission exhibited restraint; when the hostage-takers stormed the U.S. embassy, under international law this action was the same as attacking American soil.
Although Carter could have conducted a retaliatory military assault against Iran, he correctly surmised that the diplomatic hostages would have been killed.
Although the rescue mission failed, the hostages were eventually freed without the Carter administration having made any concessions to their captors (unlike the macho Ronald Reagan’s astonishing sale of heavy weapons to this same radical Iranian regime, which was a state sponsor of terrorism, to ransom U.S. hostages in Lebanon).
Carter is the most underrated modern president — in fact, he usually gets bad reviews. Yet people have trouble remembering many specifics about why he was so awful.
You cannot have prosperity and liberty if you are always at war. Whereas other recent presidents have seemed oblivious to this fact, the Vietnam experience seems to have made Carter realize it.
Carter consciously used military power reluctantly and only as a last resort. The Founders would have been pleased. He also gave the Canal Zone — a U.S. colonial chunk of Panama — back to its rightful owners.
On the domestic front, Carter did make some mistakes, but he also inherited stagflation caused by the Vietnam War and past presidents’ poor economic policies.
At first, he made it worse but then nominated Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volcker restricted the money supply and drove inflation out of the economy; and this tight-fistedness contributed greatly to the prosperity of the Reagan and Clinton years. (Regrettably, it was disastrously abandoned in the George W. Bush era.)
In addition, Carter was able to reduce government spending as a portion of GDP and increase economic efficiency by deregulating the transportation, communication, energy, and financial services industries.
In short, maybe Carter stood apart in the summit photo because he stood above the rest of the men in performance while in office.
Obama seems headed toward pursuing the socialist policies of George W. Bush at home and the realist policies of George H.W. Bush abroad.
Although realist policies are better than the Wilsonian interventionist policies of Clinton and George W. Bush, Obama looks like he will pursue a maximalist, rather than a minimalist, version of that school’s policies.
He is already doubling down in the Afghan quagmire and is making noises about doing more militarily in Darfur.
But Obama seems open to outside advice. Instead of just sending Jimmy Carter on peace and humanitarian missions overseas, Obama should invite Carter to a one-on-one session in the Oval Office and learn from the modern master at practicing the Founders’ preferred policy of military restraint.
Obama might also learn that domestic benefits might accrue from eliminating U.S. overextension abroad — for example, improvement in the nation’s finances and economy.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
http://consortiumnews.com/2009/012109a.html
Move to End "Internet Neutrality": Blow to Bloggers. "Ten Pin Strike against Political Freedom"
By Sherwood Ross
Global Research, January 26, 2009
If the cable and phone companies that transmit Internet data are allowed to charge higher rates to some producers for faster service the result will be “a ten pin strike against political freedom,” a prominent legal authority warns.
That’s because the change will enable the wealthy to “quickly take over the high speed transmissions (for their trash commercial content) just as they completely monopolize radio and TV, and just as their incredibly greedy profit-seeking has had a very deleterious effect on print journalism,” writes Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
Velvel’s plea for “internet neutrality” comes in his new book “An Enemy of The People,” subtitled “The Unending Battle Against Conventional Wisdom(Doukathsan).” Essentially, he writes, the proposed change is an “attempt by the wealthy to make the internet into yet another repository of their power…”
Under the new scheme sought by transmission firms, Velvel writes, “large companies would pay more, no doubt a lot more, in order to have their messages, videos, audios, and any other content transmitted rapidly. The rest of us peasants, who could not afford to have our content move fast, would pay less and have it move more slowly.”
“One can be sure that the average guy with something he wants to say will be relegated to lower speed transmissions,” Velvel writes. “Blogdom, and the use of the internet by average people for political purposes, will likely be as good as dead.”
According to Save The Internet.com(STI), “The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies ---including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner---want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.”
“What we have here,” Velvel explained, “is a bunch of unregenerate capitalists, who think that nothing else is important except trying to make as much as they can conceivably get away with. As with the oil companies and the investments banks, huge profit margins and scores of millions annually for their chairmen and CEOs isn’t enough for them. They want more. Always more. Nothing else matters to them. The pipes (transmission) companies are no different.”
Velvel pointed out, “The average guy can’t be published in a newspaper, and cannot afford the money to pay to be on radio or television. His voice is limited. The great benefit of the internet, the reason it bade fair to be the new version of the poor man’s printing press (which is what picketing and marching were once called), is that it gave everyone a chance to have his or her say in a way that was immediately available to anyone who found it or knew of it and wanted to read it.”
“That is why tens of millions of blogs sprang up,” Velvel continued, “with (at least) many thousands of them being on political subjects, and with blogdom sometimes having major political impacts.”
Others besides Velvel have also commented on efforts to destroy net neutrality. As a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Bush Federal Communications Commission, Internet Neutrality, “the foundation of the free and open internet---was put in jeopardy,” STI says. “Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.”
“Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web,” STI says.
“If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected,” STI continues. “Connecting to your office could take longer if you don’t purchase your carrier’s preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.”
STI warned the consequences of abandoning Internet Neutrality would be “devastating.” “Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.”
For interviews with Dean Velvel, contact Sherwood Ross at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com. Email Dean Velvel at velvel@mslaw.edu
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Sherwood Ross, Global Research, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12016
Global Research, January 26, 2009
If the cable and phone companies that transmit Internet data are allowed to charge higher rates to some producers for faster service the result will be “a ten pin strike against political freedom,” a prominent legal authority warns.
That’s because the change will enable the wealthy to “quickly take over the high speed transmissions (for their trash commercial content) just as they completely monopolize radio and TV, and just as their incredibly greedy profit-seeking has had a very deleterious effect on print journalism,” writes Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
Velvel’s plea for “internet neutrality” comes in his new book “An Enemy of The People,” subtitled “The Unending Battle Against Conventional Wisdom(Doukathsan).” Essentially, he writes, the proposed change is an “attempt by the wealthy to make the internet into yet another repository of their power…”
Under the new scheme sought by transmission firms, Velvel writes, “large companies would pay more, no doubt a lot more, in order to have their messages, videos, audios, and any other content transmitted rapidly. The rest of us peasants, who could not afford to have our content move fast, would pay less and have it move more slowly.”
“One can be sure that the average guy with something he wants to say will be relegated to lower speed transmissions,” Velvel writes. “Blogdom, and the use of the internet by average people for political purposes, will likely be as good as dead.”
According to Save The Internet.com(STI), “The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies ---including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner---want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.”
“What we have here,” Velvel explained, “is a bunch of unregenerate capitalists, who think that nothing else is important except trying to make as much as they can conceivably get away with. As with the oil companies and the investments banks, huge profit margins and scores of millions annually for their chairmen and CEOs isn’t enough for them. They want more. Always more. Nothing else matters to them. The pipes (transmission) companies are no different.”
Velvel pointed out, “The average guy can’t be published in a newspaper, and cannot afford the money to pay to be on radio or television. His voice is limited. The great benefit of the internet, the reason it bade fair to be the new version of the poor man’s printing press (which is what picketing and marching were once called), is that it gave everyone a chance to have his or her say in a way that was immediately available to anyone who found it or knew of it and wanted to read it.”
“That is why tens of millions of blogs sprang up,” Velvel continued, “with (at least) many thousands of them being on political subjects, and with blogdom sometimes having major political impacts.”
Others besides Velvel have also commented on efforts to destroy net neutrality. As a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Bush Federal Communications Commission, Internet Neutrality, “the foundation of the free and open internet---was put in jeopardy,” STI says. “Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.”
“Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web,” STI says.
“If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected,” STI continues. “Connecting to your office could take longer if you don’t purchase your carrier’s preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.”
STI warned the consequences of abandoning Internet Neutrality would be “devastating.” “Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.”
For interviews with Dean Velvel, contact Sherwood Ross at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com. Email Dean Velvel at velvel@mslaw.edu
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Sherwood Ross, Global Research, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12016
The Arctic in NATO's Crosshairs
By David Brian
Global Research, January 26, 2009
The Voice of Russia
The endless desert of snow and ice has always been a subject for dispute among politicians, diplomats and scientists. The Arctic territory has now become a subject of a military dispute.
NATO has declared it a strategically important region. The announcement was made by NATO spokesman James Appathurai who also said a meeting with the participation of high-ranking NATO officials is to take place January 28-29 in Reykjavik, Iceland.
The list of participants leaves no doubt about NATO’s real goals in the region. The decision of the Western defense alliance to declare the northern territories as strategically important will create a tense international situation in the region. The struggle for the Arctic is becoming the subject of long-term military games. Chances are very high, therefore, that they will send military units to the Arctic sooner or later.
Those, who keep an eye on the developments around the Arctic territories, will hardly fail to see that Mr. Appathurai’s remarks come hard on the heels of the initiatives outlined in the US national security directive. The document says that Washington has fundamental national interests in the Arctic region. These interests are crystal clear: missile defense, strategic deterrence, marine security operations. There are no references to terrorists or pirates, who obviously feel themselves way more comfortable in the warm waters off the coast of Somali than among the polar bears of the Far North.
The US, Canada and NATO make no secret of why they need a military group deployed in the Arctic region. Their ice-breakers will arrive in the region to defend national interests of those members of the alliance who claim their right to the natural wealth of this part of the planet. The Arctic contains about 90 billion barrels of unexplored crude and enormous reserves of natural gas, which could be comparable to those of Russia making up about 30 percent of global gas reserves. Experts say that by 2030 Russia will be using many of its Arctic gas deposits to extract about 50 percent of its natural gas. For example, the Shtokman deposit in the Barents Sea contains 4 trillion cubic meters of gas.
Fully aware of the Arctic’s strategic importance, Russia is ready to respond adequately to NATO’s claims. That is why NATO is in such a rush to stake out these claims in the region. Russia’s marine doctrine, which was signed during Vladimir Putin’s presidency, singles out the Arctic territory as one of the major directions of the country’s naval policy. Russia’s Security Council is to unveil a new strategy of Arctic development at the end of January. The key message of the document will be as follows: “Russia is not going to give the Arctic away.” Moscow also wants to considerably intensify the freight traffic activity along the Northern Seaway during the upcoming years and plans to build for this purpose six new powerful nuclear icebreakers before 2020.
About a year from now Russia will submit to the UN documents substantiating its claim to the Arctic shelf. Five countries of the Arctic Ocean – Russia, Canada, the US, Norway and Denmark – made a reasonable decision last year to carve up the Arctic region on the basis of existent conventions only.
However, NATO’s plans to add a military dimension to the Arctic dialogue may lead to drastic changes in the approach to the current issues. All this may result in a new flare point of tension on the global map…
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright David Brian, The Voice of Russia, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12044
Global Research, January 26, 2009
The Voice of Russia
The endless desert of snow and ice has always been a subject for dispute among politicians, diplomats and scientists. The Arctic territory has now become a subject of a military dispute.
NATO has declared it a strategically important region. The announcement was made by NATO spokesman James Appathurai who also said a meeting with the participation of high-ranking NATO officials is to take place January 28-29 in Reykjavik, Iceland.
The list of participants leaves no doubt about NATO’s real goals in the region. The decision of the Western defense alliance to declare the northern territories as strategically important will create a tense international situation in the region. The struggle for the Arctic is becoming the subject of long-term military games. Chances are very high, therefore, that they will send military units to the Arctic sooner or later.
Those, who keep an eye on the developments around the Arctic territories, will hardly fail to see that Mr. Appathurai’s remarks come hard on the heels of the initiatives outlined in the US national security directive. The document says that Washington has fundamental national interests in the Arctic region. These interests are crystal clear: missile defense, strategic deterrence, marine security operations. There are no references to terrorists or pirates, who obviously feel themselves way more comfortable in the warm waters off the coast of Somali than among the polar bears of the Far North.
The US, Canada and NATO make no secret of why they need a military group deployed in the Arctic region. Their ice-breakers will arrive in the region to defend national interests of those members of the alliance who claim their right to the natural wealth of this part of the planet. The Arctic contains about 90 billion barrels of unexplored crude and enormous reserves of natural gas, which could be comparable to those of Russia making up about 30 percent of global gas reserves. Experts say that by 2030 Russia will be using many of its Arctic gas deposits to extract about 50 percent of its natural gas. For example, the Shtokman deposit in the Barents Sea contains 4 trillion cubic meters of gas.
Fully aware of the Arctic’s strategic importance, Russia is ready to respond adequately to NATO’s claims. That is why NATO is in such a rush to stake out these claims in the region. Russia’s marine doctrine, which was signed during Vladimir Putin’s presidency, singles out the Arctic territory as one of the major directions of the country’s naval policy. Russia’s Security Council is to unveil a new strategy of Arctic development at the end of January. The key message of the document will be as follows: “Russia is not going to give the Arctic away.” Moscow also wants to considerably intensify the freight traffic activity along the Northern Seaway during the upcoming years and plans to build for this purpose six new powerful nuclear icebreakers before 2020.
About a year from now Russia will submit to the UN documents substantiating its claim to the Arctic shelf. Five countries of the Arctic Ocean – Russia, Canada, the US, Norway and Denmark – made a reasonable decision last year to carve up the Arctic region on the basis of existent conventions only.
However, NATO’s plans to add a military dimension to the Arctic dialogue may lead to drastic changes in the approach to the current issues. All this may result in a new flare point of tension on the global map…
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright David Brian, The Voice of Russia, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12044
EU Parliament Votes by Sweeping Majority to Ban Farm Pesticides
Tuesday 13 January 2009
»
by: Ian Traynor, The Guardian UK
photo
The British government is protesting an EU ban on the use of pesticides for farm crops. British farmers claim the decision could destroy their carrot crops. (Photo: ourfarmcsa.com)
British government strongly opposed to EU measures which, say critics, may put winter vegetables such as carrots at risk.
Brussels - The European parliament today voted by a sweeping majority to tighten the use of pesticides in agriculture and to ban 22 treatments, a decision that critics say could wipe out British carrots.
The British government and the Conservatives are against the legislation, but the ban and restrictions were carried by a vote of 577 to 61, putting pressure on the 27 EU member states to support the decision.
Greens celebrated the vote as a victory for environmentalism. But the farming lobby warned that the restrictions were pointless, would wipe out harvests of winter vegetables, and push up food prices during a European recession and worsening unemployment.
The proposed legislation places tight curbs on crop-spraying, bans the use of pesticides near schools and hospitals, and proscribes 22 chemicals, some said to be carcinogenic.
The Green MEP for the south-east, Caroline Lucas, hailed it as "a new milestone for environment and health protection."
"This regulation, the first of its kind in the world, will bring clear health benefits and improve both food and water quality in the EU," she said.
Critics argued that the benefits are unproven and that the harm ascribed to the banned or restricted substances was also not based on evidence. Rather, the draft legislation was based on the "what-if" or precautionary principle.
Labour, Conservative and SNP MEPs were all against the decision, which still has to be agreed by the 27 governments of the EU member states to become law. The British government is expected to oppose the ban.
Ministers still have the last say. Britain's environment secretary, Hilary Benn, said: "These regulations could hit agricultural production in the UK for no recognisable benefit to human health, and we are being asked to agree to something here when nobody knows what the impact will be. While we have managed to secure some improvements surrounding the use of certain pesticides, the UK does not support these proposals."
Robert Sturdy, a Conservative MEP on the EU parliament's environment committee, said yields of carrots, cereals, potatoes, onions and parsnips would decline. "The parliament's overzealous approach will take a vast number of products off the market," said
"This law will drive up the cost of the weekly food shop at the worst time for British families."
The National Farmers' Union, which fought the proposals, denounced the bans and curbs as damaging for British agriculture and a threat to food production at a time of potential food shortages and rising prices. The Soil Association ridiculed arguments that the pesticides were needed to maintain crop yields.
If turned into law, the tighter rules would be phased in from next year with the aim of halving toxic substances on plants by 2013.
Labour and the Conservatives are both calling for an impact assessment of the measures before the bans become law, amid claims that the legislation could see British food production fall by a quarter.
http://www.truthout.org/012709EA?print
»
by: Ian Traynor, The Guardian UK
photo
The British government is protesting an EU ban on the use of pesticides for farm crops. British farmers claim the decision could destroy their carrot crops. (Photo: ourfarmcsa.com)
British government strongly opposed to EU measures which, say critics, may put winter vegetables such as carrots at risk.
Brussels - The European parliament today voted by a sweeping majority to tighten the use of pesticides in agriculture and to ban 22 treatments, a decision that critics say could wipe out British carrots.
The British government and the Conservatives are against the legislation, but the ban and restrictions were carried by a vote of 577 to 61, putting pressure on the 27 EU member states to support the decision.
Greens celebrated the vote as a victory for environmentalism. But the farming lobby warned that the restrictions were pointless, would wipe out harvests of winter vegetables, and push up food prices during a European recession and worsening unemployment.
The proposed legislation places tight curbs on crop-spraying, bans the use of pesticides near schools and hospitals, and proscribes 22 chemicals, some said to be carcinogenic.
The Green MEP for the south-east, Caroline Lucas, hailed it as "a new milestone for environment and health protection."
"This regulation, the first of its kind in the world, will bring clear health benefits and improve both food and water quality in the EU," she said.
Critics argued that the benefits are unproven and that the harm ascribed to the banned or restricted substances was also not based on evidence. Rather, the draft legislation was based on the "what-if" or precautionary principle.
Labour, Conservative and SNP MEPs were all against the decision, which still has to be agreed by the 27 governments of the EU member states to become law. The British government is expected to oppose the ban.
Ministers still have the last say. Britain's environment secretary, Hilary Benn, said: "These regulations could hit agricultural production in the UK for no recognisable benefit to human health, and we are being asked to agree to something here when nobody knows what the impact will be. While we have managed to secure some improvements surrounding the use of certain pesticides, the UK does not support these proposals."
Robert Sturdy, a Conservative MEP on the EU parliament's environment committee, said yields of carrots, cereals, potatoes, onions and parsnips would decline. "The parliament's overzealous approach will take a vast number of products off the market," said
"This law will drive up the cost of the weekly food shop at the worst time for British families."
The National Farmers' Union, which fought the proposals, denounced the bans and curbs as damaging for British agriculture and a threat to food production at a time of potential food shortages and rising prices. The Soil Association ridiculed arguments that the pesticides were needed to maintain crop yields.
If turned into law, the tighter rules would be phased in from next year with the aim of halving toxic substances on plants by 2013.
Labour and the Conservatives are both calling for an impact assessment of the measures before the bans become law, amid claims that the legislation could see British food production fall by a quarter.
http://www.truthout.org/012709EA?print
US Missile Strikes in Pakistan Will Continue: Gates
Tuesday 27 January 2009
by: Reuters
Washington - The United States will continue to carry out missile strikes against al Qaeda militants in Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
Pakistani officials have complained publicly about the attacks from unmanned U.S. aircraft in tribal areas, saying they are a violation of sovereignty and increase resentment towards both Pakistan's government and the United States.
U.S. officials normally decline to comment publicly on reports of the missile strikes, but Gates made an exception when asked about Pakistan's complaints at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
U.S. drones fired missiles into the northwestern regions of North and South Waziristan late on Friday, killing 17 people, according to intelligence officials and residents, in the first such strike since Barack Obama became U.S. president, succeeding George W. Bush.
"Both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda is and we will continue to pursue that," Gates said.
Asked by committee chairman Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, if that decision had been conveyed to the Pakistani government, Gates replied: "Yes, sir."
The United States, frustrated by an intensifying Afghan insurgency and what it sees as Pakistan's failure to stem the flow of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from northwest Pakistan into Afghanistan, stepped up the missile attacks last year.
It has carried out about 30 missile attacks, according to a Reuters tally, more than half of them in the last four months of the year.
-------
(Reporting by Andrew Gray, editing by Vicki Allen.)
http://www.truthout.org/012709S
by: Reuters
Washington - The United States will continue to carry out missile strikes against al Qaeda militants in Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
Pakistani officials have complained publicly about the attacks from unmanned U.S. aircraft in tribal areas, saying they are a violation of sovereignty and increase resentment towards both Pakistan's government and the United States.
U.S. officials normally decline to comment publicly on reports of the missile strikes, but Gates made an exception when asked about Pakistan's complaints at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
U.S. drones fired missiles into the northwestern regions of North and South Waziristan late on Friday, killing 17 people, according to intelligence officials and residents, in the first such strike since Barack Obama became U.S. president, succeeding George W. Bush.
"Both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda is and we will continue to pursue that," Gates said.
Asked by committee chairman Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, if that decision had been conveyed to the Pakistani government, Gates replied: "Yes, sir."
The United States, frustrated by an intensifying Afghan insurgency and what it sees as Pakistan's failure to stem the flow of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from northwest Pakistan into Afghanistan, stepped up the missile attacks last year.
It has carried out about 30 missile attacks, according to a Reuters tally, more than half of them in the last four months of the year.
-------
(Reporting by Andrew Gray, editing by Vicki Allen.)
http://www.truthout.org/012709S
9 Christmas Gifts You Can Give to Your Mother ... Earth
By Tara Lohan, AlterNet
Posted on December 17, 2008, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/113131/
You'll read a lot this time of year about "green" gift guides. But are solar-powered cell phone chargers really the greenest gift we can come up with? Sure they save electricity, but what about the environmental impact of their manufacturing and shipping? If you really want to do something good this holiday season, what about putting Mother Earth at the top of your shopping list? It may help clean up the air and water, cut down on CO2 emissions, and it will save you a trip to the mall.
1. Stay Home
One of the best things you can do for the planet is fix up your own nest with holiday cheer and enjoy the festivities with loved ones near by. Airline travel is one of the biggest parts of our carbon footprint, and buses, cars and trains have big impacts as well.
As the Low Impact Living blog points out:
Our leisure travel by car alone accounts for over 9 billion gallons of fuel and 90 millions tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. Air travel tacks on 140-plus million tons more of CO2. That's a huge amount of CO2 emissions -- taken together it represents more than the entire annual emissions of countries like Venezuela or the Netherlands!
To put this all in a personal context, if you drove roundtrip from Los Angeles to Kansas City, you'd put out 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), whereas if you flew, you'd be responsible for 2.2 tons. If you took a train, you'd contribute 0.9 tons. For you international vagabonds, if you flew from Los Angeles to Paris, you'd have put out 4.4 tons of CO2 (and yes, we know you can't drive).
Even if you recycle all your wrapping paper, you'll be hard-pressed to make up for a ton of travel miles.
2. Save a Tree
While some can make a case for the environmental benefits of tree farms, if you celebrate Christmas, think about planting a tree instead of cutting one down (or more likely, paying someone to fell it for you and truck it to the city or town where you live). There are lots of great programs abroad and in your own community. The environmental advocacy group NRDC supports a rain-forest restoration program in Costa Rica, where for just $10 you can have a tree planted. You can also make the donation in someone's name as a gift, too.
While there are a bunch of programs like this, I also think it's great to do something in your own community. Here in San Francisco, we've got an amazing group called Friends of the Urban Forest, which plants groups of trees that help clean up and green up neighborhoods. Most cities and many towns have similar programs. While you may not get to decorate these trees, you can enjoy them day after day.
3. Invest in Sustainability
The holiday season is prime fundraising time for thousands of worthy organizations, and while it is great donate to the ones that you support, you can also put your money where your heart is in another way. Consider making an investment in a community instead of a donation. The organization MicroPlace makes this super easy by giving you the opportunity to make small investments -- or loans -- to help lift people out of poverty. To a person living on a dollar a day, $20 or $50 of capital can mean the chance to build or expand small businesses and ensure income for their family. The best part is your money comes back to you over time, and you can invest again, and the gift keeps going.
Here's an example:
Consider the story of Puja Patel, a single mother who lives with her four children in a village in India. With a $50 loan, she bought a sewing machine. She made clothes, sold them for a profit and repaid the loan, with interest. She was also able to save some money to buy books and send her children to the local school. This is microfinance in action.
4. Start Valuing Water
Everyone is abuzz about energy and how much of our precious oil we have left, but a water crisis is afoot, even here in the United States, where 36 states are facing water scarcity in the next five years. And this is one liquid resource we can't find any alternatives for. There are lots of ways to save water in your home -- some that require a little more effort than others. One of the best, and most fun ways, is to collect rainwater. It's easy and and free (once you get your barrel set up), and you can use the water for your garden, plants or lawn. The EPA reports that, "Nationwide, landscape irrigation is estimated to account for almost one-third of all residential water use, totaling more than 7 billion gallons per day." You can also reuse gray water for flushing toilets.
There are also other ways you can save water, beside the usual low-flow options for sinks, toilets and showers (that should be a given by now), and that's in food and energy. According to the Stockholm International Water Institute, it takes more than 1,500 gallons of water to produce the food eaten eat day by the average American. And while we can save water by not eating lettuce grown in Arizona, we can also do really simple things like not waste our food -- according to this study, each year we throw away about $43.3 billion worth of food.
You can also cut down on your energy use, which is a huge source of water use. Over half of us in the United States get our energy from coal-burning power plants, and the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that, "a typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby water bodies such as lakes, rivers or oceans to create steam for turning its turbines. This is enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people."
5. Buy a CSA Share
The benefits of local food are immeasurable -- and one of the best ways to eat local is by supporting small farmers by getting a Community Support Agriculture share. Basically, you just sign up with a CSA farm to receive a weekly box of whatever is fresh -- veggies, fruit and sometimes other goodies like eggs. This way you get fresh food every week, grown by folks in your community and it travels a very short distance to get to you (According to a study from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, "the produce in the average American dinner is trucked 1,500 miles to get to the plate, up 22 percent in the past two decades.")
Eating local food and eating lower on the food chain, like fruits and veggies, is a big plus for the environment. A report from the United Nations found that eating meat is, "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." And eating outside the industrial agriculture system saves on pesticides, pollution and water. Worldwide, agriculture is our biggest water guzzler, and the same is true in parts of the United States, like California.
If you're into the giving spirit you can also give a CSA share to someone as a gift -- a friend or loved one, or even a community member in need. Here's a great link to find one need you.
6. Grow Your Own Greens
Being part of CSA is fun, but if you have the space, try getting your own hands dirty by starting a food-growing garden or turning your lawn into something edible. When it comes to healthy eating, there is nothing more satisfying then being able to eat food you've grown and picked yourself. And, organic farming is a great way to combat climate change. Research from the Rodale Institute shows that "organically managed soils can store (sequester) more than 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre, while nonorganic systems can cause carbon loss."
If you currently have a lawn, considering switching to an "edible estate," as the organization and book by Fritz Haeg suggests. Here are a few facts that may make you reconsider trying to keep your green lawn:
* Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees and 16 are toxic to birds. (National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns)
* Homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on crops. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
* North Americans now devote 40,000 square miles to lawns, more than we use for wheat, corn or even tobacco. (The Lawn: North America's Magnificent Obsession by Robert Fulford)
* Americans spend $750 million a year on grass seed alone and more than $25 billion on do-it-yourself lawn and garden care. (From the exhibit at CCA, "The American Lawn: Surface of Everyday Life")
You can find great resources and photos about edible estates on their Web site.
7. Join Forces with Community Members
If you don't have a lawn or yard of your own, fear not -- there are 10,000 community gardens in the United States that you can join. And if you can't find one in your area, then consider teaming up with your neighbors to start your own. It has great "environmental, economic and social impacts on a neighborhood," as Urban Community Gardens points out.
Not only are people in communities getting together to grow food, but there are also tool-sharing networks cropping up, as well, that help people share the cost of owning tools that can be used for gardening or home improvements. Need help getting those new solar panels up? Consider asking your neighbors and working to form a tool collective.
8. Re-energize Your Home
The most popular residential renewable energy option right now is solar, although you can find other renewable energy options, here. More than 10,000 homes in the United States are completely powered by solar, and 200,000 use some type of photovoltaic solar technology.
One of the best places to use solar energy in the home is for heating water. Solar Development points out:
* The United States spends more than $13 billion a year on energy for home water heating. That is the equivalent of 11.4 barrels of oil per household, more than the amount of oil burned by a medium-sized automobile driven 12,000 miles.
* Of all of the major types of water-heating systems, solar energy systems offer the biggest potential savings to homeowners -- with owners saving 85 percent on their utility bills over the costs of electric water heating.
Realistically, not everyone can afford to buy solar systems for their homes, although the long-term savings usually outweigh the up-front costs. And of course, many people are renters and can't put capital investments into the place where they live. So how else can we save energy, and as a result, also money and water?
Here's a few ideas from Flex Your Power:
* Enable "power management" on all computers and make sure to turn them off at night. A laptop computer uses up to 90 percent less energy than bigger desktop models.
* When possible, wash clothes in cold water. About 90 percent of the energy use in a clothes washer goes to water heating.
* Turn your water heater down to 120 degrees or the "Normal" setting when home, and to the lowest setting when away. Water heating accounts for about 13 percent of home energy costs.
* Test for air leaks by holding a lit incense stick next to windows, doors, electrical boxes, plumbing fixtures, electrical outlets, ceiling fixtures, attic hatches and other locations where there is a possible air path to the outside. If the smoke stream travels horizontally, you have located an air leak that may need caulking, sealing or weather stripping.
* Add weather stripping around windows and doors to reduce drafts.
* Unplug electronics, battery chargers and other equipment when not in use. Taken together, these small items can use as much power as your refrigerator.
There are also a bunch of great resources to do a home energy audit. And if you're curious whether your home is powered by coal that comes from the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining, then you can check this easy link at I Love Mountains to find out.
9. Stop Buying Stuff
If it's one thing the holidays can be sure to provide, it's a desire to buy lots of stuff we don't really need. Let's start with clothes. Author Stan Cox writes about how much Americans spend on clothes:
The average annual shopping haul swelled from $1,550 per household in 2002 to $1,760 last year. That spending spree was prompted in part by what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says was a 30 percent drop in real apparel prices over the past decade. With cheap imports allowing a dollar to buy more, the physical bulk of garb purchased by the average household has risen 18 percent in just five years.
All this shopping means we each discard around 68 pounds of clothing each year. This of course, stresses landfills, but as Cox points out, the most harm comes from producing clothes with pesticide-laden cotton and synthetic fabric that "consumes petroleum, blows out greenhouse gases and spews wastewater-bearing organic solvents, heavy metals and poisonous dyes and fiber treatments."
And it's not just clothes that are a problem, our consumer goods, in general have huge environmental impacts, especially because most of it comes from overseas. Cox writes:
In and near the world's ports and coastal sea lanes, emissions from oceangoing vessels caused 60,000 premature deaths in 2002. With increasing trade, the number of such deaths is projected to rise 40 percent by 2012. Ships' crews, dockworkers, truckers, other port personnel and local residents are all vulnerable.
The particulate matter produced by burning diesel has been associated with lung cancer, asthma, chronic bronchitis, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, decreased lung function in children and infant mortality.
And that's just the human impact, not withstanding the enormous cost of increased pollution and the burning of fossil fuels on global warming and air and water quality.
Clearly we've got to make changes, he writes:
Halting that growth or even making deep cuts in imports would not only help clear the air, it would make it easier to clean up the toxic water pollution that accumulates in sea lanes and ports; it would curb the noise pollution that can do serious damage to human health and interfere with communications among marine mammals; and it would stop the headlong rush to pave more land for logistics parks.
Of course there is an upside to all these grim numbers. A recent article from YES! Magazine summed up, that "The Good Life Doesn't Have to Cost the Planet." Spending less money on stuff and more money with family and friends is bound to be way more rewarding. And that seems like the best part of the holidays, anyway.
Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113131/
Posted on December 17, 2008, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/113131/
You'll read a lot this time of year about "green" gift guides. But are solar-powered cell phone chargers really the greenest gift we can come up with? Sure they save electricity, but what about the environmental impact of their manufacturing and shipping? If you really want to do something good this holiday season, what about putting Mother Earth at the top of your shopping list? It may help clean up the air and water, cut down on CO2 emissions, and it will save you a trip to the mall.
1. Stay Home
One of the best things you can do for the planet is fix up your own nest with holiday cheer and enjoy the festivities with loved ones near by. Airline travel is one of the biggest parts of our carbon footprint, and buses, cars and trains have big impacts as well.
As the Low Impact Living blog points out:
Our leisure travel by car alone accounts for over 9 billion gallons of fuel and 90 millions tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. Air travel tacks on 140-plus million tons more of CO2. That's a huge amount of CO2 emissions -- taken together it represents more than the entire annual emissions of countries like Venezuela or the Netherlands!
To put this all in a personal context, if you drove roundtrip from Los Angeles to Kansas City, you'd put out 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), whereas if you flew, you'd be responsible for 2.2 tons. If you took a train, you'd contribute 0.9 tons. For you international vagabonds, if you flew from Los Angeles to Paris, you'd have put out 4.4 tons of CO2 (and yes, we know you can't drive).
Even if you recycle all your wrapping paper, you'll be hard-pressed to make up for a ton of travel miles.
2. Save a Tree
While some can make a case for the environmental benefits of tree farms, if you celebrate Christmas, think about planting a tree instead of cutting one down (or more likely, paying someone to fell it for you and truck it to the city or town where you live). There are lots of great programs abroad and in your own community. The environmental advocacy group NRDC supports a rain-forest restoration program in Costa Rica, where for just $10 you can have a tree planted. You can also make the donation in someone's name as a gift, too.
While there are a bunch of programs like this, I also think it's great to do something in your own community. Here in San Francisco, we've got an amazing group called Friends of the Urban Forest, which plants groups of trees that help clean up and green up neighborhoods. Most cities and many towns have similar programs. While you may not get to decorate these trees, you can enjoy them day after day.
3. Invest in Sustainability
The holiday season is prime fundraising time for thousands of worthy organizations, and while it is great donate to the ones that you support, you can also put your money where your heart is in another way. Consider making an investment in a community instead of a donation. The organization MicroPlace makes this super easy by giving you the opportunity to make small investments -- or loans -- to help lift people out of poverty. To a person living on a dollar a day, $20 or $50 of capital can mean the chance to build or expand small businesses and ensure income for their family. The best part is your money comes back to you over time, and you can invest again, and the gift keeps going.
Here's an example:
Consider the story of Puja Patel, a single mother who lives with her four children in a village in India. With a $50 loan, she bought a sewing machine. She made clothes, sold them for a profit and repaid the loan, with interest. She was also able to save some money to buy books and send her children to the local school. This is microfinance in action.
4. Start Valuing Water
Everyone is abuzz about energy and how much of our precious oil we have left, but a water crisis is afoot, even here in the United States, where 36 states are facing water scarcity in the next five years. And this is one liquid resource we can't find any alternatives for. There are lots of ways to save water in your home -- some that require a little more effort than others. One of the best, and most fun ways, is to collect rainwater. It's easy and and free (once you get your barrel set up), and you can use the water for your garden, plants or lawn. The EPA reports that, "Nationwide, landscape irrigation is estimated to account for almost one-third of all residential water use, totaling more than 7 billion gallons per day." You can also reuse gray water for flushing toilets.
There are also other ways you can save water, beside the usual low-flow options for sinks, toilets and showers (that should be a given by now), and that's in food and energy. According to the Stockholm International Water Institute, it takes more than 1,500 gallons of water to produce the food eaten eat day by the average American. And while we can save water by not eating lettuce grown in Arizona, we can also do really simple things like not waste our food -- according to this study, each year we throw away about $43.3 billion worth of food.
You can also cut down on your energy use, which is a huge source of water use. Over half of us in the United States get our energy from coal-burning power plants, and the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that, "a typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby water bodies such as lakes, rivers or oceans to create steam for turning its turbines. This is enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people."
5. Buy a CSA Share
The benefits of local food are immeasurable -- and one of the best ways to eat local is by supporting small farmers by getting a Community Support Agriculture share. Basically, you just sign up with a CSA farm to receive a weekly box of whatever is fresh -- veggies, fruit and sometimes other goodies like eggs. This way you get fresh food every week, grown by folks in your community and it travels a very short distance to get to you (According to a study from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, "the produce in the average American dinner is trucked 1,500 miles to get to the plate, up 22 percent in the past two decades.")
Eating local food and eating lower on the food chain, like fruits and veggies, is a big plus for the environment. A report from the United Nations found that eating meat is, "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." And eating outside the industrial agriculture system saves on pesticides, pollution and water. Worldwide, agriculture is our biggest water guzzler, and the same is true in parts of the United States, like California.
If you're into the giving spirit you can also give a CSA share to someone as a gift -- a friend or loved one, or even a community member in need. Here's a great link to find one need you.
6. Grow Your Own Greens
Being part of CSA is fun, but if you have the space, try getting your own hands dirty by starting a food-growing garden or turning your lawn into something edible. When it comes to healthy eating, there is nothing more satisfying then being able to eat food you've grown and picked yourself. And, organic farming is a great way to combat climate change. Research from the Rodale Institute shows that "organically managed soils can store (sequester) more than 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre, while nonorganic systems can cause carbon loss."
If you currently have a lawn, considering switching to an "edible estate," as the organization and book by Fritz Haeg suggests. Here are a few facts that may make you reconsider trying to keep your green lawn:
* Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees and 16 are toxic to birds. (National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns)
* Homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on crops. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
* North Americans now devote 40,000 square miles to lawns, more than we use for wheat, corn or even tobacco. (The Lawn: North America's Magnificent Obsession by Robert Fulford)
* Americans spend $750 million a year on grass seed alone and more than $25 billion on do-it-yourself lawn and garden care. (From the exhibit at CCA, "The American Lawn: Surface of Everyday Life")
You can find great resources and photos about edible estates on their Web site.
7. Join Forces with Community Members
If you don't have a lawn or yard of your own, fear not -- there are 10,000 community gardens in the United States that you can join. And if you can't find one in your area, then consider teaming up with your neighbors to start your own. It has great "environmental, economic and social impacts on a neighborhood," as Urban Community Gardens points out.
Not only are people in communities getting together to grow food, but there are also tool-sharing networks cropping up, as well, that help people share the cost of owning tools that can be used for gardening or home improvements. Need help getting those new solar panels up? Consider asking your neighbors and working to form a tool collective.
8. Re-energize Your Home
The most popular residential renewable energy option right now is solar, although you can find other renewable energy options, here. More than 10,000 homes in the United States are completely powered by solar, and 200,000 use some type of photovoltaic solar technology.
One of the best places to use solar energy in the home is for heating water. Solar Development points out:
* The United States spends more than $13 billion a year on energy for home water heating. That is the equivalent of 11.4 barrels of oil per household, more than the amount of oil burned by a medium-sized automobile driven 12,000 miles.
* Of all of the major types of water-heating systems, solar energy systems offer the biggest potential savings to homeowners -- with owners saving 85 percent on their utility bills over the costs of electric water heating.
Realistically, not everyone can afford to buy solar systems for their homes, although the long-term savings usually outweigh the up-front costs. And of course, many people are renters and can't put capital investments into the place where they live. So how else can we save energy, and as a result, also money and water?
Here's a few ideas from Flex Your Power:
* Enable "power management" on all computers and make sure to turn them off at night. A laptop computer uses up to 90 percent less energy than bigger desktop models.
* When possible, wash clothes in cold water. About 90 percent of the energy use in a clothes washer goes to water heating.
* Turn your water heater down to 120 degrees or the "Normal" setting when home, and to the lowest setting when away. Water heating accounts for about 13 percent of home energy costs.
* Test for air leaks by holding a lit incense stick next to windows, doors, electrical boxes, plumbing fixtures, electrical outlets, ceiling fixtures, attic hatches and other locations where there is a possible air path to the outside. If the smoke stream travels horizontally, you have located an air leak that may need caulking, sealing or weather stripping.
* Add weather stripping around windows and doors to reduce drafts.
* Unplug electronics, battery chargers and other equipment when not in use. Taken together, these small items can use as much power as your refrigerator.
There are also a bunch of great resources to do a home energy audit. And if you're curious whether your home is powered by coal that comes from the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining, then you can check this easy link at I Love Mountains to find out.
9. Stop Buying Stuff
If it's one thing the holidays can be sure to provide, it's a desire to buy lots of stuff we don't really need. Let's start with clothes. Author Stan Cox writes about how much Americans spend on clothes:
The average annual shopping haul swelled from $1,550 per household in 2002 to $1,760 last year. That spending spree was prompted in part by what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says was a 30 percent drop in real apparel prices over the past decade. With cheap imports allowing a dollar to buy more, the physical bulk of garb purchased by the average household has risen 18 percent in just five years.
All this shopping means we each discard around 68 pounds of clothing each year. This of course, stresses landfills, but as Cox points out, the most harm comes from producing clothes with pesticide-laden cotton and synthetic fabric that "consumes petroleum, blows out greenhouse gases and spews wastewater-bearing organic solvents, heavy metals and poisonous dyes and fiber treatments."
And it's not just clothes that are a problem, our consumer goods, in general have huge environmental impacts, especially because most of it comes from overseas. Cox writes:
In and near the world's ports and coastal sea lanes, emissions from oceangoing vessels caused 60,000 premature deaths in 2002. With increasing trade, the number of such deaths is projected to rise 40 percent by 2012. Ships' crews, dockworkers, truckers, other port personnel and local residents are all vulnerable.
The particulate matter produced by burning diesel has been associated with lung cancer, asthma, chronic bronchitis, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, decreased lung function in children and infant mortality.
And that's just the human impact, not withstanding the enormous cost of increased pollution and the burning of fossil fuels on global warming and air and water quality.
Clearly we've got to make changes, he writes:
Halting that growth or even making deep cuts in imports would not only help clear the air, it would make it easier to clean up the toxic water pollution that accumulates in sea lanes and ports; it would curb the noise pollution that can do serious damage to human health and interfere with communications among marine mammals; and it would stop the headlong rush to pave more land for logistics parks.
Of course there is an upside to all these grim numbers. A recent article from YES! Magazine summed up, that "The Good Life Doesn't Have to Cost the Planet." Spending less money on stuff and more money with family and friends is bound to be way more rewarding. And that seems like the best part of the holidays, anyway.
Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113131/
The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming
By Steve Connor, Independent UK
Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/
Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen.
Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.
The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect effects around the world.
Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions.
However, in a study to be presented later today to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future.
Computer models of the global climate have for years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades.
However, a study by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period.
Julienne Stroeve, of the NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today.
"The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming.
"In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification."
Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform.
"One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added.
Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.
© 2009 Independent UK All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/
Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/
Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen.
Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.
The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect effects around the world.
Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions.
However, in a study to be presented later today to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future.
Computer models of the global climate have for years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades.
However, a study by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period.
Julienne Stroeve, of the NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today.
"The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming.
"In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification."
Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform.
"One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added.
Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.
© 2009 Independent UK All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/
Is a GED More Valuable Than a PhD?
Is a GED More Valuable Than a PhD?
By Kai Ma, The Daily Beast
Posted on January 28, 2009, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/123101/
For six years, Rebekah slaved at Boston University for her PhD in American Studies. Her plan: work in New York as a museum curator. She pictured chatty, engrossing interviews with like-minded creative types. “Everyone would be so pleased” with her PhD, she thought. Yet eight months after graduating, Rebekah is unemployed and considering a gig at a public library that requires only a GED.
The demand for humanities PhDs has long been tight -- for four decades, the number of jobs requiring them hasn’t kept pace with the number of people earning them. But by all indications, recent university hiring freezes and evaporating grant money have reduced the world’s most elite degree to junk-bond status.
On the Modern Language Association’s Job Information List, a bellwether for PhD employment trends, the number of job postings is down 21 percent, the steepest decline in the list’s 34-year history. One attendee of last month’s annual MLA convention in San Francisco, where doctorate graduates can score interviews for tenure-track professorships, found the event rendered “somber” by the scarcity of opportunities. The same air permeated last week’s American Historical Association conference. “Job candidates who a year ago had goals of four or five interviews here were thrilled to have one,” reported InsideHigherEd.com.
“This is certainly the largest dip [in jobs] we’ve seen, percentage-wise, since we began tracking in the 1970s,” says Rosemary Feal, executive director of the MLA. “It really is disheartening to see so many well-prepared people in search of so few jobs.”
Rebekah could be a poster child for the current PhD despondency. She’s written more than a hundred networking and cover letters during her eight-month job search, and trolls 44 employment websites on a daily basis. Three jobs that fit her specialty recently opened -- then two of them were canceled when grant money dried up. “I went in for the interviews, then got word that the searches had stopped,” Rebekah says. “I do have moments of regretting [getting a PhD] because now I’m applying for assistant curator jobs that I could’ve gotten beforehand.”
She even applied for a job as an archivist for the Girl Scouts of America. “As a kid, I was kicked out of the Girl Scouts, which I obviously didn’t mention in my letter,” she says. “I never heard back. It was probably obvious that we weren’t exactly a match.”
“It took six years to write my dissertation, but getting employed feels impossible right now. There’s something a little sick about that,” says “Liz,” another freshly minted PhD who didn’t want her name used. After spending a decade earning her English PhD at UC-Berkeley, she began her job search in September by applying for 40 different tenure-track positions; she’s since received notice that those searches have been canceled. “There are a lot of folks in despair. Several PhDs I know are in counseling.”
“I’m frightened,” says a lecturer in the Boston area who earned her PhD last year and remains unemployed in her field. “These are huge numbers, all related to the economic crisis. I have thought, ‘Am I going to have to be a waitress?’ Everyone in the field thinks about what else they can do.”
Notably, many on the job market refused to provide their names for this story. In the competitive world of academia, paranoia runs high. “It’s extraordinarily insular,” says Christine Hong, a postdoctoral fellow at UC-Berkeley. “I don’t see how someone complaining about how dire things are would necessarily be fatal for them, but I understand the paranoia.”
Some new PhDs, especially those saddled with debt, are considering junking their degrees altogether.
“I have dissertation friends with kids who just wind up being stay-at-home moms,” says a humanities PhD student and mother of two. “You wind up doing Plan B, whatever that is.” She’s applied for roughly 25 tenure-track positions, only to hear back that many of the searches have been canceled. One rejection notice said the position drew 700 applications.
“Every single academic, especially in the humanities, has a tinge of buyer’s remorse” about their PhD, she says. “You see your peers in law or business school make down payments on homes and buy cars and go on vacation. But as a PhD student, you’re in your 30s, still renting an apartment and driving a ’84 Corolla. It’s not cute.”
According to former George Washington University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, the downward spiral began when Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, announced that the troubled economy had forced the university to take “a hard look at hiring.”
“That was a catalyst,” says Trachtenberg, author of The Art of Hiring in America's Colleges & Universities. “Harvard is the North Star, and considered the richest institution in the country. So every other college president in America could then say, ‘If this is going on at Harvard, you can understand that we, too, need to be more cautious.’ It’s a trickle that has turned into a drought…In terms of the hiring freezes, I haven't seen this in a long time. And absolutely, it's related to the recession and the loss of endowment income.”
State schools with smaller budgets have always been a tougher nut for PhDs to crack. “But what’s unusual is how private schools are saying the same thing,” says Robert Townsend, assistant director for research and publications at the American Historical Association. “They’re pinching pennies on pencils -- small stuff. Candidates have plenty of reason to be upset and concerned.”
Those not giving up entirely are taking whatever they can get. Liz, like many PhDs, says she feels like she’s taking a step back by working as a teacher’s assistant, a position typically held by students who just got their bachelor's degrees. But she swallowed her pride and took the job anyway. She starts this month.
“I’m considering leaving academia,” she says, rattling off the other odd jobs she’s taken on: tutor for high-school students, a grader for the Educational Testing Service. “I never romanticized the profession. I never imagined myself at some top research institution, with assistants scurrying around doing work for me. But I did imagine that I would have a job. Sure, I haven’t bused tables yet. But I might.”
This article was reprinted with permission from the author.
Kai Ma is a writer and columnist whose work has appeared in New York magazine, Newsday, Nerve, and Time Out New York.
© 2009 The Daily Beast All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/123101/
By Kai Ma, The Daily Beast
Posted on January 28, 2009, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/123101/
For six years, Rebekah slaved at Boston University for her PhD in American Studies. Her plan: work in New York as a museum curator. She pictured chatty, engrossing interviews with like-minded creative types. “Everyone would be so pleased” with her PhD, she thought. Yet eight months after graduating, Rebekah is unemployed and considering a gig at a public library that requires only a GED.
The demand for humanities PhDs has long been tight -- for four decades, the number of jobs requiring them hasn’t kept pace with the number of people earning them. But by all indications, recent university hiring freezes and evaporating grant money have reduced the world’s most elite degree to junk-bond status.
On the Modern Language Association’s Job Information List, a bellwether for PhD employment trends, the number of job postings is down 21 percent, the steepest decline in the list’s 34-year history. One attendee of last month’s annual MLA convention in San Francisco, where doctorate graduates can score interviews for tenure-track professorships, found the event rendered “somber” by the scarcity of opportunities. The same air permeated last week’s American Historical Association conference. “Job candidates who a year ago had goals of four or five interviews here were thrilled to have one,” reported InsideHigherEd.com.
“This is certainly the largest dip [in jobs] we’ve seen, percentage-wise, since we began tracking in the 1970s,” says Rosemary Feal, executive director of the MLA. “It really is disheartening to see so many well-prepared people in search of so few jobs.”
Rebekah could be a poster child for the current PhD despondency. She’s written more than a hundred networking and cover letters during her eight-month job search, and trolls 44 employment websites on a daily basis. Three jobs that fit her specialty recently opened -- then two of them were canceled when grant money dried up. “I went in for the interviews, then got word that the searches had stopped,” Rebekah says. “I do have moments of regretting [getting a PhD] because now I’m applying for assistant curator jobs that I could’ve gotten beforehand.”
She even applied for a job as an archivist for the Girl Scouts of America. “As a kid, I was kicked out of the Girl Scouts, which I obviously didn’t mention in my letter,” she says. “I never heard back. It was probably obvious that we weren’t exactly a match.”
“It took six years to write my dissertation, but getting employed feels impossible right now. There’s something a little sick about that,” says “Liz,” another freshly minted PhD who didn’t want her name used. After spending a decade earning her English PhD at UC-Berkeley, she began her job search in September by applying for 40 different tenure-track positions; she’s since received notice that those searches have been canceled. “There are a lot of folks in despair. Several PhDs I know are in counseling.”
“I’m frightened,” says a lecturer in the Boston area who earned her PhD last year and remains unemployed in her field. “These are huge numbers, all related to the economic crisis. I have thought, ‘Am I going to have to be a waitress?’ Everyone in the field thinks about what else they can do.”
Notably, many on the job market refused to provide their names for this story. In the competitive world of academia, paranoia runs high. “It’s extraordinarily insular,” says Christine Hong, a postdoctoral fellow at UC-Berkeley. “I don’t see how someone complaining about how dire things are would necessarily be fatal for them, but I understand the paranoia.”
Some new PhDs, especially those saddled with debt, are considering junking their degrees altogether.
“I have dissertation friends with kids who just wind up being stay-at-home moms,” says a humanities PhD student and mother of two. “You wind up doing Plan B, whatever that is.” She’s applied for roughly 25 tenure-track positions, only to hear back that many of the searches have been canceled. One rejection notice said the position drew 700 applications.
“Every single academic, especially in the humanities, has a tinge of buyer’s remorse” about their PhD, she says. “You see your peers in law or business school make down payments on homes and buy cars and go on vacation. But as a PhD student, you’re in your 30s, still renting an apartment and driving a ’84 Corolla. It’s not cute.”
According to former George Washington University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, the downward spiral began when Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, announced that the troubled economy had forced the university to take “a hard look at hiring.”
“That was a catalyst,” says Trachtenberg, author of The Art of Hiring in America's Colleges & Universities. “Harvard is the North Star, and considered the richest institution in the country. So every other college president in America could then say, ‘If this is going on at Harvard, you can understand that we, too, need to be more cautious.’ It’s a trickle that has turned into a drought…In terms of the hiring freezes, I haven't seen this in a long time. And absolutely, it's related to the recession and the loss of endowment income.”
State schools with smaller budgets have always been a tougher nut for PhDs to crack. “But what’s unusual is how private schools are saying the same thing,” says Robert Townsend, assistant director for research and publications at the American Historical Association. “They’re pinching pennies on pencils -- small stuff. Candidates have plenty of reason to be upset and concerned.”
Those not giving up entirely are taking whatever they can get. Liz, like many PhDs, says she feels like she’s taking a step back by working as a teacher’s assistant, a position typically held by students who just got their bachelor's degrees. But she swallowed her pride and took the job anyway. She starts this month.
“I’m considering leaving academia,” she says, rattling off the other odd jobs she’s taken on: tutor for high-school students, a grader for the Educational Testing Service. “I never romanticized the profession. I never imagined myself at some top research institution, with assistants scurrying around doing work for me. But I did imagine that I would have a job. Sure, I haven’t bused tables yet. But I might.”
This article was reprinted with permission from the author.
Kai Ma is a writer and columnist whose work has appeared in New York magazine, Newsday, Nerve, and Time Out New York.
© 2009 The Daily Beast All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/123101/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
