'Guiyu's workers dip motherboards into acid baths'

China is Our E-Waste Dumping Ground

By Terry J. Allen, In These Times
5 Jan 2008

The highway of poisoned products that runs from China to the United States is not a one-way street. America ships China up to 80 percent of U.S. electronic waste -- discarded computers, cell phones, TVs, etc. Last year alone, the United States exported enough e-waste to cover a football field and rise a mile into the sky.

So while the media ride their new lead-painted hobbyhorse -- the danger of Chinese wares -- spare a thought for Chinese workers dying to dispose of millions of tons of our toxic crap.

Most of the junk ends up in the small port city of Guiyu, a one-industry town four hours from Hong Kong that reeks of acid fumes and burning plastic. Its narrow streets are lined with 5,500 small-scale scavenger enterprises euphemistically called "recyclers." They employ 80 percent of the town's families -- more than 30,000 people -- who recover copper, gold and other valuable materials from 15 million tons of e-waste.

Unmasked and ungloved, Guiyu's workers dip motherboards into acid baths, shred and grind plastic casings from monitors, and grill components over open coal fires. They expose themselves to brain-damaging, lung-burning, carcinogenic, birth-defect- inducing toxins such as lead, mercury, cadmium and bromated flame retardants (the subject of last month's column), as well as to dioxin at levels up to 56 times World Health Organization standards. Some 82 percent of children under 6 around Guiyu have lead poisoning.

While workers reap $1 to $3 a day and an early death, the "recycling" industry -- in both the United States and China -- harvests substantial profits. U.S. exporters not only avoid the cost of environmentally sound disposal at home, but they also turn a buck from selling the waste abroad. After disassembly, one ton of computer scrap yields more gold than 17 tons of gold ore, and circuit boards can be 40 times richer in copper than copper ore. In Guiyu alone, workers extract 5 tons of gold, 1 ton of silver and an estimated $150 million a year.

Many U.S. exporters pose as recyclers rather than dumpers. But a 2005 Government Accountability Office report found that "it is difficult to verify that exported used electronics are actually destined for reuse, or that they are ultimately managed responsibly once they leave U.S. shores."

This dumping of toxic waste by developed countries onto developing ones is illegal under the Basel Convention, a 1992 international treaty that was ratified by every industrialized nation -- except the United States.

Unhindered by international law and unmonitored by Washington, U.S. brokers simply label e-waste "recyclable" and ship it somewhere with lax environmental laws, corrupt officials and desperately poor workers. China has all three. And a packing case with a 100-dollar bill taped to it slips as easily as an eel through Guiyu's ports.

E-waste fills a neat niche in the U.S.-China trade. America's insatiable appetite for cheap Chinese goods has created a trade deficit that topped $233 billion last year. While e-waste does little to redress the financial disparity, it helps ensure that the container vessels carrying merchandise to Wal-Mart's shelves do not return empty to China.

In the 19th century, England faced a similarly massive deficit with China until a different kind of junk -- opium -- allowed it to complete the lucrative England-India-China trade triangle.

Britain, after destroying India's indigenous textile industry and impoverishing local weavers, flooded its colony with English textiles carried on English ships. The British East India Company fleet then traveled to China to buy tea, silk and other commodities to sate Europe's appetites for "exotic" luxuries. But since there was little the Chinese wanted from either India or Europe, the ships traveled light and profitless on the India-China side of the triangle. That is, until England forced Indian peasants to grow opium and, in the process, precipitate mass starvation by diverting cultivable land.

The trade fleet then filled up with opium and pushed it to China through the port of Canton. Since opium was illegal in China, Britain started a war in 1839 to force Peking to accept the drug. By 1905, more than a quarter of China's male population was addicted.

Now it is Americans who are addicted to Chinese junk. And our own government policies and corporations are the ones stoking the jones. Slick marketing and consumer fetishism push Americans to buy the latest, lightest, biggest, smallest, fastest, trendiest items. And even if you are not hooked on the latest gadgets, repairs or upgrades are impractical. The half billion computers we trashed in the last decade have to go somewhere, and shipping them to China and other poor nations is a win-win solution for Chinese and U.S. industry.

As for the populations of both countries, we can feast on the irony that the same ships that carry toxic toys and food ingredients to Americans return bearing deadly e-waste for the Chinese.

Terry J. Allen is a senior editor of In These Times. Her work has appeared in Harper's, The Nation, New Scientist and other publications.

http://www.alternet.org/story/72529/

Military Mindfields

By Daniel Pinchbeck

Recently, while at a Phoenix, Arizona conference on UFOs, crop circles, alternative archaeology and other such fringe matters, I encountered, to my surprise, a true American hero. A straightforward and unassuming man whose father was a well-respected Alaskan congressman, Dr. Nick Begich has been waging a long and often lonely campaign to raise the public’s awareness of the extraordinary perils and potentials of new technologies that can act upon the brain and influence our cognitive and somatic capacities, often without us knowing about them. At first, many of the military initiatives and scientific research projects described by Dr. Begich sound like science fiction — the stuff of Philip K. Dick’s most paranoid visions — but they are quite real, and in many cases already available. A huge trove of documents, articles and public testimonies assembled by Begich’s team can be found at the website of The Lay Institute.

Confronted with this information, I was shocked at first, and wondered why it is almost never discussed in the media or public sphere. My next reaction was to want to run away from thinking about it ever again. Unfortunately, as Begich makes clear, the only protection we have against misuse of these discoveries is an increase in public knowledge and debate about them. The legislative system we inherited from the 18th Century was not set up to deal with the current scenario, where rapid-fire developments in technology and science have immediate political meaning and potentially great social consequences. It is up to civil society — and us as individuals — to step into this breach. The consequences of not doing so may be severe.

Dr. Begich began his work studying the HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) Project, an array of radio frequency transmitters in Alaska designed to affect the ionosphere, an atmospheric sheath that protects the Earth from solar rays. Beyond potentially influencing missile guidance systems and changing weather patterns, HAARP can also be used, potentially, to affect the brainwaves of civilians over a large geographical area, causing inexplicable agitation or aggression by beaming ELF (extremely low frequency) waves or high-frequency pulses beyond the threshold of our auditory capacity. Dr. Begich objects to HAARP because of this capacity, and because it changes the delicate ionosphere. Although we don’t know much about the ionosphere, we are treating it as an arena in which to “plug and play” our experimental technologies.

In the last decades, a huge amount has been learned about the electromagnetic environment of the human brain and body. This knowledge, as Dr. Begich discusses in his latest book, Controlling the Human Mind: The Technologies of Political Control or Tools for Peak Performance (Earthpulse Press, 2006), could lead to tremendous advances in healing and in methods of self-development, or to weapons that “pierce the very integrity of the human being.” Potentially, memory, emotion and cognitive function can be transformed by these technologies.

Dr. Begich isolates a spooky trend in military thought that sees the human being reduced to the status of a “data-processing system” that can be affected or incapacitated depending on the energy inputs it receives. As one article, “The Mind Has No Firewall,” from Parameters, the U.S. Army War College Journal, put it, “The body is capable not only of being deceived, manipulated, or misinformed but also shut down or destroyed — just as any other data-processing system.” Electromagnetic or acoustic energy waves can alter the individual’s “hardware system” and manipulate the “data” stored in their psyche. According to Dr. Begich, technologies already exist that can “shift a person’s emotions using remote electromagnetic tools,” and “transfer sound in a way where only the targeted person” hears a voice in their head.

Interestingly, developments in these areas could lead to breakthroughs in healing, to tools that greatly increase cognitive function and even amplify “abilities of individuals for anomalous phenomena” — psychic capacities — according to a military analyst. Biofeedback techniques have been proven to accelerate skills-based learning and to successfully treat children with ADD. Use of “binaural beats” can harmonize relationships between the two hemispheres of the brain, while tools focusing on the energy fields of the body can augment acupuncture and other treatment modalities.

Begich calls for an end to government secrecy about study of mind and behavior control techniques. He notes that the area of mind modification technologies is “changing so rapidly that the science is being formed faster than the applications can be fully recognized.” Considering the enormous potential of these tools to help liberate the mind or control it at a level beyond anything previously known, the U.S. public should demand to have a rigorous “precautionary principle” put in place.

Philip K. Dick is great fun to read, but few of us would want to live in one of his maniacal, paranoid dystopias. Unfortunately, the powerful knowledge we are now accessing about the intricate workings of our energetic systems could lead in that direction, if we don’t take action.

Daniel Pinchbeck is the author of Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism (Broadway Books, 2002) and 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl (Tarcher/Penguin, 2006). His features have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Rolling Stone, Esquire, Wired and many other publications.

 

http://commongroundmag.com/2008/01/pinchbeck0801.html

Make a Revolution Resolution

6 Jan 2008

 

By Mick Youther

     Last year at this time there was a real feeling of hope in America. For the first time in twelve years, American voters gave control of Congress to the Democratic party; along with a clear mandate to end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home, and stop the Bush administration’s all-out assault on our Constitutional protections.

      Now, a year later, instead of ending the war and bringing our troops home, we have even more troops occupying Iraq, and 2007 was the deadliest year for American forces since the war started. Nearly 4000 U.S. military lives have now been sacrificed and $600 billion dollars squandered in Mr. Bush’s unnecessary wars; and what do Americans have to show for it?--$3+/gallon gasoline and $100/barrel oil.

      Personal privacy is now only a memory in America, because each time the Bush Administration is caught illegally spying on Americans; their crimes are retroactively legalized by our so-called representatives in Congress.

     The Democratic leaders in the House and Senate began 2007 by taking impeachment “off the table” and ended it by caving in and funding Mr. Bush’s War on Iraq (again) with no strings attached--after promising in the Spring that they would not pass another war funding bill that didn’t contain a timetable for troop withdrawals.

      Senate Democrats whine that they don’t have enough votes to end the war, but the fact is that they control the legislative agenda and could have stopped any further appropriations for Mr. Bush’s wars at any time. Instead, the Democratic leadership seems to have made the political decision to let Mr. Bush’s unpopular war continue, believing it will somehow help Democrats in the 2008 election. In the meantime, a few hundred more U.S. troops will be killed and another $200 billion will go down the drain; but hey, sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good (like getting re-elected). No wonder Americans have such a low opinion of Congress.

      Americans can not afford to wait another year. Bush has said, “…my spirits are high, my energy level is good and I'm sprinting to the finish line.” (11/1/07) You can be sure that Bush, Cheney and their corporate cronies have an ambitious agenda to push through during the next year--with much of it being accomplished by Royal decree, without benefit of congressional advice, consent, approval or oversight. By the time this gang of thieves leaves office; America’s wallet will be empty, its cupboard bare, its credit cards maxed out, and somebody better count the White House silverware.

     Even after Bush is gone, our national nightmare will not be over. It will take years to undo the damage that has been done. We need more people, who will stand and fight the big-money corporations that have been making their own rules and riding the gravy train for the past seven years--with American taxpayers picking up the tab.

      In June 2007, a CBS News poll found that 75 percent of Americans believed that America was headed in the wrong direction. You would think when three out of four Americans say we are going the wrong way, we would change course; but no, we just keep going--full speed ahead in the wrong direction, because George W. Bush has assumed the powers of a virtual king, and Congress has failed to do anything to stop him.

      If you want to know how America came to this sorry state, I can tell you. Too many Americans (like me) have ignored the workings of government for too long, expecting government to run the country and control itself. …It doesn’t work that way.

·        “Unless the mass [of people] retains sufficient control over those intrusted [sic] with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression.”--Thomas Jefferson, 1812

·        “The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.”--Albert Einstein

     This past fall, I attended a GreenFestival conference in Washington, DC and listened to several nationally-known speakers talking about America’s problems and what can be done about them. Every speaker I heard offered the same solution: It is up to us--We The People of the United States. It is our country and our government. If we want anything to change, we will have to change it.

 ·        “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”--Abraham Lincoln, 1861

      So, why not make a belated New Year’s resolution to become a more active participant in your government? You won’t be alone. George W. Bush’s “election” and presidency has made millions of Americans aware of how dysfunctional our government has become, and how its defects have allowed the Bush Administration to do so much damage in such a short period of time.

      Our government has become a giant monster, running amok; destroying everything that once made it the model of democracy to the world--and it is up to us to change it. To do this, we need another American Revolution.

 ·        “The [American]Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.”--John Adams, 1818

      We must begin this Revolution by becoming informed citizens, and we cannot do that by watching the network news. If the network news and the Sunday talk shows are your only sources of information, you may not even realize that Americans are still fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. You may believe that the U.S. presidential primary race is the most important news in the world and that the biggest problem facing Americans today is erectile dysfunction.

      That is what they would like you to believe.

      If you have satellite TV, watch Democracy Now on Link TV, and as many foreign news programs as you can find. If you have internet access, sign up with news digest sites and have important news stories delivered to your e-mail In-box. (I recommend BuzzFlash Alerts, TomPaine.com, Citizens For Legitimate Government, and you can find a roundup of the latest news and opinion at OpEdNews.com.

      You can also join on-line political action groups like MoveOn.org, Unitedforpeace.org, and People for the American Way. What you will find is millions of Americans, who are working to change America. Within a month, you will probably be better informed on many issues than your representatives in Congress (who are too busy raising money to do anything else). That is why you must keep them informed about what is going on, and tell them what you expect them to do about it--with a clear understanding that if they fail to respond to your concerns, they will be replaced. When they hear that from enough voters, they will get the message.

      So, let’s get started today. Working together, Americans can make America a better place in 2008.

  Happy New Year!

 

Authors Bio: Mick Youther is an American citizen, an independent voter, a veteran, a parent, a Christian, a scientist, a writer, and all-around nice guy who has been aroused from a comfortable apathy by the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration.

 

~ Link ~

 

the Peace Tax Seven

"a group of conscientious objectors seeking a judicial review of the war tax policies in Britain"

" ... alongside the 50 per cent or so of the population who supported the war in 2003, it is no exaggeration to say that millions protested, held vigils, went on marches, lobbied MP’s and signed petitions to try and stop the war, but the government went ahead and executed their war, in our name, and with our taxes. As Alexander Haig, US Secretary of State said, when confronted by the historic anti-nuclear marches in 1982, ‘Let them march all they want as long as they continue to pay their taxes’.

Some taxpayers however - following the examples set by the American writer Thoreau in the nineteenth century, Joan Baez during the Vietnam war and pacifists in Britain in the 1980’s and 1990’s – withheld the military portion of their taxes maintaining that in matters of deliberate killing, personal conscience reigns supreme and no state can over rule the individual conscience and force its citizens to pay to kill. The courts however ruled that ‘war tax resisters’ have no option but to pay up.

In this, the courts are upholding the valid principle that taxation should not be unnecessarily divided, and that individuals in a democracy should not pick and choose how their personal contributions are disbursed. However, in doing so, conscientious objectors argue that the law as it currently stands ignores the fact that UK tax administration already divides tax revenue into a number of streams for practical reasons: given that National Insurance is accessed and administered separately from ordinary income tax. The courts ignore the unique personal urgency of the issue of the deliberate taking of human life, which is already conceded in the right to conscientious objection to military service - a right established at the height of the Great War in 1916 - and in the disinclination of political parties to dictate to MP’s consciences on comparable issues such as capital punishment.

In law nothing entitles a person to pay to kill another but it is currently impossible for any taxpaying UK citizen to live by this principle without coming into conflict with the government and the courts, because the courts enforce a policy which compels the individual taxpayer to contribute about 10 per cent of their total tax bill to military expenditure, irrespective of conscientious objection.

All walks of life
In 2004 seven taxpaying citizens decided to form a group - calling themselves the Peace Tax Seven campaign - to obtain a Judicial Review for a change in the law so that conscientious objectors can have the military portion of their taxes redirected to peace building and conflict resolution initiatives. Their lawyers, led by Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, maintain that since the Human Rights Act and the right to freedom of conscience has now been enshrined in British law, British citizens have the right to translate an ancient and compelling conscientious objection directly into tax policy on this specific issue, yet, UK tax policy ignores this fact.

The group, are taxpayers from all walks of life - a retired teacher, an accountant, a psychiatrist, a writer, a toymaker, a university lecturer and a single mother who argue that they have a legal right to have the military portion of their taxes put in a ring-fenced fund solely for peaceful purposes. Their campaign has taken its toll on all seven given that alongside individual legal proceedings, bailiffs, fines and possible bankruptcy and imprisonment, they have had to raise over £50,000 to take this case all the way to the High Court for a Judicial Review. Such has been the public outrage about the invasion of Iraq that the group managed to raise the money and in July 2005 their case was heard in the High Court.

Building a culture of peace
Although the judge found the Peace Tax Seven arguments ‘forceful’ their request for a Judicial Review of current UK tax policy was turned down. At an appeal court hearing in March 2006 it became plain that the British judges acknowledged the validity of the arguments, particularly when three Lord Justices, while refusing permission for a judicial review, cast doubt on previous rulings that had previously prevented cases like this moving forward; recommending that having exhausted the British legal process the group are now in a position to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Earlier this year papers were lodged with the European Court at Strasbourg and the group is currently waiting on a decision as to when they will have their case heard. Already the legal bills are mounting and the group must raise another £70,000 to successfully fight their case in Europe.

Building a culture of peace is a difficult, complicated and uncertain process, yet it is reasonable to suggest that tax arrangements are one part of the political and civic culture, which must be developed in peaceful directions. The Peace Tax Seven are in no doubt that in the modern world conscientious objectors can fulfil all of their responsibilities to the community including the responsibility of paying for its safety and security without giving a penny to the armed forces and argue that they have the right to do so. Experts in civilian and military fields are already stressing the importance to national security of conflict prevention, civilian peace work and global justice in its wider sense. In insisting on this right the Peace Tax Seven maintain that they are standing up for the rights and for the well being of all victims of war and violence in our own community and across the world.

The Peace Tax Seven currently owe £12,000 to their lawyers and their work will continue as the case progresses through the courts. If you object to having your taxes used for war, please give generously to help them challenge this issue and win their case www.peacetaxseven.com/donate.html ... "

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article778.html

New Hampshire - the other debates