This is not cool. Especially since I already bought my sunscreen quota for the summer.
Many Sunscreens Ineffective, Group SaysAdvocacy Group Says Many Popular Sunscreens Offer Inadequate Sun Protection, Calls On FDA To Implement Label Changes
(WebMD) An environmental research and advocacy group claims that four out of five brand-name sunscreens either provide inadequate sun protection or contain chemicals that may be unsafe, but industry representatives strongly dispute the charge.... (continue)
There is a list of the different products they believe to be 'safe' at the bottom of the article. Scallywag.
The International Centre for Prison Studies released this graphic last week in their annual report. The darker the red, the more citizens incarcerated per capita.
Four regions have more than 500 prisoners per 100,000 people: Bahamas, Belarus, Russia, and the United States.
The first three have political issues that really put them in a different class than the United States. Democratic and human rights are hurting in the first three countries. So much so, that it might not be surprising to see so many people arrested within their borders.
This doesn't explain why the U.S. has so many prisoners.
What the graphic doesn't show is that the U.S. could be in its own category. A year ago, Glenn Loury reported:
"According to a 2005 report of the International Centre for Prison Studies in London, the United States—with five percent of the world’s population—houses 25 percent of the world’s inmates. Our incarceration rate (714 per 100,000 residents) is almost 40 percent greater than those of our nearest competitors (the Bahamas, Belarus, and Russia)." (continue...)
Could it be that there is an angry, overly-aggressive, inherently different citizenry south of the border? Unlikely.
Loury continued,
"imprisonment rates have continued to rise while crime rates have fallen because we have become progressively more punitive: not because crime has continued to explode (it hasn’t), not because we made a smart policy choice, but because we have made a collective decision to increase the rate of punishment."
It's fairly well-known that crime rates in the United States have fallen in the last two decades. Not only has it been reported on widely in the news, but incredibly thoughtful analyses have appeared in The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell and in Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner.
The rising number of prisoners has also been reported on, but not nearly with the same vigor.
Loury continues,
"We have a corrections sector that employs more Americans than the combined work forces of General Motors, Ford, and Wal-Mart, the three largest corporate employers in the country, and we are spending some $200 billion annually on law enforcement and corrections at all levels of government, a fourfold increase (in constant dollars) over the past quarter century."
Money.
The money has given rise to private interests in the corrections system. I first heard about this last year in a documentary, although it's not the newest of developments. The documentary cited the stiff penalties for drug violations as the primary reason for the rise, while also saying that the privatized prison industry is the fastest growing industry in the U.S.
The privatization of U.S. prisons became significant in the early 90s. It's just been kept on the down-lo because of the obvious shady politics involved. (The same process has begun in Canada in the last few years.)
The incarceration system and process is paid for by the federal government in the U.S. The profits are gained by the private sector. No wonder there are more prisoners than ever before.
In December 1998, Eric Schlosser wrote in The Atlantic:
"The prison-industrial complex is not only a set of interest groups and institutions. It is also a state of mind. The lure of big money is corrupting the nation's criminal-justice system, replacing notions of public service with a drive for higher profits. The eagerness of elected officials to pass tough-on-crime legislation -- combined with their unwillingness to disclose the true costs of these laws -- has encouraged all sorts of financial improprieties."
Privatized prisons raise concerns about treatment, facilities, and staffing.
I wonder who thought this was a good idea... mixing the public good with private interests. The more jails the U.S. builds, the more people they put behind bars.
If you are age 46 or less and from the United States, you have never voted in a Presidential election that has not had a Bush or a Clinton running on the ticket.
With Creepy Hilldog out of the race, the 2008 Presidential election in the United States puts an end to two incredible dynasties. That is, if Barack doesn't choose her as his veep.
It's taken its effect on voters.
"Obama picked the right campaign slogan talking about change. I think the US is in desperate need of change not just in relation to who is running the country but also in rebuilding its identity on the world stage," says Liam Hyland, 31, of New York, NY.
Somehow two of the most dysfunctional families under the media spotlight continue to have a stranglehold on world affairs. I mean, clearly, they are full of integrity,they are honest, they are articulate, and honest.
In the early '70s, universal voting age in the U.S. was entrenched as 18 years old (it would have been interesting if it had been 8 years old).
If you were 15 years old in the last election without a Bush or a Clinton, that would be the youngest age you could be and still in the next election. Senior Bush first ran as veep to Reagan in 1980 (and won). So if you were 15 in 1977, today you would be 46. That's a long time with very little in the way of democratic choice. Heck, even if they had Blacks and Hispanics and Women and no Bushies or Clinties on the tickets before now, you still only have two parties.
The CIA estimates that the median age in the US is 36 point something. Get rid of all the youngins and that number jumps to around 43 ("youngins" denotes those aged under 15. Quite obviously, since we're talking about voting age, 18 would be a better number to use... but the CIA doesn't have that info as readily available. So there is a bit of an aberration here). The average voter in the United States doesn't know life without a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket-- without Bush or a Clinton at the head of the table.
This data is not scientific by any means, but by these statistics, it seems that the US is one of the most politically inexperienced countries in the world. This couldn't be exemplified any better than the last eight years under the current president... Junior Bush.
In Canada, for example, the CIA numbers suggest the median voting age is around 49. If you are 49 from Canada, you've been able to vote since around 1977. That's 8 federal elections, all of which had more than 2 parties-- and several new and viable parties emerging during that time, with plenty of leaders coming and going.
The U.S. has had 7 federal elections. Each controlled by two parties. All of them with a Bush or a Clinton.
The U.S. system is a recipe for political apathy (not that the constant change in Canada is a better recipe against apathy [although it's certainly better for democracy]). Everyone 46 and under has seen the same old same old every election. It's supposed to be democracy. Looks a lot like a shared monarchy.
People have been talking about change in the U.S. for a long time--say 12 years or so-- but haven't been changing the people they send there.
How can you frighten a man whose hunger is not only in his own cramped stomach but in the wretched bellies of his children? You can't scare him--he has known a fear beyond every other. John Steinbeck - The Grapes of Wrath, Chapter 19
May 22nd
I recently made a documentary about poverty. It started out as a documentary about the homeless, but we decided to broaden the scope.
Making this movie was an eye-opening experience in more ways than one. Obviously, making my first movie had difficulties in and of itself. But getting to know the life that is being led by people so much worse off than myself and most people I know was a humbling experience.
We decided to cut the tape we had of people living on the street. There were some ethical concerns that just didn't seem to make the tape usable. The focus of the piece is more to-the-point as a result. This is not a movie about poverty, so much as it is a movie about how the media interprets poverty.
The film is only ten minutes. I made the film for a class, which was using certain film festival requirements. Had there been more time, the focus of the piece would have been larger to encompass some of the other interviews.
Probably the most powerful moment in the film making process for me didn't even make it in the film. I met one person living on the streets who left his family because of a drug problem. He had been on the streets for years. He's described the mob mentality there is out there between the different street people. For whatever reason, he was not well liked among other panhandlers and squeegeers in the city.
He was having a very difficult time getting off the streets. He had lost contact with his family. And the money he did make went to feed an addiction. He truly hated himself and most people around him.
When I met him, he showed me the slip from the detox centre he had gotten out of that morning. They kept him just long enough for the dilaudids to clear his system. What they didn't do was stitch up the gash on his wrist from when he attempted suicide while in their care. It was about three inches long and perpendicular to the veins running up and down his arm. They gave him about a foot and a half of gauze to tie around the wound. He pulled the gauze back to show me. The natural movement of pulling back the gauze opened up the cut a little bit. It was noticeably a few days old, and oozed pus. His veins were clearly visible. It's amazing he was alive. He had just been in the hands of government-employed medical professionals-- and they left his wrist open.
I don't understand why people find it so hard to help people in need. Sure, bad things happen everyday, and many stereotypes are there for a reason when it comes to dangerous people. But refusing someone help who needs it isn't going to help bridge the stereotypes or help get people off the street or help... anything at all.
I haven't again seen the homeless guy that showed me his cut wrist. I've been looking around for him though. I don't know that I ever will see him again. If I don't, I hope he made his way back to his family in the valley.
UPDATE: June 2 The city has just passed a controversial new panhandling bylaw.
I noticed this a few days ago. I decided to wait on posting about it because the city of Halifax has avid comment posters when it comes to news items. I wanted to see what people were saying first.
From the Saturday Herald:
An amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act making it an offence for panhandlers and squeegee kids to ask for money on roadways takes effect Sunday, and fines for breaking it range from $50 to $200.
Effectively, this new law criminalizes people on the fringes of society asking for help. Yeah, they have to pay a fine, which isn't 'criminal,' but where is that money going to come from? What happens when they don't pay fines if they don't have any other assets? More fines. Then jail. Short time to start off, then you get another fine. And the time gets longer.
This doesn't help.
Let me parallel this with a common situation from adolescent life. I recently graduated university in Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia having some the highest tuition rates in the country, I couldn't pay for it by myself, even with student loans and lines of credit. I asked for help. Parents, family, friends... whoever I could get it from. I'm asking for way more money than anyone on the street and I already have a lot more money than they do.
We both need to ask for help. I knew I was going to get it; they don't.
For some reason, this is much more of a hot-button issue in Halifax than it needs to be. There needs to be more compassion on all sides of this issue-- the police, the pandhandlers, the media, but most especially the law makers.
There are basic needs that aren't being met. People on the street aren't going to go looking for a job without an address or a steady meal. I'm broke as a joke, but I know those two things don't cost as much as the city is making it seem. HRM has enough resources to divert enough to put some folks in housing.
This always seems like such a progressive city on some topics... there are well-attended marches and vigils and protests going on every other week for international aid efforts or against the shady dealings of government. Other issues that are just as important to moving society forward, like poverty, always have the same group of people conducting any protests. But it seems like more and more people are against helping out.
There are 90-some comments listed after the article. I didn't read all of them. But check out the vitriol in some of these posts:
voiceofreality writes: The panhandlers can collect tickets all day, they'll have little intention of paying them and the cops will have little intention of jailing them over it. What should have been done was to ticket those that give them money. Those people don't want tickets. Take away the scraps and the seagulls and rats always leave.
JDM writes: If they get caught begging for money, let them beg for their freedom. I, for one, am sick and tired of these people harassing me at every red light in the city. We have the right to be free of this crap, so let em get fines, go to jail etc. If not go to work like the rest of us or get on social assistance programs. You don't see panhandling squirrels in the park, this kind of behavior is not normal or acceptable. It's time it came to a stop.
VESLER writes: These people do interfere with traffic. This is a good law, it is like getting rid of mosquitoes.
Thankfully, not everyone supports the law.
Guy writes: This is police harassment. Simple and plain. Leave them alone. They never hurt anyone. You may not like the squeegee kids. You may find them annoying. You may be full of self-righteous indignation. But that shouldn't make what they do illegal. Just wave them off and go about your day. Or maybe even... you know... say hi. Chat for a few seconds. They're not vermin. They're human beings. Like you (arguably). It's not a big deal. I'm amazed at how put out people are by these kids. It's unreal. Lighten up. And this has NOTHING to do with safely. That's a smoke screen. What they are doing is making it illegal to be poor.
Today, way back in 1879, stands as an important day in Canadian history. It was not, as far as I can tell, important to Canadian history before about 2001. Obviously, it wasn't important to the 2 3/4 year old country of Canada at the time. May 26th, 1879 is the day when Russia and England signed the Treaty of Gandamak, which set out the borders and officially recognized Afghanistan as a nation-state. That's right, two European countries decided where and what Afghanistan was.
...the Crusaders, the Mongols, the Turks, and even earlier-- the Middle East has always been a violent place. But before the British became financially involved with the Ottomans in the 1700s, the Middle East was fighting among themselves the same way Europeans and their descendants fought in revolutionary wars and the like.
In the 250 odd years since Britain became involved in the Middle East, Western powers have in some shape or form occupied Middle Eastern lands. Most grandparents in the Middle East don't have any stories to pass onto their grandchildren of better times or of hope or of anything different than being occupied in some form or another. They have always lived under worry, stress, and despair.
Until fairly recently, Western powers were always in the Middle East for Western interests. Maybe this isn't the case with Canadians in Afghanistan. Maybe a term NATO chooses not to use is 'occupation.' Either way, be it positive or negative, we, as a Western country, are in some manner perpetuating a grizzly 250 year tradition.
I recently met a serviceman who had just come back to Canada from Afghanistan. For this post, his name can be Jim (his name was not Jim). He was in Halifax at the time, a military city, and had not made his way back to his home province of Ontario, because of his duties to the military.
Over a few drinks, he explained to us (four of us in the room) his reasons, and what he believed were our military's reasons for being involved in this war. Our military is performing amazing humanitarian acts in a place that needs someone to come in and do these things. Jim told story after story of the help he and the other servicemen and women were doing, from building much needed infrastructure, adapting outdated education to the modern world, restoring law and order, and just creating a sense of normalcy.
Despite agreeing with everything Jim had to say about his experiences and beliefs about Afghanistan, there was a fundamental divide across the room between the half of the room that agreed that Canada should be in Afghanistan and the half of the room who believed the opposite.
Without getting into a long rant on the more complex idealogical beliefs circling in my head about the actions of our military... I think they are doing good things in Afghanistan, but that they should not be there, especially in the underfunded fashion that our government sends them there.
I have no tattoos. But I've been interested for a while. It was exactly what you would think it was. People getting tattoos. People selling tattoo stuff. Lots of scary people.
Lucky Diamond Rich was there. He is the world's most tattooed man. Pretty strange sight. The man doesn't really operate on any social norms. The guy even has tattoos on the inside of his foreskin.
What else in the world could a guy like this do for a living other than tattoos and stage performing.
