email campaign re: seed-sterilizing technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:12:38 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Terminator: RAFI Launches Mail Campaign -- Help Stop the Terminator Jump to: http://www.rafi.org/usda.html -- Monsanto in Closed Negotiations with the US Department of Agriculture to Finalize Control of Terminator Technology Monsanto is moving swiftly to finalize its control over the Terminator technology. The company may extract an exclusive license from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) within weeks. RAFI is initiating an urgent internet-based international campaign to stop the USDA - Monsanto negotiations before it's too late. A special WWW page has been set up at http://www.rafi.org/usda.html to enable anyone with internet access to send a customized message to the USDA asking it to cease negotiations and bury this anti-farmer, anti-biodiversity technology. Additional contact details are provided below. -- A Monsanto subsidiary, Delta & Pine Land (D&PL), is currently negotiating with the USDA to exclusively license the US Government's interest in the controversial Terminator technology patent, a genetic technique that renders farm-saved seed sterile. The seed-sterilizing technology - developed with US taxpayer dollars - will prevent farmers from saving seed from their harvest, forcing them to return to the commercial seed market every year. The Terminator patent (US # 5,723,765) is jointly owned by D&PL and the USDA. Under US law, since D&PL worked with USDA to develop the technology, the company has the option to negotiate an exclusive license. Hoping to find a gullible international public, Monsanto's PR machine in Brussels, New Delhi, Harare, St. Louis, and points in between, are massaging jittery governments and publicly trying to distance the company from the Terminator technology by referring to it as "conceptual" and "not yet proven." But the company's move to negotiate an exclusive license with USDA confirms that Monsanto is eager to commercialize Terminator seeds. Despite international controversy boiling over in at least two UN agencies rather than engage in public dialog, a leaked internal memo by Deputy Administrator K. Darwin Murrell reveals that USDA hopes to quietly manage controversy over the patent.The memo warns USDA employees that Terminator research is "a sensitive issue that requires an extra level of review" to help "avoid potential political and legal pitfalls." But the USDA insists that the Terminator is a beneficial technology and confirms that its scientists are themselves interested in developing the seed sterilizing technique as platform to host a package of "stacked" traits in genetically engineered plants. SAY NO TO TERMINATOR! RAFI invites you to join an international e-mail campaign being initiated today to protest the licensing and commercial development of the Terminator technology. RAFI has set up a special web page (http://www.rafi.org/usda.html) that automatically sends a customized e-mail to US Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman (also see address information below). We urge you to write to US Department of Agriculture officials to demand that USDA cease licensing negotiations and abandon all international patent applications on a dangerous and immoral technology that should never see the commercial light of day. RAFI is urging government institutions to hold public inquiries on the alarming rate of seed industry consolidation, and to take steps to safeguard - not eliminate - the fundamental right of farmers to save seed and breed crops. RAFI is also calling for protest over the fact that public research funds were used to develop a technology that will bring no agronomic benefit to farmers, and no benefits to consumers. The Terminator technology is designed simply to increase seed industry profits by forcing farmers to return to the commercial seed market every year. Global Issue The potential impact of the Terminator technology goes far beyond US borders. It is an international issue, with global implications. Delta & Pine Land says that it will target the use of Terminator seeds in the South, where over 1.4 billion people - primarily poor farmers - depend on farm-saved seed as their primary seed source. Monsanto, which recently merged with American Home Products, is the world's second largest seed corporation and the number one agrochemical corporation. The owners of the Terminator patent have indicated that they will apply for patents in 87 countries worldwide. The patent is pending at the European Patent Office, in Canada, Australia, Japan and South Africa. USDA should be asked to abandon all international patent
Letter in Support of Social Security (U.S.) (fwd)
>Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT) >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >From: John Gear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Letter in Support of Social Security >X-Comment: Corporate Welfare Discussion > >Note that this calls for people to sign on as individuals. If you support >the principles included, you might want to add your name to the list. The >faux debate over Social Security "privatizing" (plundering would be a >better term) is a great example of Thomas Pynchon's observation that "If >they can get you asking the wrong questions they don't have to worry about >the answers." > >Excerpt from below: >>And many believe the Cato >>Institute blast-faxes telling reporters that "privatizing at >>least a portion of Social Security is now pretty much a >>foregone conclusion." > >That's typical of the tactics of those who can't stand to see a debate on >the merits of a question--they declare victory early and often, hoping to >preclude a real examination of the question thereby. (If only there were >sex involved in the Social Security privatization scam--then perhaps the >press would be interested in really looking into the question.) > >>The following is from Roger Hickey, Campaign for America's Future. >>September 17, 1998 >> >>Dear leaders of organizations and policy experts: >> >> We are writing because you and your organization are >>strong supporters of the Social Security system. We suspect >>that, like the rest of us, you are concerned that the debate >>about the future of America's most important retirement and >>social insurance system has been overly dominated by what the >>New York Times recently described as "conservative groups, Wall >>Street executives, and other proponents of turning Social >>Security into a vehicle for investing in stocks and bonds." >> >> We believe it is time for supporters of Social Security >>to speak out -- to demonstrate that there is a large and >>growing group of leaders and experts who want to fix Social >>Security without "privatizing" or dismantling it. >> >> Attached you will find a Statement of Principles >>designed to guide discussion of Social Security reform. We ask >>you to sign the statement -- as an individual, with >>organization and title to be listed only for identification >>purposes in the final document -- and fax the attached form >>back to us as soon as possible. Then sometime in September or >>October -- when we have gathered an impressive group of signers >>-- we will conduct a press conference to release the statement >>of principles and to announce a new alliance for Social >>Security in the new century. >> >>By releasing this statement we believe we can send a message -- >>and generate new coverage for progressive solutions -- while >>answering the media's persistent question about who opposes >>privatization. We believe that we can accomplish this without >>getting into a level of policy detail you may not be >>comfortable with. We see this new effort as an extension of >>our Social Security Information Project, which has encouraged >>citizen leaders and experts to work together with others to >>educate the public, policymakers and the press without locking >>anyone into a formal coalition structure. >> >> The good news is that, now that many 'privatization' >>plans are on the table, careful analysis shows that they all >>carry serious drawbacks: large and painful cuts in benefits; >>increases in the retirement age; greater financial risk, >>especially for the poor, for people of color, and for women; >>serious undermining of the survivors' benefits and disability >>aspects of the current system; expensive overhead, profits and >>administrative costs, far above the current system or a >>collective investment system (like that of former Social >>Security commissioner Robert Ball). These problems with >>privatization have been underscored by work by the Center on >>Budget and Policy Priorities, the Economic Policy Institute, >>the Century Foundation, OWL, the Institute for Women's Policy >>Research, by Henry Aaron, Robert,Reischauer, and others from >>Brookings, and by leading scholars in academia,,such as Alicia >>Munnell of Boston College and MIT's Peter Diamond. As a >>result, the intellectual case against privatization is getting >>stronger. And new polling shows that, when most people of all >>ages understand the trade-offs, they reject privatization. >> >> The bad news is that the media -- and many Members of >>Congress -- still need a lot of education. The Washington Post >>reports that political momentum is building for some form of >>'privatization' of Social Security. And many believe the Cato >>Institute blast-faxes telling reporters that "privatizing at >>least a portion of Social Security is now pretty much a >>foregone conclusion." >> >> We have much work to do. Fi
Re: Demographic Fatigue Overwhelming Third World Governments
So the burden is again nicely appropriated on inept undemocratic national governments/elites/dictators/warlords living off the bribes/support of the west/multinationals and on women, instead of the underlying economic insanities that continuously take resourses and options away from people in the developing countries. You cannot educate people who haven't got enough food/water. -At the moment- it could be enough with a decent distribution system which needs a global overturn of the present way of doing it. No change no hope. Eva > HOLD FOR RELEASE > 06:00 PM EDT > Saturday, September 26, 1998 > > Demographic Fatigue Overwhelming Third World Governments > > Many countries that have experienced rapid population growth for several > decades are showing signs of demographic fatigue, researchers at the > Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, DC-based environmental research > organization, announced today. > > Countries struggling with the simultaneous challenge of educating > growing numbers of children, creating jobs for swelling ranks of young > job seekers, and dealing with the environmental effects of population > growth, such as deforestation, soil erosion, and falling water tables, > are stretched to the limit. When a major new threat arises-such as AIDS > or aquifer depletion-governments often cannot cope. > > Problems routinely managed in industrial societies are becoming > full-scale humanitarian crises in many developing ones. As a result, > some developing countries with rapidly growing populations are headed > for population stability in a matter of years, not because of falling > birth rates, but because of rapidly rising death rates. > > "This reversal in the death rate trend marks a tragic new development in > world demography," said Lester Brown, President of Worldwatch and > co-author with Gary Gardner and Brian Halweil of Beyond Malthus: Sixteen > Dimensions of the Population Problem. In the absence of a concerted > effort by national governments and the international community to > quickly shift to smaller families, events in many countries could spiral > out of control, leading to spreading political instability and economic > decline, concludes the study funded by the David and Lucile Packard > Foundation. > > Marking the bicentennial of Thomas Malthus' legendary essay on the > tendency for population to grow more rapidly than the food supply, this > study chronicles the stakes in another half-century of massive > population growth. The United Nations projects world population to grow > from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 9.4 billion in 2050, with all of the > additional 3.3 billion coming in the developing countries. However, this > study raises doubts as to whether these projections will materialize. > > Today, two centuries after Malthus, we find ourselves in a > demographically divided world, one where national projections of > population growth vary more widely than at any time in history. In some > countries, population has stabilized or is declining; but in others, > population is projected to double or even triple before stabilizing. > > In 32 countries, containing 14 percent of world population, population > growth has stopped. By contrast, Ethiopia's population of 62 million is > projected to more than triple to 213 million in 2050. Pakistan will go > from 148 million to 357 million, surpassing the U.S. population before > 2050. Nigeria, meanwhile, is projected to go from 122 million today to > 339 million, giving it more people in 2050 than there were in all of > Africa in 1950. The largest absolute increase is anticipated for India, > which is projected to add another 600 million by 2050, thus overtaking > China as the most populous country. > > To understand these widely varying population growth rates among > countries, demographers use a three-stage model of how these rates > change over time as modernization proceeds. In the first stage, there > are high birth and high death rates, resulting in little or no > population growth. In the second stage, as modernization begins, death > rates fall while birth rates remain high, leading to rapid growth. In > the third stage, birth rates fall to a low level, balancing low death > rates and again leading to population stability, offering greater > possibilities for comfort and dignity than in stage one. It is assumed > that countries will move gradually from stage one to stage three. Today > there are no countries in stage one; all are either in stage two or > stage three. However, this analysis concludes that instead of > progressing to stage three as expected, some countries are in fact > falling back into stage one as the historic fall in death rates is > reversed, leading the world into a new demographic era. > > After several decades of rapid population growth, many societies are > showing signs of demographic fatigue, a result of the struggle to deal > with the multiple stresses caused by high fertility. As recent > exp
Wash. Post, Glassman,"Reckless Bailouts" (fwd)
Sorry for the formatting... M -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:19:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Weissman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of list STOP-IMF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: WP, Glassman,"Reckless Bailouts" (fwd) Reckless Bailouts By James K. Glassman Tuesday, September 29, 1998; Page A17 The principle behind welfare reform was simple: If you pay people when they don't work, then they don't have an incentive to get a job. The 1996 law cut them off, and since then, millions have left the public dole. Economists call the principle behind welfare reform "moral hazard." When people are insured, or protected against the consequences of destructive actions, they are more likely to take those destructive actions. Thus, if able-bodied welfare mothers know they'll get monthly checks, they're less likely to work. But in America today, there's a double standard. A rule that applies to welfare mothers doesn't apply to politically connected corporations, rich speculators and irresponsible nations. Over and over, when powerful people and institutions get into trouble, the government bails them out. The latest example is a Greenwich, Conn., hedge fund called Long-Term Capital, Ltd. (LTC), which was founded by John Meriwether, a "master of the universe" at Salomon Brothers, along with two Nobel Prize winners, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman and other partners whom Business Week called the "dream team." Using as much as $100 billion in borrowed money, Long-Term Capital made some disastrously stupid investments and teetered last week on the brink of failure. What should happen to a firm that makes terrible bets on esoteric markets? It should go bust, of course. Its partners and investors should suffer swift and onerous losses -- at the very least as a signal to others to stay away from risky investments in the future. Instead, Long-Term Capital is being rescued -- not with government money (thank heaven for small favors) but through not-so-subtle pressure placed by government regulators on banks and investment firms to cough up $3.5 billion. It's a classic case of moral hazard run wild. Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, was justifiably outraged: "Why should the weight of the federal government be brought to bear to help a private investor?" Good question. The rescuers were brought together last week by the New York Fed at the same time that Alan Greenspan was hinting in Congress that the Fed would cut interest rates. The Fed's "official sponsorship" (Volcker's term) of the rescue was the result, said a Fed spokesman, of its "concerns about the good working of the marketplace, large risk exposure and the potential for a disruption of payments." In other words, the failure of Long-Term Capital posed a systemic risk; it could set off a cascade of other failures, leading to a sharp decline in bond and stock prices and perhaps bankruptcies. I am skeptical the effects would be so dire. Yes, some bonds might plummet, but that hurts current owners of those bonds. Other investors could benefit by being able to buy at the lower prices. Why should the Fed prevent them? The truth is that no one knows what would have happened in the short-term if LTC had been allowed to fail. In the longer term, the effects are only too obvious: The rescue will encourage more irresponsible risk-taking by investors, just as the International Monetary Fund's bailout of Mexico encouraged investors to make inappropriately risky investments in emerging markets in Asia, leading to more IMF bailouts and a new moral-hazard cycle. Perhaps the Fed did dampen systemic risk in the LTC case, but as Caroline Baum of Bloomberg Business News reported Friday, "Traders seem to be taking a different message away from the whole affair. They see an increase in moral hazard, with lenders making increasingly risky bets with the knowledge that someo
