Are sharks really that dangerous?

On An Inconvenient Truth.

"If everybody in the Unites States did everything that Al Gore... suggested in that movie [An Inconvenient Truth -ed.], then that would reduce emissions by about 21%. The consensus these days is that for further disaster to be averted, emissions need to be reduced by 80%"- Derrick Jensen

Naomi Klein's speech at the National Conference for Media Reform

Who was Jon Burge?

Check out the page for him on Chicago Cop Watch.

FINALLY! Ex-Chicago cop Burge arrested in torture cases

Former Police Cmdr. Jon Burge - who has cast a long shadow over the Chicago Police Department because of accusations he tortured suspects for two decades - was arrested this morning on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Rest of the article from the Sun Times.

I find it interesting that they arrested him today, the day before National Day of Protest Against Police Brutality. I wonder how the rally will go tomorrow. I will, unfortunately, be at work.

This has got me thinking. I'm glad they arrested him, hopefully he will be punished- not enough for the pain he's caused, I'm sure. I'm amused by the cop in the video linked above goes one about not blaming cops now, this happened soooo long ago. I don't trust cops and I certainly don't believe that this was just a "bad apple." You put people in power, and they abuse that power.

However, in the past 2 months, my partner and I have had a few instances with the police. One where I was beaten up trying to protect a dog and one where he was beaten up on the street. Unfortunately, the people that beat me up (and the dog) plead not guilty twice so now it's possible jail time for them when we see each other next, in front of a jury. But I really don't think jail will solve anything. If the world was decent, I would have been able to make them volunteer at a dog shelter, take anger management and anti-domestic violence classes along with job training. I finally got anger management classes in the last court date plea, but they didn't take it. When my partner went to the cops, they just randomly rounded up some black kids and started spewing racist shit about the neighbor they were in (which is odd, because my partner is also of color).

There's also someone really close to me that, in my mind, needed to be punished for something they did several years ago. But they weren't, not by the government, they were punished by the scene they were in- and they actually changed. A lot from what I can gather. I plan on interviewing them at some point, but haven't yet.

Anyway, thoughts.

Historic “St. Paul Principles” Agreed upon by Key Twin Cities Groups

Very old news, but I was reading up on these principles, and I feel like it's a damn good page to read. From the RNC Welcoming Committee website.

At an anti-RNC conference held over the weekend of February 9th and 10th, a broad spectrum of groups revealed what are being called the “St. Paul Principles” of unity for resisting the 2008 Republican National Convention (RNC). Key organizations including the RNC Welcoming Committee and The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War are signed onto the principles which seek to unite and strengthen the partnerships amongst those planning to confront the RNC. This is a departure from the sectarian squabbles that have plagued past years’ anti-convention organizing. Pitting groups of differing political beliefs against each other has been a frequent tactic of state repression since the days of COINTELPRO.

By drafting the principles together, the co-signing organizations are taking historic steps to actively extinguish divisiveness from their respective groups. The principles will ensure respect for the soon-to-be-permitted march on September 1 by people planning non-permitted activities, and in turn, participants in the September 1 march will adhere to the principles and do nothing to sow division among the many activists coming to the Twin Cities to protest the RNC.

The principles are:

1. Our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups.
2. The actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain a separation of time or space.
3. Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.
4. We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption and violence. We agree not to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others.

The RNC Welcoming Committee, The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, The Anti-war Committee, SDS-U of MN, Communities United Against Police Brutality, The Welfare Rights Committee, and Unconventional Action – Chicago were among the first to sign on to these principles. As other groups sign on to these principles, a unified, effective, and radical front will form.

Against Backdrop of Sexual Violence, Ads, Too, Exploit Young Teens

From RH Reality.

The latest face of fashion in Jamaica is that of an innocent looking thirteen year old girl. Heavily made up and suggestively sporting a bikini, this pubescent girl was recently featured in local newspapers, touting her as the latest winner in the Pulse Jamaican fashion model contest. While it holds true that the fashion industry has long been centered on the bodies of under-aged girls, what is startling about this latest face of the Jamaican fashion industry is its'obvious youth. This youth, when combined with the not-so-subtle sexualization of the girl, paints a frightening picture of our society. No matter the justification, how does it become okay to feature a child, not even fully physically developed, in a bikini and wearing make-up?

As should be expected, the image of the girl has been met by some degree of public outrage. Interestingly enough, the moderate level of outrage seems to me to be in sharp contrast with the wide-scale public reaction, some months ago, to the proposed introduction of a school textbook that made passing mention of homosexual families. At that time, the collective national sentiment towards the text, which in defining family types made mention of those with same-sex parents, can be summed up as "Not in Jamaica!" The thinking and feeling seems to have been that condoning, even if implicitly, the normalcy of homosexuality would be a very un-Jamaican thing to do. Yet, this same level of nationalism does not surface when we see the body of a young girl being portrayed in such a manner.

The lack of collective outrage is an indictment on our society.

Against a wider backdrop of sexual violence being committed against, and perpetrated by, children and adolescents, the sexualization of an under-aged teenager is extremely problematic and potentially dangerous.

We live in a sexualized world. Companies use sex to sell the most random of products, from jump drives to cars. Rapid advancements in the media have made images and information accessible to almost everyone, easily bringing music and home videos, photos and advertisements directly into our homes, our phones, and our computers. The music we listen to; the movies we watch; the advertisements which inundate us; and the newspapers that we read are typically filled with references to, or explicit mention of sex.

Sex is not a bad thing; but by fostering societies in which it is encouraged to become a driving force, almost an entity of its own, we are engaging in a dangerous game of Russian roulette. We are paving the way for misplaced desire, in which desire becomes the be-all and end-all, and humanity in general, and the protection of our children in particular become secondary issues.

Calls have been made for local authorities to band together to tackle the growing wave of sexual violence that is threatening the lives of our children. While it cannot be stated that images such as that of the 13-year old model automatically trigger sexual violence against children, with burgeoning evidence of such abuse, it just seems like a risk we can no longer afford to take. As the saying goes, if we are not choosing to be a part of the solution, we must therefore be a part of the problem.

Any move, subtle or otherwise, which not only encourages us to look at under-aged girls as sexual objects; but by extension creates misplaced ideas amongst young girls of what it means to be sexy, is dangerous, and ultimately, our children are paying the price.