1. Video you might just like! What Up Steve? www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/05/kyle-mckenna-harper-rap_n_2812113.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
2. Cooperate for Canada, duet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EegSUfzeUiM
Mar 052013
Sandra Finley
Mar 052013
Susan Milburn elected chair of U of S board
Saskatoon – The University of Saskatchewan (U of S) Board of Governors today elected Susan Milburn to serve as its chair until June 30, 2016.
Milburn, vice-president of Raymond James Ltd. in Saskatoon, was elected to the board in July 2006 as a representative of the U of S Senate, has chaired the audit committee and has served as vice-chair of the board. She has also been a member of the board’s finance and investment, and governance and executive committees.
“We are in the midst of what I think can be fairly termed interesting and challenging times when it comes to governance at the University of Saskatchewan,” said Milburn.
“As a member of the U15 and one of Canada’s leading research institutions, we must continue to move our university forward while at the same time deal with the financial realities of the post-secondary education sector. I very much appreciate the confidence my board colleagues have shown in my ability to take a lead role in these efforts.” Milburn earned a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the U of S in 1978 and an MBA in 1980. She is a past president of the U of S Alumni Association and is well known for her extensive community and corporate involvement in Saskatoon, including having served on the boards of two Saskatchewan crown corporations.
At the March 5 meeting, the board also elected Greg Smith to serve as vice-chair. Also a commerce graduate of the U of S, Smith is a partner in the chartered accounting firm Stark & Marsh in Swift Current. Smith was appointed to the U of S board in 2007, chairs the finance and investment committee, and serves on the audit and governance and executive committees.
-30-
For more information, contact: Patty Martin, Director, Strategic Communications, University of Saskatchewan (306) 966 6919 patty.martin AT usask.ca
Mar 042013
It’s wonderful to see these initiatives around climate change.
Important information included.
I can’t say that one is more important than the other two.
(Note for Saskatoon area residents: good news! a dynamic group is organizing to mobilize support for climate change action.)
CONTENTS
- FILM: GREEDY LYING BASTARDS
- WE’RE NOT DROWNING, WE’RE FIGHTING (ISLAND NATIONS)
- CHASING ICE – SHORTISH VIDEO FROM BOULDER CITY, COLO, COUNCIL MEETING
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
1. FILM: GREEDY LYING BASTARDS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
From: One Earth Productions
Date: February 5, 2013
GREEDY LYING BASTARDS TO OPEN
NATIONALLY ON MARCH 8, 2013
Markets include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, Houston, Detroit, Seattle, Tampa Miami, Denver, Phoenix and San Diego
Los Angeles – One Earth Productions announced today that the feature documentary GREEDY LYING BASTARDS will open nationally on March 8, 2013 in the top twenty markets.
Produced and directed by Craig Rosebraugh, with Daryl Hannah serving as executive producer, GREEDY LYING BASTARDS investigates the reason behind stalled efforts to tackle climate change despite consensus in the scientific community that it is not only a reality but also a growing problem that is placing the world on the brink of disaster. Two-time Emmy-Award winner Patrick Gambuti, Jr. co-wrote and edited the film and Michael Brook composed the original score.
Rosebraugh documents the impact of an industry that has continually put profits before people, waged a campaign of lies designed to thwart measures to combat climate change, and used its clout to minimize laws and regulations – ultimately undermining the political process in the U.S. and abroad. The film takes aim at two companies, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, charging them with being the main financial drivers of the climate change denial campaign worldwide.
“Concerned about the future of the planet and our ability to exist on it, I wanted to undertake a project that would uncover the hidden agenda of the oil industry and provide answers as to why as a nation we fail to implement clean energy policies and take effective action on important problems such as climate change”, says Rosebraugh. “This is particularly crucial following the warmest year on record in the United States, one in which the country experienced record drought, wildfires and Hurricane Sandy.”
Director/Producer Craig Rosebraugh, founder of One Earth Productions, is a writer, filmmaker and activist in the United States advocating for political and social justice, human rights, and environmental and animal protection. GREEDY LYING BASTARDS was an official selection of the United Nations Film Festival, Costa Rica Documentary Film Festival, Bahamas International Film Festival and winner for feature documentary at the Burbank Film Festival and Ecofilm Award at the Boston Film Festival.
OFFICIAL WEBSITE: http://greedylyingbastards.com/
CONTACT:
Shelby Kimlick MPRM Communications skimlick AT mprm.com, 323 933 3399
John Murphy Murphy PR jmurphy AT murphypr.com, 212 414 0408
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
2. WE’RE NOT DROWNING, WE’RE FIGHTING (ISLAND NATIONS)
(Related: the courageous story of “The Island President” (Maldives, one of the “Island Nations”) is in posting Climate Warming: The Island President. James Hansen)
Malo ni!
My name is Mikaele Maiava. I’m writing from the Pacific Island archipelago of Tokelau to ask you to join with us in action as we take on the fossil fuel industry.
Last October, Tokelau turned off the last of its diesel generators. In their place, we switched on our solar plants, making Tokelau the first country in the world to become 100% renewably-powered.
I woke up before sunrise that day, excited about the history Tokelau was making. My whole village made its way to the site of over 100 solar panels — we could see the many hours of hard labor that had gone into this project. As we counted down to the switch, I could feel future generations smiling at us and thanking us. Our children’s future suddenly looked brighter because we had the vision (and perseverance) necessary to get off fossil fuels and switch to 100% renewable energy.
You might wonder why we bothered. Aren’t we doomed to lose our islands from sea-level rise? I don’t blame you for thinking that if you did. So often the global media victimises the Pacific Islands and portrays us as helplessly succumbing to climate change and rising seas. But the global media know nothing of who we really are, or how it feels to live on these paradise islands we call home. They don’t know that as Pacific Islanders, we are warriors, and that the land we live on is part of us.
We know that the longer the fossil fuel industry gets its way, the worse climate change will be, and the more sea-level rise will threaten our islands. But giving up on our home is not an option. We are not drowning.
We are fighting.
That’s why on March 2nd, Pacific Islanders across 15 diverse nations will be mobilising at prominent locations to perform our unique war challenges, songs, and dances. We’ll be laying down a challenge to the fossil fuel industry. It is their coal and oil and gas vs. our future. They cannot both coexist. And it is our future that has to win.
We want to show the world that people from countries and cultures everywhere are standing with us — the Pacific Warriors — in the fight against climate change.
Fakafetai lahi,
Thank you,
Mikaele Maiava
350.org is building a global movement to solve the climate crisis. Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for email alerts. You can help power our work by getting involved locally, sharing your story, and donating here.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
3. CHASING ICE – SHORTISH VIDEO FROM BOULDER CITY, COLO, COUNCIL MEETING
Click on: http://vimeo.com/50079869
Science Tuesday – Chasing Ice
This video segment was taken from the September 18, 2012 Boulder, Colorado City Council Meeting and features Agenda Item 1C, a presentation by James Balog on the subject of disappearing glaciers and ice.
Please send it out to all so that we can feel enough power together to start tackling this problem.
Thanks, Dianne
Mar 032013
The framework within which disease is typically discussed, is useful as an analogy for discussion of which corporate interests are most problematic in the assault on the public interest (“the commons”).
I frequently remind myself that with disease, “the causes” do not follow a one-cause, one-disease relationship. Which is how they are usually referenced. We put cancer into the cancer society and with oncologists. We put Parkinsons Disease into the Parkinsons Disease Foundation and with a P.D. specialist or neurologist.
But things that make a difference in the incidence of one dis-ease affect the incidence of other health problems, too. Chemicals that are “teratagens” (cause developmental problems in the fetus) may also be carcinogenic. When talking about one, e.g. Multiple Sclerosis, asthma, cancer, autism, inverted female/male birth ratios, etc., I try to always say “yes, but remember” we are really talking about NOT this one disease or developmental problem.
We truly understate the problem if we allow the one-disease, one-cause model to stand, if we put each disease in its own separate box. Which is what we do.
And so it is with “corporate interests”. They are hugely interconnected.
Which means that when we go after the chemical companies as cause, we simultaneously weaken the pharmaceutical company that owns the chemical company.
If we are able to stop the killing way of war, we will strike a blow to the chemical companies. The chemical companies are huge beneficiaries of war.
Chemical weapons. Agent Orange = 2,4D mixed with 2,4,5T (the latter now banned). Aerial spraying of chemicals is routine in the “war on drugs”.
The public purse pays for the chemicals. And the health problems they create. And the pharmaceuticals used to treat the health problems. And we do not then have money to address causes – most drug addicts have been abused as children. It is well-known and documented.
The chemical companies started out “on the land” by supplying farm chemicals. They then weaseled their way in on the ground floor of food production: GMO crops designed so that the company’s chemicals can be sprayed on them and they’ll survive. The bioteched seeds are patented so that the chemical/biotech companies take control of seed stocks, the basis of the human food supply. The Government will not change patent legislation to prohibit the patenting of life forms, our common heritage — in spite of clear statements of need in two Supreme Court decisions (onco-mouse and Monsanto vs Schmeiser).
Chemicals come from the “petro-chemical industry”. When we speak of the poisoning of the water supply as from Sarnia down river to Windsor-Detroit and into the Great Lakes, we are again talking of the same corporations.
The Tar Sands is the petro-chemical industry.
And now with the Tar Sands we are seeing the cross-over into the petro-chemical industry of the nuclear industry.
As with disease, it is useful to remember that the problem is under-stated if we think of “the chemical companies”, for example, in a straight line relationship to industrial use. Or of Big Pharma only in terms of pills.
Or either only in relation to disease. They have also poisoned democratic governance and science. The public record is full of examples.
If the battle is between the public interest and the corporate interest, we gain ground when any small group of us takes on one of the tentacles of this beast. There are way more than ten thousand such groups of us, as documented in Blessed Unrest. Hallelujah!
RELATED: 2008-03-19 Do you have some fight left in you?! Non-violent resistance. Killing wars OR Wars that don’t kill. Corporatization/Fascism. The Illusion that we fight different battles.
Mar 022013
By Andrew Coyne, Postmedia News, February 26, 2013
So many of the well-known ills of our politics have their roots in the way we count the votes, writes Andrew Coyne.
Since the idea of an electoral reform pact was first broached — not by me, but by Elizabeth May of the Green Party, by Nathan Cullen of the NDP, and latterly by Joyce Murray in the Liberal leadership race — reaction has split into two camps. Among each party’s members, the notion of a one-time alliance formed around the need to fix our broken electoral system plainly excites some interest: it propelled Cullen’s long-shot campaign for party leader into contention, as it may be doing for Murray’s. Yet it is dismissed by much of the respective party establishments, as it would seem by most of the punditocracy.
The critics’ objections, in the main, are four. 1. It would be difficult to do. 2. It is unnecessary: the opposition parties will one day defeat the Conservatives, without such a pact. 3. The public would never go for it: not a coalition, or not one with such a narrow focus. 4. If they did win, it is unclear how such a coalition would govern.
The first is undoubtedly true. There are, indeed, any number of reasons why this probably won’t happen. What’s being discussed is whether it should. Suffice it to say that if the party leaders think it should, it will. None of the many questions the critics raise — how would the parties agree on a single candidate? who sets the rules? in which ridings? etc. — are insurmountable, in themselves. All that is required is the will.
Of course, whether that will exists, or is likely to, is heavily dependent on the second point. So long as each side thinks it can win without co-operating, they won’t. And yes, at some point, the Conservatives will be defeated. The question is by whom, or what — and when.
If defeating the Conservatives were all, the parties could arguably afford to wait each other out — though the longer they wait, the more time the Conservatives will have to adjust the rules to their advantage. But if electoral reform is the objective, the wait-and-see option looks less tenable.
This is the paradox at the heart of the issue. Whatever the parties may say they believe in, unless it is also in their self-interest it won’t happen. My argument is that we are currently witnessing just such an exceptional alignment of the planets: not only do all three opposition parties now favour reform of some kind, but, in an inversion of the norm, they are unlikely to win power without it.
The first-past-the-post system presents a formidable obstacle, as is well known, given the (apparently enduring) division of the “progressive” vote between the three (four, in Quebec) parties. And while it is easy to say they should just form a coalition or even merge, not every such arrangement is as likely to succeed. There is a reason why the three parties exist as separate entities: because there are real differences between them. The more permanent any proposed coalition was, and the more ambitious its ideological reach, the more it would bleed votes, especially to the right.
On the other hand, a coalition that confined itself to the objective of fixing the electoral system would be less likely to put off centrist voters. Having reformed the system, moreover, they would find vote-splitting was no longer an issue: their majority in the popular vote would now translate into a majority of the seats.
But would the voters go for it — objection three? The talking points write themselves: while the Tories were focused on bread-and-butter issues, the opposition would offer a motley alliance united only by an abstraction like electoral reform. And if no one thinks ahead — if everyone concedes the argument in advance — then of course that is how it would play out.
If you never make the case for electoral reform, then yes, it will remain an abstraction in the public mind. But if you believe it is necessary, presumably it is because of the real-world problems of the current system. So many of the well-known ills of our politics — the phoney majorities, the exaggerated regional divisions, the lack of competition for so many seats, the obsession with a narrow slice of swing voters, the lack of serious debate, the sheer partisan nastiness — have their roots in the way we count the votes.
How could they not? That is what decides who gets into power, and how. As such, it rewards a certain kind of political behaviour, and not others — the sort of behaviour that results in falling turnout, declining interest in Parliament, and a general sense among many voters that they are not represented by our politics. You want better bread-and-butter policies? You have to fix our politics. And one part of fixing politics is to fix the system. The opposition has two years to make that case. If they believe in it, they will.
All very well, but — objection four — how would it work in practice? Single issue elections are not unknown to our politics: 1988 was one. Neither are coalitions, with all of the last-minute haggling over cabinet seats and the like these entail. If it would allay the critics’ fears, the parties could agree upon a short program of government, in addition to the central objective of electoral reform. No doubt other issues would arise in the interim, but there’s nothing new in that.
Of course, if you don’t think electoral reform is needed, none of this will make sense to you. But then that is your real objection.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Mar 012013
Below is in follow-up to 2013-02-12 A million signatures on AVAAZ petition to US FDA, stop the licensing of GM salmon.
= = = = = = = = = = =
CONTENTS
1. “THE ONLY SOURCE OF GM SALMON EGGS ON THE PLANET“, PRINCE EDWARD ISLANDERS ARE MOBILIZING (again) TO STOP IT!
2. BERTRAM VERHAAG`S FILM “MONSTERSALMON” TELLS THE STORY. A TOOL WE CAN ALL USE. AND HIS MOST RECENT FILM, “Scientists under Attack – Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money” is a film about courage, secrecy and danger!
REQUEST: please take time to scroll down to #2. about the GM films. They are important. I will see if my local community theatre can show. Persons outside our networks may not know that this “engineering“ of animals is taking place. Up the pressure to stop these insane people. Help spread the word, use the films.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
1. “THE ONLY SOURCE OF GM SALMON EGGS ON THE PLANET“, PRINCE EDWARD ISLANDERS ARE MOBILIZING (again) TO STOP IT!
Islanders say No to GM Salmon
Prince Edward Island, Canada
Please help us promote our newly-launched petition to ban the production of GM salmon eggs at the AquaBounty facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada. As the only source of GM salmon eggs on the planet, we have an opportunity to throw a wrench into AquaBounty’s plans.
Our petition is located here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stop_Frankenfish_Egg_Production/?ccjFNab
And our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/IslandersSayNoToFrankenfish?fref=ts
Background: see the media release below.
Thanks!
Sharon Labchuk
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
MEDIA RELEASE, 28 February 2013
GM Opponents ask Premier to Ban GM Salmon Egg Production in PEI
Charlottetown – Islanders Say No to GM Salmon is calling on Premier Ghiz to ban the production of genetically modified (also known as genetically engineered or GE) Atlantic salmon eggs in PEI. As the United States edges closer to approving human consumption of GM salmon in the next months, increased attention is now focused on Canada, and in particular PEI, as the only source of GM salmon eggs on the planet.
The experimental lab-created Atlantic salmon eggs have been produced by AquaBounty, an American company, at a remote facility in Bay Fortune, PEI for more than a decade while it tries to convince the U.S. government to allow the mutant fish into grocery stores.
AquaBounty proposes to produce the GM salmon eggs in PEI, ship them to Panama for growing out and processing, then send the GM fish into the U.S. market. Using PEI and Panama to produce the fish allows AquaBounty to avoid an even more contentious environmental assessment process in the US, said Islanders Say No to GM Salmon spokesperson Sharon Labchuk.
Already the US government has received more than 30,000 comments from citizens and groups as part of the public process to assess the GM fish. Almost one million people have signed an online petition from Avaaz, a global civic action organization, against GM salmon.
Even the aquaculture industry doesn’t support GM fish and says there is no market for them.
“Scientists say the escape of just 60 GM salmon, and fish escape all the time from aquaculture facilities, could mean the end of the wild Atlantic salmon, a species already struggling to survive,” said Labchuk. “The mutant fish are engineered to produce unnatural amounts of growth hormones causing them to grow quickly. The worry is these fast-growing frankenfish will outcompete wild salmon for food and breed with them, effectively eliminating the species.”
AquaBounty claims the GM salmon will be grown in land-based pens in Panama but the company will have no control over regulations in other countries once the eggs are marketed around the globe. The company claims the fish are sterile but it’s own data submitted to the U.S. government shows up to 5% of the fish will be capable of breeding.
“A coalition of PEI organizations has lobbied both Liberal and Tory governments over the years for a GM-free province,” said Leo Broderick, Islanders Say No to GM Salmon representative. “Now because of the urgency of the situation we’ve come together to focus on a GM salmon ban. Canada has not yet approved commercial production of the GM salmon eggs but we fear if the U.S. gives approval to human consumption of GM salmon the Harper government will quickly follow suit and approve not only the sale of the frankenfish in grocery stores but the production of mutant salmon eggs as well,” said Broderick.
This month the Alaska House of Representatives came out in opposition to GM Atlantic salmon, saying it has concerns about threats to human health and wild salmon stocks, and potential negative impacts on the wild Alaska salmon fishery. Islanders Say No to GM Salmon asked Premier Ghiz to similarly tell the Harper government that PEI opposes GM salmon. The group said that even if Prime Minister Harper does approve GM salmon egg production, Premier Ghiz has the authority to ban production in PEI.
“There is no evidence the frankenfish are safe to eat,” said Mary Boyd, group representative. “Genetically engineered salmon have higher levels of IGF-1, a growth hormone that according to experts may increase the risk of several types of cancer.”
“In past years, international media reported on PEI’s role in AquaBounty’s quest to market the world’s first GM animal for human consumption,” said Labchuk. “Attention is now intensifying and PEI is poised to be a critical player. Do we want PEI known around the world as home of the frankenfish, the province that could have stopped GM salmon from wiping out Atlantic salmon but didn’t? There’s nothing to gain and everything to lose by letting this American company, concerned only with lining its own pockets, set up shop in PEI. It’s up to Islanders to say no to GM salmon.”
-30-
Contact
Sharon Labchuk 902 626 7327 slabchuk AT gmail.com
Leo Broderick 902 894 4874 lcb45 AT eastlink.ca
Mary Boyd 902-892-9074 maryboyd AT live.ca
Islanders Say No to GM Salmon on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/IslandersSayNoToFrankenfish?ref=hl
More information on the issue:
Canadian Biotechnology Network
Backgrounder re Islanders Say No to GM Salmon
Islanders Say No to GM Salmon is a group organized to push for a ban on GM Atlantic salmon eggs in PEI but the founders of the group are all long-time opponents of GMOs in PEI. Leo Broderick, Sharon Labchuk and Mary Boyd formerly worked in collaboration for years under the banners of organizations we represent, respectively, the Council of Canadians (PEI Chapter), Earth Action, and the PEI Health Coalition.
Opposition to genetically engineered organisms began in PEI with the introduction of Monsanto’s NewLeaf potato in the mid-90’s. Our campaign, assisted by many national and international organizations, forced Monsanto to withdraw the GM potato from the global market. No GM potato has been approved in Canada since.
We began to campaign against AquaBounty and its GM Atlantic salmon in 2000, including participating in an action with Greenpeace at the AquaBounty site that was broadcast around the world. We campaigned for PEI to be GMO-free zone beginning in 2001 culminating in legislative public hearings in 2005. More presentations were made at these hearings than at any other legislative hearings in the history of the province. With the U.S. poised to make a decision in the coming months on approving GM salmon for human consumption, our efforts in PEI will ramp up.
We are members of the Canadian Biotechnology Network (CBAN), a coalition of anti-GMO organizations, and work closely through CBAN with our American colleagues on issues like the GM salmon. With CBAN we’ve participated in public panel presentations in PEI and other provinces and attended U.S. government hearings on the GM salmon.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
2. BERTRAM VERHAAG`S FILM “MONSTERSALMON” TELLS THE STORY. A TOOL WE CAN ALL USE. AND HIS MOST RECENT FILM, “Scientists under Attack – Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money” is a film about courage, secrecy and danger!
Hello Sandy,
Do you remember – I am the filmmaker from Germany who made the film (including Monstersalmon) “Life running out of control”. As you see on our website www.denkmal-film.com we are still active in this area of genetic enigneering.
How are you? – I hope fine!!
Suddenly, I was eliminated from your mailing list – so I am happy to be in contact again.
Concerning Aqua Bounty’s “Frankenfish”, we made a separate 30min film only on “Monstersalmon”. I would be grateful to have this information (on the film “Monstersalmon“) spread as far as possible.
Besides this, I would like to draw your attention on our latest film about genetic engineering “Scientists under Attack – Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money”. Have a look at our website and www.scientistsunderattack.com and watch the trailers on youtube: www.youtube.com/denkmalfilm.
“Scientists under Attack” has several distributors and online platform, but they changed the title to: “Attack the Scientist”.
Looking forward to hearing from you and please find enclosed texts about “Scientists under Attack” and “Monstersalmon”.
I would appreciate to spread our information where people can find/buy the films.
Scientists under Attack:
Árpád Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela have two things in common. They are distinguished scientists and their careers are in ruins. Both choose to look at the phenomenon of genetic engineering and made important discoveries. Both are suffering the fate of those who criticise the powerful vested interests that now dominate big business and scientific research.
Statements made by scientists prove that 95% of the research in the area of genetic engineering is paid by the industry. The big danger for freedom of science and our democracy is evident. Can the public – we all – still trust our scientists?
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/scientists-under-attack
Monster Salmon:
The company AquaBounty Technologies wants to multiply the salmon supplies with a genetically modified salmon which grows twice as quickly and 6 times as big as conventional wild salmon. While “normal” Atlantic salmon require around 3 years to be ready for slaughter, the transgenic animals are not only larger but also sexually mature earlier, allowing them to “outdo” their fellow natural species. If only 60 genetically modified salmon reached the wild, this could trigger a natural population of 60,000 salmon in less than 40 fish generations. They would be the first genetically modified fish to be commercially used and released as food. Carp and tilapia are believed to be next. The consumers are not asked but we and nature are exposed to a great trial. The possible consequences which genetic technology has on humans, animals and plants are irreversible! This film explains this.
Attack the Scientist: changed title for VOD: https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/attack-the-scientist/id527458217
Best Wishes,
Bertram
———————-
DENKmal-Film Verhaag GmbH
BERTRAM VERHAAG
Herzogstrasse 97
80796 München
Telefon +49 (0)89 – 52 66 01
Fax +49 (0)89 – 523 47 42
mail AT denkmal-film.com
www.denkmal-film.com
www.facebook.com/denkmalfilm
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Monster Salmon –
genetically modified giant fish
You can find it on buffets, pasta, bread, steamed in dill sauce or on the grill. Salmon has become a mass delicacy which is produced on a large scale in fish farms.
The company AquaBounty Technologies wants to multiply the salmon supplies with a genetically modified salmon which grows twice as quickly and 6 times as big as conventional wild salmon.
When breeding the transgenic salmon it is inevitable that some escape into free nature, which would have fatal consequences for the population of wild fishes.
While “normal” Atlantic salmon require around 3 years to be ready for slaughter, the transgenic animals are not only larger but also sexually mature earlier, allowing them to “outdo” their fellow natural species. If only 60 genetically modified salmon reached the wild, this could trigger a natural population of 60,000 salmon in less than 40 fish generations.
Neither AquaBounty Technologies nor the American Health Authorities FDA have commissioned independent scientists to research the consequences on the health of people, the environment and the animal population.
GM salmon are about to be approved.
They would be the first genetically modified fish to be commercially used and released as food. Carp and tilapia are believed to be next. The consumers are not asked but we and nature are exposed to a great trial. The possible consequences which genetic technology has on humans, animals and plants are irreversible! This film explains this.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
In the early 90s the Agro-Chemicals-Multi Monsanto introduces genetically modified plants onto the market, which is the equivalent of an agricultural revolution for some that will solve all the world’s food problems. Others view these plants as an irrevocable destruction of bio-diversity on this planet that needs to be fiercely combated.
A political Thriller
On GMOs and freedom of speech
SCIENTISTS UNDER ATTACK
Genetic engineering in the magnetic field of money
Documentary, 88min
35 mm and DCP
written and directed by
BERTRAM VERHAAG
with
Arpad Pusztai Andrew Kimbrell Ignacio Chapela Jeffrey Smith and Antonio Andrioli
Camera: WALDEMAR HAUSCHILD; Editing: VERENA SCHÖNAUER; Music: GERT WILDEN; Sound: ZOLTAN RAVASZ;
Camera Assistant: ISABEL THEILER; Production Manager: IVAN COSIC, ANJA ARDAL; Sound Mixing: MAX RAMMLER
Production Assistant: FRANK PREKRATIC, LAURA HEITMANN; Redaktion: SONJA SCHEIDER (BR)
Árpád Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela have two things in common. They are distinguished scientists and their careers are in ruins. Both scientists choose to look at the phenomenon of genetic engineering. Both made important discoveries. Both of them are suffering the fate of those who criticise the powerful vested interests that now dominate big business and scientific research.
Statements made by scientists themselves prove that 95% of the research in the area of genetic engineering is paid by the industry. Only 5% of the research is independent. The big danger for freedom of science and our democracy is evident. Can the public – we all – still trust our scientists?
First press commentaries
“Disturbing and well argued” “Very controversial, intriguing and provocative”
(OX DOX – Festival) (Galloping Films)
“Amazing film, folks were blown away. Big crowd, we ran out of seats. Thank you so much for letting us screen the film”
(Film council Greater Columbus, OHIO)
It’s a film about courage, secrecy and danger!
| PRODUCTION AND WORLDSALES: |
DENKmal-Film GmbH Bertram Verhaag Herzogstraße 97 80796 München
tel: +49-89-526601 fax: +49-89-5234742 mail@denkmal-film.com www.denkmal-film.com
Feb 282013
Updates below:
- University
- Lockheed Martin/Census/Trial updates.
When you put things together into one package, you get a better picture of the seriousness.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
TWO ONE-MINUTE ACTION ITEMs:
1. Important petition, help the kids, not too many signatures to go:
Our universities fund weapons. petition asking Maclean’s Magazine to include a “University Ethical Investment” ranking in their next Universities Report.
2. Please forward to your SK Contacts who may be able to attend this important meeting:
*ACTION ALERT* The U of S Board of Governors is having its Annual Public Meeting on March 4th, noon to one, Convocation Hall.
The four new board members include Grant Isaac, Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of Cameco Corp, an uranium-mining giant based in Saskatoon. Also, the recently appointed University Secretary who will be replacing Lea Pennock in April is Elizabeth Williamson, the current Director of Legal Services in Governance for Cameco.
It’s time to ask the Board some tough questions about their complicity with nuclear/uranium industry that is destroying lands, communities, and health in Northern Saskatchewan while undermining the right to self-determination (through Cameco/Areva’s ‘Collaborative Agreement’ with Pinehouse that effectively silences the opposition). The corporatization of the university to serve their own interests has to be reversed.
It’s time to IDLE NO MORE!!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
(click on the links, then scroll down past the top-of-page headings.)
CORPORATE UNIVERSITY, UPDATES:
- 2013-02-07 Faulty Comparison (re “princely administrative leaves awarded to departed senior U of S executives”
- Corporate involvement in university governance is a disturbing trend – The Sheaf – Feb 6, 2012 http://thesheaf.com/2013/02/06/corporate-involvement-in-university-governance-is-a-disturbing-trend/ (Copy also on my blog at http://wp.me/p20yHQ-2cW )
- 2013-02-19 University of Saskatchewan looks to head off $44.5M shortfall (Lockheed Martin set up “collaboration topics” (war-mongering ones) for universities. The financial mismanagement seriously compromises the University’s independence.)
- 2013-02-01 Meanwhile, Uranium Mining Proposal Abandoned in Virginia
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
LOCKHEED MARTIN / CENSUS / TRIAL, UPDATES:
BRIEF BACKGROUND FOR NEWCOMERS:
Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the Canadian 2006 census caused me not to fill in a census form.
I was charged. The trial has been on-going since April 2008.
I am expecting the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision in the next month or two.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
I am in awe (in case you missed it):
2012-01-23 Toronto peace activist, 88, could go to jail for refusing to fill out 2011 census
Audrey Tobias and I landed in the same circumstance. But SHE is tackling the Court solely on the basis of Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the census. What a lady! (My defence is the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information, a much easier path!)
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
LOCKHEED MARTIN (WAR CORPS) IN THE NEWS:
- 2013-02-24 (Two things here) Article: Robert Gibbs: I was told ‘not even to acknowledge the drone program’, MSNBC Youtube: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/24/robert-gibbs-i-was-told-not-even-to-acknowledge-the-drone-program /
- CRASH ONE F-35, MORE THAN $600 MILLION DOWN THE TOILET! BLOOMBERG BUSINESS REPORT. (2012-07-06 Lockheed Gets Approval of Next F-35 Production Contract (U.S.)
- WHAT TO DO? CPPIB (Canada Pension Plan Investment Board): 2012-06-11 CPPIB investment in Lockheed Martin increased by 14 times, 2010 to 2011. (Read this one, and then figure out why we aren’t all out in the streets. $7 million in bonuses to the !@^#(@ who manage CPP investments. Not to mention what they are investing in.)
- 2011-09-02 UPDATE: A HUGE WIN!! Burlington, Vermont’s Lockheed Martin Showdown. Lockheed Martin: Huge win by Vermont citizens!
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
I occasionally take time to post “pre-blog” information that is valuable:
- Propaganda and naiveté, Foreign Investment in Canada. Lockheed Martin. (this is in addition to other info on the sell-out to corporate North America).
- 2010-08-05 Lockheed Martin and census – security of data base (further to earlier info on the INsecurity of the database).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
From an earlier posting:
The central message of the email: the fragility of “reason” when it is divorced from morality.
My understanding of history is that the proclivity of educated people to compartmentalize (specialize) was an enabler of Hitler’s Nazi Europe and the holocaust. With compartmentalization the moral component is de-activated. So-called “reason” rules the day which means that a completely utilitarian model is used for decision-making. The ones who should have protected European society during the nazi/fascist buildup, the educated and influential, did not. They did not intervene when they saw the danger signs. Today, Lockheed Martin is a great big danger sign that says it is time to intervene.
Governance is a dynamic system. Dynamic systems provide feedback to tell whether they are stable or becoming unstable. If the APPROPRIATE corrective action is taken IN A TIMELY WAY, then the system can be returned to stability.
Appropriate corrective action always addresses CAUSE.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
NOTE: I do not circulate everything posted on www.sandrafinley.ca. (Confession: sometimes I forget what has and has not been circulated.) Subscribe to the “RSS feed” on the blog to receive individual postings, as they happen, if you wish.
Feb 282013
http://thesheaf.com/2013/02/06/corporate-involvement-in-university-governance-is-a-disturbing-trend/
With increasing corporate involvement in university affairs, it’s hard to ignore the implications.
The “revolving door” in American politics allows people to move between the private and public sectors and to influence public policy in favour of the businesses with which they are involved. This phenomenon is one of the most universally recognized signs that the American system is corrupted and broken.
Dick Cheney’s political life is a perfect example of the revolving door. He was secretary of defence under George H. W. Bush. Afterward, Cheney left public service to become chair and CEO of Halliburton, one of the world’s largest oilfield service companies. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, Cheney left Halliburton to serve as his vice-president.
Halliburton profited enormously from the privatization of the second Iraq war. In fact, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root may have defrauded the U.S. government of hundreds of millions of dollars related to one of its Iraq contracts.
Did Cheney’s place first in Halliburton and then Bush’s administration allow him to influence these decisions? Even without hard evidence it stands to reason that it did.
The University of Saskatchewan is (obviously) not the U.S. government. But there is a similarly dangerous pattern developing here of people moving from the private sector to powerful positions in the university. It is a situation that bears close examination.
In the last few weeks, four new members of the U of S Board of Governors have been announced, as has current University Secretary Lea Pennock’s replacement.
The four new board members are Grant Isaac, Lee Ahenakew, Kathryn Ford and David Dubé. Isaac works at Cameco and Ahenakew is employed at BHP Billiton, which tried to mount a hostile takeover of PotashCorp in 2012. Ford has practiced law in Saskatoon since 1977 and owns her own firm. Dubé is the CEO of Concorde Group, a property and business management company in Saskatoon.
Pennock’s replacement will be Elizabeth Williamson, who currently works at Cameco.
Dubé, Isaac and Williamson are problematic appointees because of their financial ties to the university. Cameco has been a generous donor to the U of S, and Dubé has made donations to the Huskies football team totalling in excess of $1 million.
I know if I had donated over $1 million to an organization I would probably feel some entitlement to direct its operation, whether I realized it or not.
The university’s Board of Governors makes major financial decisions on campus. Allowing people and companies that clearly have a personal stake in the university’s financial situation to direct the university is an affront to the university’s independence.
Overlap between the public and private sectors is necessary to some extent, especially at this level. Having someone who works in the private sector sit on the university’s board is not in and of itself dangerous. However, a public institution — which the U of S is — is very different from a corporation, especially where finances are concerned.
Corporations are run with the explicit goal of making money. Public institutions are not.
Public institutions provide services that can best be dispensed if people are not concerned with also bringing in profit. Things like building roads and educating the country’s young are too important to mix with profitability, because profit will inevitably take the front seat. It is worth questioning how a board filled with corporate-minded people may play into the administration’s current push for “prioritization” of programs and services on campus.
Program prioritization visionary Robert C. Dickeson, on whose model the “TransformUS” initiative is based, advocates a distinctly cutthroat, corporate approach to university management, and individuals from the private sector will likely see the merits thereof.
It is possible that Isaac, Williamson and even Dubé have only the university’s best interests at heart. It’s almost certain they think they do. But they are trained to think in terms of profitability. When there are millions of dollars at stake, which there are for Cameco and Dubé, they understandably have strong motivation to ensure the university is moving in a direction they are happy with.
Private investment is a necessity with our current post-secondary funding model, but that doesn’t mean the university should accept private parties directing its priorities.
– Photo: Raisa Pezderic & Jared Beattie/The Sheaf
Feb 282013
On Thursday, February 28th, 2013 in Island Tides
EXCERPT:
Though there is much to share about events in Washington, new developments in the repression of Canadian science are more urgent. ‘Chilling’ is the word that has been used in media reports, and ‘chilling’ it is.
Back in October 2011, I wrote in Island Tides about the muzzling of DFO scientists. The scientist in question, Dr Kristi Miller, had achieved levels of scientific respect as her work on viruses linked to salmon aquaculture operations had been published in the internationally prestigious journal Science. When Science attempted to arrange media interviews with Dr Miller, the Privy Council Office ordered her to refuse.
It seems that the public outcry over that event, and others including ozone scientists at Environment Canada, led the Prime Minister’s Office to decide the contractual arrangements with scientists were too lax. As of February 1 this year, new rules were put in place requiring all scientists working on projects in conjunction with DFO in the Central and Arctic Region to treat all information as proprietary to DFO, and—worse—await departmental approval before submitting research to any scientific journals.
The story was broken by veteran journalist Michael Harris, in the online journal iPolitics. Harris has been one of the few journalists willing to dig into the pervasive repression, slashing of science and rejection of evidence based decision-making in Harper’s Ottawa.
The reaction from DFO was swift. It posted this attack on its website:
‘The iPolitics story by Michael Harris published on February 7th, 2013 is untrue. There have been no changes to the Department’s publication policy.’
Harris recounts that he was stunned. He had verified the change with several scientists, external to DFO. He called Dr Jeff Hutchings at Dalhousie University who re-confirmed the changes. Then Harris received support from an unexpected source—an anonymous DFO scientist posted the email from Michelle Wheatley, the Central and Arctic science director, sent out to detail the new publication policy.
The anonymous scientist wrote, ‘Here is the e-mail I got from my division manager on January 29, 2013: ‘Subject: New Publication Review Committee (PRC) Procedures for C&A Science …’. The email was reproduced in full, and began, ‘This message is regarding the new Publication Review Committee procedures for C&A Science…’
The email noted that the new policy was to take effect on February 1, 2013.
The anonymous scientist concluded: ‘You decide who’s being untruthful.’
A few days after DFO tried to deny that there were any changes, the Vancouver Sun broke the story of a US scientist, doing collaborative work with DFO, who is refusing to sign the new conditions. Calling it a ‘potential muzzle,’ Dr Andreas Muenchow, of the University of Delaware told the Sun, ‘I’m not signing it.’ Muenchow has been working on a project with DFO scientists in the Eastern Arctic since 2003.
In 2003, when the collaborative research project began, there were quite different rules about sharing data: ‘Data and any other project-related information shall be freely available to all Parties to this Agreement and may be used, disseminated or published, at any time.’
Within days of February 1st’s new publication policy, on February 7, came another DFO email to scientists: now they must obtain prior consent before applying for research grants.
You can see where this is going. It is not enough to muzzle scientists like Dr Miller when their research is published. The tightening of control over science must be established far earlier in the process. Stop the research from being submitted to journals. Stop the scientists from collaborating with others. Stop scientists from applying for research grants. Stop science from happening at all.
The elimination of whole branches of scientific work within the federal government, the slashing of governmental funds for science, and now a departmental veto on applying for research grants or submitting results to peer reviewed journals fits in the larger systemic dismantling of any aspect of governmental activities that could throw doubt on the wisdom of pressing for rapid expansion of fossil fuel exploitation.
‘Chilling’ is one word, but it does not seem adequate to this development. This is the 21st Century equivalent of the Dark Ages. This is book burning and superstition run rampant. This is the administration of a steady, slow drip of poison to a weakening democracy.
The Conservatives’ war on knowledge continues
By Megan Leslie, M.P. | Mar 4, 2013 8:54 pm
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/03/04/the-conservative-war-on-science-continues/
Fiscal year end for the federal government is March 31, which means a new federal budget. Choices will be made which reflect the priorities of the Conservative government. One of those decisions will have profound, long term effects for Canada’s science capacity and policy advice.
On March 31, funding will officially run out for the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), after nearly 50 years of providing groundbreaking research and global solutions for environmental problems. In yet another short-sighted Conservative decision, shutting down a world class — and unique — facility will adversely affect the capacity to protect and manage water resources, not just in Canada but around the world.
The ELA is a brilliant investment. It costs roughly $2 million each year — a small fraction of the millions of dollars the program leverages in research funding from around the world. Contrast that with the over $64 million this government approved (and then exceeded) for perverse advertising to promote its spending cuts and so-called economic agenda.
MORE:
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/03/04/the-conservative-war-on-science-continues/
Feb 282013
Kids are great! Give them a hand taking this petition over the top!
10,035 supporters as at Feb 28, 2013. Goal is 15,000.
Go to the link to sign. It’s easy!
TEXT:
Canadian Universities are proud to claim they are on the cutting edge of sustainability education and research to solve global problems. However, together Canadian Universities are investing billions of dollars in unsustainable and unethical industries we think students would have a problem with.
Universities are investing in:
• Fossil fuel companies that contribute greatly to climate change.
• Mining companies who operate in developing counties, often contributing to violent conflict.
• Companies who have been accused of poor labour practices, child labour and using sweatshops
• Tobacco companies
• Companies with manufacturing process that expose employees to dangerous toxins.
• Companies that manufacture weapons
• and many others.
If Maclean’s includes an ethical investment ranking then students will have the opportunity to choose a university operating in line with their values.
If you believe that it is hypocritical to boast sustainable education yet continue to be investing in an unsustainable future, please join us in adding your signature to our petition.
This goal is attainable! Universities care about how they are perceived in the Maclean’s report. It is our hope that this ranking will make Universities think twice about where they invest. Due to mounting public pressure, universities have divested from tobacco, and some universities are starting to look into ethical investment. Students have the right to know how their future university is investing its money.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
To:
Mary Dwyer, Senior University Rankings Editor, Maclean’s Magazine
Firstly, we want to thank you for your 22 years of service. Your annual University Rankings issue has been an indispensable tool in helping thousands of Canadians choose the appropriate university. There is so much to consider when choosing a university.
While looking through your ranking, we noticed there is nothing that mentions a university’s investments. When making the choice of what university to attend, we want to make sure that our prospective university does not invest in the fossil fuel, the weapons, the tobacco companies and other unsustainable and unethical companies.
Please help us make a better ethical and educated decision. We are requesting you add an “Ethical Investment of University Endowment Funds” as an indicator in your next annual issue of the University Rankings.
Sincerely,
[Your name]