Part Two

I felt my last blog needed a supplement.

My mention of the meat packing industry and it's unethical practices (towards humans in this case) warrants a more in-depth investigation.

For those of you who haven't seen the documentary film Food, Inc. GO SEE IT! It's a real eye opener to the corruption that surrounds the processes that delivers to you the food you eat every single meal. But that's another series of blogs i could write all in itself.

The movie mentions of the Smithfield slaughterhouse in North Carolina, the largest slaughterhouse in the United States. Amongst its resume of unethical practices regarding treatment of animals, it can add the unethical treatment and degradation of human beings as well.

Smithfield is the largest recruiter of illegal immigrants of all the food industries in the U.S. They bus people from Mexico, and those living in the deep south along the border, to their factory in North Carolina. Here, the workers live in small run down houses surrounding the factory. A bus comes very early in the morning to take them to work, where they are subjected to highly dangerous and unsanitary environments on the kill floor and along the 'assembly line'.

As you can probably guess, these workers are paid well below minimum wage. But here's the catch, Smithfield often gets free labor from these workers. The film also makes mention of a tactic that Smithfield uses on a routine basis. Some mornings, even earlier than the bus comes to cart them to work, Immigration Police come and raid around 15 of the houses, and deport the workers living in them back to Mexico, often before they receive a paycheck or make any notable about of money at all.

I know in my last blog i mentioned that a few of you readers may be skeptical about the applicability of the rights that the U.S. guarantees to individuals, to illegals. However, this is not just about rights specified in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence, it's about the rights every human being is entitled to, just by being a living being in this world.

Using these people for cheap to free labor, forcing them to work under miserable, infectious conditions, then sending them back to Mexico like used up rags, when you are finished with them, is unacceptable. How is this being allowed? Wouldn't Smithfield get in trouble for hiring illegals? Wouldn't the government find out since they call Immigration? What the hell is going on?

The food industry in our country is uncomfortably intertwined with our government and it's bureaucratic agencies. Often times the head of the bureaucracies that are supposed to regulate certain aspects of the food industry and enforce rules, were once the head of those very industries or companies. So while we are trusting in our government and its agencies to act in our best interest, they are fully aware of this blind trust, and instead, act in the best interest of their pocket books.

The USDA is conducting fewer and fewer health regulation checks each year, and for some reason do not have the authority to shut down a company or plant if they are found to be selling tainted meat. I'm not sure what their job is or who has the authority to do so, if they do not?

This blog may be a bit confusing as to what people I think have a right to file grievances over the injustices being done to them. To answer that flat out, it is everyone. The illegal immigrants working for the companies, and the people eating the food.

The illegal immigrants, for obvious reasons. But maybe less clear why I believe all of us have a right to revolt, and demand a change. By purchasing products from the companies who employ tactics of violating human rights, you are sending them money, in a sense telling them you support them, and you want to fund them to continue doing what they are doing. In reality you have to pay for the food, and really you're just saying 'hey, I like your food' but the impact of that purchase expands farther than we can actually see, or are exposed to.

These products are seemingly unavoidable, as unethical is an adjective that encompasses most of the major food companies, but if you so choose, there are ways to withdrawal your support.
 (Again I could write endlessly about this topic, so instead i'm just going to URGE you to watch the movie!! Food, Inc.)

Remember, even though changing your habits may be an inconvenience for you, it's a small, very small price to pay for the positive impact you are making in a step toward change.

"Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"

Eric Clapton is a wise ,wise man.

The U.S. has long been critized by other countries around the world, as well as some of its own citizens, for medling in the affairs of those other countries often without the request of said country.

"The United States spends over $25 million a year - more than all other countries combined - to eliminate child labor abroad, yet is tolerating exploitative child labor in its own backyard," stated Coursen-Neff, author of the report and deputy director of the Children's Rights Division at Human Rights Watch.

Under the current child labor law in the United States, the employment of children under age 14 is probited and children under 16 are limited to three hours of work on school days. However, these restrictions exclude agriculture. As long as the child is at least 12 years of age and is not working during school hours, there is no limit to how many hours the child can work.

The current child labor law was drafted in the 1930's when most farms were family owned and parents supervised. Now, far different from then, dangerous heavy machinery and poisonous pesticides/chemicals define the agricultural sector the U.S. economy. The farm workers, including the children, operate the machines without proper supervision or training often resulting in serious injuries and death. According to a study conducted and report filed by Human Rights Watch these workers suffer fatalities at more than four times the rate of children working in other jobs. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have made no pesticide safety requlations specific to children.

Also from their report, Human Rights Watch were told in interviews with children workers farmworkers that some work without the most basic protection like shoes or gloves. Many also divulged that their employers did not provide drinking water, means of washing their hands, or facilities to use the restroom. The majority of the children Human Rights Watch interviewed have been held back in school one or more times.

Like most people living in America I was dumbfounded as to how this is even legal? How it's not a topic of heavier debate or priority for our national government. Children are the future right? That's why we are encouraged from the time we enter middle school to consider what we want to do with our future, what college, what career?

Granted many laws in the U.S. have been around for decades, even centuries now, but agriculture has changed so drastically that it is completely beyond me how a reform or reconsideration of laws and regulation regarding those involved were not reevaluated. I have enough qualms with the agriculture industry in this country as is, this tops it.

The Human Rights Watch website sheds some light as to why this has been succesfully 'under wraps' as it states that most of these children are those of undocumented workers, or workers with short-term work visas. Although they children are U.S. born, thus citizens, their families would rather not draw any extra attention to themselves for fear of deportation.

I'm positive there are those of you, as you read this, thinking to yourself why the U.S. should protect these workers if they are illegals or non-citizens just here to work? Remember, this is the case for most of the parents and adults not the U.S. born child workers. As citizens, I would say that our laws should extend to them, but there are no laws of protection to extend.

As I mentioned earlier, agriculture in the U.S. is 100% different than in the early 1900's. As it grew and became more industrialized to meet a larger demand on its market, it's labor force needed to increase porportionally and most importantly, cheaply. This is when commercial growers and meat packing companies began to accept and actively recruit illegal immigrants.

It is my theory that this is why new laws have not been put in place to regulate safety more sufficiently for workers, especially children. The 'under-the-table' nature of this workforce operation would have to be exposed.

Is this the price that the workers pay and accept for being allowed into the country illegaly, and consequently their children? Does that make it okay?


Messy, messy.

Check out my main source!
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/05/04/us-child-farmworkers-dangerous-lives

Women as second-class in the third world

To live in a place with a government that oppresses women as well as their rights is near impossible for us (women and girls in the U.S. today) to imagine. 

In their report, Left Without a Choice, Amnesty International brings to the worlds attention such oppression taking place in Indonesia. "many Indonesian women and girls, especially those from poor and marginalized communities, struggle to achieve reproductive health in the face of discriminatory laws, policies and practices," writes blog.amnestyusa.org. 

The discriminatory practices of the Indonesian government restrict and prevent access to contraception methods or abortion, even if without it the woman may die. Abortion is legally available for women/girls who become pregnant as a result of rape, but then why do between 5 and 11 percent of maternal deaths in Indonesia occur because of unsafe abortions?

It seems unlikely, to me, that the government of Indonesia has in fact taken steps to make the necessary health information and resources more accessible to rape victims and/or all women. It is 2010 and it is unacceptable that girls aged 16 are getting kicked out of school, and forced to get married or subjecting themselves to unsafe abortions because they are not given many other options.

For the growth of a country and it's evolution from the periphery to the core, it has been proven that having a population of women have access to methods of birth-control is essential. It lessens the infant and maternal mortality rate as well as allows women/girls to remain in school longer, as they do not have to drop out to raise children. As a result of a receiving a complete education, women are more equipped and free to pursue a career, which has proven to lower the number of children produced per woman. Overall, the simple access of education and contraception granted to women helps the country level out population growth and become more industrialized.

It is time to cease living in the past and take a step forward. Moving past long standing stereotypes based on ignorance and patriarchy would benefit the country as a whole, not just the women. 

"don't ask, don't tell", more like don't bother.

Despite President Obama's vow to do away with "don't ask, don't tell" citizens and politicians alike are growing doubtful that it will happen.


With Midterm elections taking place in less than a month, on November 2, Democrats in favor of repealing the policy are scrambling to push it through Congress. Passing through the policy is twice as complicated so close to elections.


The inability of the Democratic Party to repeal the act has upset many of their constituents which may prevent re-election. However, if the Republican Party gains control of the either the senate or house, or both, that would most likely erase any chance of abolishing "don't ask, don't tell", in the future.


For this reason Democratic representatives in the Senate and House are asking for voters patience with the issue, and stressing that if the Republicans gain control that the act will remain in place.


“First of all, I haven’t ‘mentioned’ that I’m against ‘don’t ask’… I have said very clearly, including in a State of the Union address, that I’m against ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and that we’re going to end this policy,” President Obama countered, to those questioning his devotion to his words.


The White House was following a 'go-slow' plan regarding repealing "don't ask, don't tell" to avoid conflict with the Pentagon, as they need the Pentagon/ military support.  The initial plan entailed waiting on a study to be released from the Pentagon in December 2010 with legislation to follow.


What the Obama administration did not anticipate was the impatience of advocates of repeal due to online polls revealing an overwhelming 75 percent of the population is in favor of doing away with "don't ask, don't tell". In response to the pressure a conditional repeal legislation was introduced to Congress to give Obama, and two members of his staff to end "don't as, don't tell" as soon as the studies are complete.


With all of the uproar from both sides of the debate, I feel we should consider the main reason (or what should be the main reason) for the debate: is it in the best interest of the gay men and women serving in the armed forces to repeal this act? Would it really help America as a whole to reduce homophobia and develop a better sense and practice of equal rights?Would it increase their participation in the armed forces or deter it since they are no longer "protected"? Is "don't ask, don't tell" really protecting them?


No wonder this repeal is messy business.


Currently, responding to the growing gay-rights movement, many gays serving in the military have began to be open about their sexuality and hundreds have been discharged. 275 members were let go in 2009 just for being honest about who they are. This is unacceptable for a nation that claims "liberty and justice for all".


I do believe "don't ask, don't tell" should be and will be repealed. Although you cannot force people to change their beliefs, as they are often deeply rooted in tradition and religion, I think allowing homosexuals to be open about their lifestyle will help eradicate radical opposition to the same-sex lifestyle in the future. Expulsion of this well known, no longer secret, fact will make gay-rights a less taboo/ touchy subject.

IMPORTANT!

WATCH!

"You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so lets do it like they do on the Discovery Channel"

and help out!!

http://www.austinpetsalive.org/

"I didn't make that mess, it's not my responsibility to clean it up."

The chant of countless grade school children in protest to cleaning up a few markers left strewn about by a classmate, or food crumbs left on the table by a sibling. The chant that also rings out from many politicians mouths around the globe, only the mess in this context could expand as far as the 'projects' of the United States to starvation and widespread disease in third world countries.
        As Americans, we have heard the terms equality, equal rights since kindergarten. Because they are so ingrained in our brains through our education it is easy to take them at face value and not consider the application of those terms outside of our nations borders.
       Is it because those people in poorer countries were not fortunate enough to be born into U.S. citizenship that they do not deserve the same 'equality' we expect here? There is a gross inequality amongst standards of living within countries and between them. Those who enjoy a greater standard of living refuse to make an effort to assist those that do not, because "it is not their problem."
       "Those other countries governments should learn how to get their own stuff together"
       "Why don't they improve working conditions for their people?"
       As Americans we are also raised to believe that our country, "The land of the free and the home of the brave", is righteous, even a godsend to 'lesser' countries; offering aid (mostly in the form of military involvement). What is kept behind the scenes offers an answer to the questions posed above.