NEWS FROM BRAZIL supplied by SEJUP (Servico Brasileiro de Justica e Paz).
Number 503, January 2, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
------------
Visit our home page: http://www.oneworld.org/sejup

This week's News from Brazil is a translation of an article written by an
organization which is opposed to the implementation of GMO (genetically
modified organism) technology in Brazil. The article targets Monsanto, a
US agricultural company which is promoting the technology.

Monsanto Uses False Advertising to Promote GMO's

"Imagine a world which preserves nature, the air, the rivers. Where we can=

produce more with fewer pesticides, without destroying the
forests. Imagine a world with more food, with more nutritious food, and
people with better health. Can you imagine it? Ah, but you never imagined=

that GMO's could help us do this. Have you ever thought of a better
world? You should think like we do. A Monsanto initiative with the
support of the Associa=E7=E3o Brasileira de Nutrologia."

From a Monsanto ad campaign

The Campaign for a Brazil Free of GMO's now publicly manifests its
opposition to the propaganda Monsanto has produced here on TV, radio and
press regarding GMO's. With emotional appeal, Monsanto is trying to form
public opinion based on a nonexistent relationship between transgenic
production and the conservation of the environment. The commercial tries
to get the consumer to believe that transgenic production promotes food and=

environmental security, citing the benefits that biotechnology can bring.

Let us analyze a few points of the advertising.

1. The commercial implies that transgenic production can help to "preserve=

nature, the air, the rivers." It is important to establish that there are
two types of transgenic plants that are being produced commercially
today. The first class make up 75% of all transgenic plants. These plants=

are herbicide-resistant. In other words, with proper care, the farmer can
spray as much herbicides over the fields as he needs, and all the plants
except those that are transgenic will die. It is important to note here
that Monsanto, which produces the seeds for these plants, also produces the=

herbicide to which these plants are resistant.

The second type make up 17% of transgenic plants. These plants receive
genes from a bacteria in the soil and then produce toxic insecticides. An
insect eats part of the plant, then dies. The other 8% are a combination
of these two technologies.

Up until now, no tests have shown that GMO's benefit nature, air or
water. Quite the contrary. These plants tend to need a greater quantity
of herbicides, thus contaminating even more nature. The second type of
GMO's also kills beneficial insects, thus disturbing the balance of nature.=


2. The propaganda goes on to insinuate that trangenics can produce more
with less chemicals. According to studies done in the US, genetically
modified soy beans produce 5-10 less than conventional
soybeans. Concerning other types of plants, production has been less or at=

most equal to that of conventional crops. As noted above, there has been
no less use of chemicals in transgenic production. It is also relevant to
note that the use of glyphosate (the principle component of Monsanto's
herbicide Round-Up) has tripled in the state of Rio Grande do Sul--exactly
during the period when the cultivation of these illegal transgenic plants
began to spread (1998-2001).

It is equally unacceptable to say the transgenic plants help to prevent
deforestation. Most cultivation of GMO's (soy, corn and cotton) are export=

commodities and require vast areas of land. Large farmers continue to buy
forest lands throughout Brazil in order to increase their production of soy=
.

3. The commercial implies that GMO's make for healthier food and
healthier people. Concerning this claim, no country in the world has
properly evaluated the effects of GMO's on people's health.

As if this were not enough, Monsanto is soliciting Anvisa (the Brazilian
Food and Safety department) to increase by 50% the Maximum Limit of
Residues (MLR) of glyphosate on its soybeans. In addition, Monsanto has
refused to do environmental impact studies since 1998 when the Justice
Department ordered the company to do so. At the same time, Monsanto is
fighting against a law which would require companies to label products
which contain GMO's.

If Monsanto is so sure about the safety of transgenic plants, why do they
refuse to do impact studies to evaluate the risks. Why are they trying to
change Brazilian laws without doing any evaluations?

4. We find it disturbing that in their TV ads Monsanto presents images of
pregnant women and children, implying that GMO's are good for mothers and
infants. In 2002, the Studies of the Royal Society of the United Kingdom
recommended that special attention be given to transgenic food destined for=

babies because of the risks GMO's have: "Babies fed with a bottle might
become undernourished if they are fed infant formula made with GMO's as
there is inadequate regulation and regimented tests for transgenic foods"
(Daily Telegraph, February 5, 2002)

5. Besides being deceitful, Monsanto is producing propaganda for products
prohibited in the country. In spite of Provisionary Measures 113 and 131
which authorized the commercialization of transgenic soy, the sale of
transgenic sees continues to be prohibited by the Justice Department.

All this being the case, we urge the Brazilian authorities to suspend
Monsanto's deceitful advertizing and oblige the company to pay for ads
which will correct their misinformation and present clearly the facts
concerning transgenics.

References

BENBROOK, C.M. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in
the United States The First Eight Years. BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper
Number 6. November 2003.

____________. Troubled times amid commercial success for Roundup Ready
soybeans Glyphosate efficacy is slipping and unstable transgene expression=

erodes plant defenses and yields. AgBioTech InfoNet technical paper no. 4,
3 May, 2001a.

____________. When does it pay to plant Bt corn farm level economic impacts=

of Bt corn 1996-2001. http://www.iatp.org

ELMORE, R.W. et al. Glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivar yields compared
with sister lines. Agronomy Journal, 93408-412, 2001.

FULTON, M.; KEYOWSKI, L. The producer benefits of herbicide-resistant
canola. AgBioForum, vol. 2, no.2, 1999.
(http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu).

HANSEN, L. e OBRYCKI, J., Non-target effects of Bt corn pollen on the
Monarch butterfly (LepidopteraDanaidae), abstract of a poster presented at
the North Central Branch meeting of the Entomological Society of America,
March 29, 1999 (http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/d81.html).=


HARDELL, L. & ERIKSSON, M. A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and=

Exposure to Pesticides. Cancer, v. 85, n.6, 1999.

LOSEY, J. et al. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399214, May=

20, 1999.

OLIVA, A.; SPIR A, A.; MULTIGNER, L. Contribution of environmental factors
to the risk of male infertility. Human Reproduction, v.16, n.8,
p.1768-1776, 2001.

IBAMA Relat=F3rios de consumo de ingredientes ativos de agrot=F3xicos e afi=
ns
no Brasil anos 1998 a 2001/DF. Mar=E7o de 2003.

ROIG, J. L. D. & ARN=C1IZ, M. G. Riesgos sobre la salud de los alimentos
modificados gen=E9ticamenteuna revisi=F3n bibliogr=E1fica. Revista Espa=F1o=
la de
Salud P=FAblica, vol.74 n.3 Madrid May/June 2000.

SHOEMAKER, R. (Ed.) Economic issues in agricultural biotechnology.
Agricultural Information Bulletin, no. 762, Economic Research Service of
the USDA, 2001.

WALSH, L.O., MCCORMICK, C., MARTIN, C., STOCCO, D.M.
Roundup Inhibits Steroidogenesis by Disrupting Steroidogenic Acute
Regulatory (StAR) Protein Expression. Environ Health
Perspectives, v.108, p.769-776, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
-----
The reproduction of this material is permitted as long as the source is
cited. If you wish to contact us or receive NEWS FROM BRAZIL free of
charge by e-mail send a message to sejup@alternex.com.br

=================================================================

The battle after Seattle 

IDENTIFY (News and Analysis)

Four years after the landmark 1999 protests in Seattle, times are
tougher for the global justice movement. But activists are adapting by
broadening their ranks, shifting their tactics, and envisioning an
alternative world.

Written by Victor Tan Chen, INTHEFRAY.COM Editor
Photographed by Dustin Ross, INTHEFRAY.COM Visual Editor

December 26, 2003, INTHEFRAY.COM

http://www.inthefray.com/html//article.php?sid=129

About 2,500 police officers had shown up in downtown Miami, hailing
from more than forty local, state, and federal agencies. With their
black helmets, chest armor, and body shields, they looked like twenty-
first-century Roman legionnaires, staring down the barbarian hordes
from beneath their polycarbonate visors. Their adversaries were some
15,000 strong: protesters, mostly labor union members, with smatterings
of dreadlocked anarchists, backpack-toting students, and gray-haired
retirees, who had come to Miami to demonstrate during the week?s
negotiations over a hemisphere-wide trade pact known as the Free Trade
Area of the Americas (FTAA). As activists ended their protest march on
that sunny Thursday afternoon, police began their own. Slowly but
relentlessly, they pushed the crowd back with wooden batons, firing
rubber bullets and drenching the crowds in pepper spray as they
advanced. A police spokesperson said the melee ? what seemed more like
a rout ? started with a few protesters hurling rocks. By the end of the
next day, 231 people had been arrested, and dozens injured, including a
handful of police officers.

Two months earlier, at the World Trade Organization?s (WTO) summit in
Cancún, Mexico, there were thousands of police as well, though they did
not march, nor fire any bullets. They did not have to. Eight-foot-tall
chain-link fences had been erected all along the road leading into the
Mexican resort town?s ?hotel zone,? where trade ministers from around
the globe were meeting. The protesters, their placards, and their
puppets stayed on one side; the riot cops stayed on the other.
Activists ripped down the first security perimeter on two occasions
that week, but for the most part the crowd of several thousand was kept
where police wanted them ? miles away from the trade negotiations.

Four years after the landmark protests in Seattle that shut down a WTO
ministerial meeting and landed the ?anti-globalization? movement on the
map, activism against free trade and corporate power has not gotten any
easier. Authorities have responded to the mass mobilizations at every
international summit by moving their events to far-off locales, where
social movements are weak and trucking in large numbers of activists is
next to impossible. Police have learned from the failures of Seattle,
cordoning off key city blocks in advance and using a combination of
tall fences and non-lethal firepower to keep protesters in line. And
though last year?s demonstrations against the Iraq War helped bring
back the nation?s taste for popular protest, American activists in the
past two years have had to deal with an unfavorable political climate
ever since September 11, when pundits started likening anti-
globalization to terrorism and anti-Americanism.

?There?s a lot of reasons we got lucky in Seattle,? says Gan Golan, a
Boston-based activist who participated in the so-called ?Battle in
Seattle? and spent last summer helping organize the anti-WTO protests
in Cancún. ?We?re seeing incredible advances in [police] tactics.
They?re learning their lessons, and we?re learning ours.?

While it?s likely Golan and his friends will never shut down another
WTO ministerial again, there are signs that their movement is adapting
to new realities. One difference is in the ways activists now identify
themselves. Rejecting the ?anti-globalization? label that critics
foisted on them four years ago, many have settled on a more proactive
name for their work: ?global justice.? They have broadened both their
ranks and issues to widen appeal. And they have made strides in
addressing the question that has vexed them in newspaper editorial
columns for years: What does their movement stand for? ?I think what
you see here,? says Walden Bello, director of the Focus on the Global
South, ?is what The New York Times said: There are only two global
superpowers at this point ? one is the United States, and the other is
global civil society.?

Rather than offering a single solution, global justice activists have
staked their movement?s future on the two things that critics have
continually called its ?weaknesses?: the ?incoherent? diversity of its
membership, and its ?ineffective? style of democratic organizing. ?I
think now the politics is one of, ?Diversity is healthy,?? says David
Solnit, an activist from Oakland, California. Solnit quotes a saying of
the Zapatistas, the Mexican indigenous rights movement: ?One no, many
yeses.? ?We all have a similar enemy, but we all create an alternative
ourselves in a thousand different ways,? he says. That means not just
diverse agendas, but diverse tactics; not just demanding more
accountability from political leaders, but achieving a radically
democratic way of life. ?The globalization from above is corporate
capitalism and people who want to control the world,? Solnit says.
?From below, it?s those of us who want to reorganize society and
empower people and restructure the world.? At the World Social Forum,
the annual gathering of activists and intellectuals dedicated to global
justice, that spirit has its own slogan: ?Another world is possible.?

?A world where many worlds fit?

If you want to understand the roots of the global justice movement, you
have to look long before the 1999 Seattle protest ? decades before.
Beginning in the mid-1970s, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
World Bank began imposing ?austerity? measures on a wide range of
countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Billions of dollars of
loans were provided, but under stringent conditions: that governments
cut social spending, loosen controls on foreign capital, privatize
state-owned firms, and follow other tenets of the so-called
?neoliberal? economic model. Intended to help revitalize national
economies weighed down by colossal amounts of debt, these ?structural
adjustment? policies arguably worsened already desperate levels of
unemployment and starvation in many countries. Over the next two
decades, widespread popular protest erupted in country after country:
Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Brazil, Dominican
Republic, Argentina, and Zambia, among others.

Few people in Northern countries seemed to care. Then, on January 1,
1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect.
That same day, an army representing 1,111 indigenous communities
occupied five cities and towns in the Mexican state of Chiapas. The
insurgents demanded basic social services: schools, clinics,
electricity, running water. They denounced Northern-imposed, corporate-
controlled policies of free trade ? in a word, neoliberalismo. Taking
their name from Emiliano Zapata, a hero of the Mexican Revolution, the
Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) called upon the world to defy
the neoliberal order. But they refused to advocate one alternative. In
their Fourth Declaration of the Lacandón Jungle, the Zapatistas
declared: ?The world we want is one where many worlds fit.?

When the Zapatista uprising happened, Jeff Duritz was living on the
Cayman Islands, teaching scuba diving and saving up his money. He had
just graduated from college and was out to see the world. Between dips
into the sea, Duritz would stop by the local library to catch up on The
New York Times. ?I remember reading about this Indian uprising in
southeastern Mexico,? he says. ?A lot of them had guns, but some of
them only had sticks and they were riding around on the back of trucks.
They were saying that they wanted to overthrow the government of Mexico
... And it was just preposterous ? ?Like, who are these people, what
the hell are they doing???

Seven years later, Duritz went to Mexico to witness the Zapatista
struggle for himself. He arrived in Chiapas just in time to join the
EZLN in the largest mobilization of its history: a caravan of thousands
of Zapatistas and foreign allies, traveling from rural, impoverished
Chiapas to downtown Mexico City, where the ?Zapatour? was going to
confront their national legislators and demand the passage of an
indigenous Bill of Rights. Along the way, Duritz saw first-hand the
democratic style of organizing that the Zapatistas preached and
practiced. Many international journalists had focused on the
charismatic spokesperson of the movement, Subcomandante Marcos ? the
masked man who quoted Lewis Carroll and Borges and wrote poetry. But
Marcos insisted that he was not the leader, but merely a
?subcomandante.? Decisions were made by the twenty-four-person council
of Zapatista commanders, each chosen by their respective communities.

Theirs was a struggle that went far beyond the Lacandón Jungle. The
subcomandante once told a reporter, ?Marcos is gay in San Francisco,
black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an
anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the
streets of San Cristobal, a Jew in Germany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk
in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the Metro at 10
p.m., a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed
worker, an unhappy student, and, of course, a Zapatista in the
mountains.? Duritz was not sure what to make of the Zapatistas? radical
acceptance of diversity, springing as it did among indigenous people
with limited education living in the poverty-stricken countryside of
Mexico. ?Here?s the Zapatistas, they get all this respect ? what
happens when they hit a provincial area?? Duritz says. ?Everybody comes
out, and then Marcos ? says, ?We want rights for the taxi drivers. And
we want rights for the domestic servants and we need equal treatment
for the street sweepers,? and people are cheering, ?and we need equal
rights for gays and lesbians!? And people just cheered.?

If one event could be called the beginning of the modern-day global
justice movement, the Zapatista uprising is probably it, Solnit says.
Many of the people who would go on to organize anti-WTO demonstration
in Seattle attended the encuentros in the jungle of Chiapas, where
members of the ragtag guerrilla army gathered to talk strategy. It was
one of the earliest articulations of the vision that would motivate
global justice activists in the years to come: radical democracy and
radical diversity. ?I think of a new politics of people not trying to
take power but trying to exercise it themselves.? says Solnit. ?The
Zapatistas didn?t want to take over the government. They wanted to have
autonomy within their own community, and then catalyze other
communities to do the same.?

Five years after the Zapatista uprising, the diversity that
Subcomandante Marcos had philosophized about suddenly became a reality
? in the Pacific Northwest. The ?Battle in Seattle? drew tens of
thousands of demonstrators from around the country and across the
globe. ?Teamsters and Turtles, Together At Last!? read one of the
signs, and sure enough, trade unionists from the AFL-CIO were out in
full force, alongside the environmentalists they had once shunned. The
Teamsters and turtles were joined by a hodgepodge of other activists
loosely tied together by a common distrust of the WTO. They ranged from
radical anarchists to liberal environmentalists to centrist union
members ? and even included a contingent of die-hard conservatives
(right-wing political commentator and presidential candidate Patrick
Buchanan was in Seattle, along with his ?Buchanan Brigaders,? arguing
that the WTO threatened the sovereignty of the United States). For
Russell Howze, an artist and activist from San Francisco, the spectacle
downtown was mesmerizing. ?I remember just walking down the street at 6
or 7 in the morning ? and all colors, all nationalities ? and I just
remember going, ?Holy shit! There are people in the world that think
like I do.??

Journalist and activist Naomi Klein has called the 1999 Seattle protest
the global justice movement?s ?coming out party? ? that decisive moment
when a ?movement of many smaller movements? that had labored for
decades in relative isolation and obscurity suddenly reached hands
across oceans and marshaled an army in the very heart of the capitalist
world, the United States. Activists who were there almost universally
describe Seattle as a personally transforming experience ? as one
activist puts it, that moment when she swallowed the ?red pill? that
sucked her out of the corporate Matrix. But in recent years, it has
also become increasingly clear that, in spite of Seattle?s
unprecedented coalition, the U.S. global justice movement has failed to
mobilize key segments of the population.

The Wonder Bread ?whiteness? of the global justice movement is one of
its most widely acknowledged handicaps. Shutting down the WTO was a
?great victory,? points out one African American activist, but where
were the people of color? ?You talk about anti-globalization and the
effects of globalization, and it?s on people of color, so where was
that voice?? says Seth Markle, a youth activist from New York. There
were some foreign protesters on hand, but for the most part, if
political diversity went on parade in Seattle, racial and socioeconomic
diversity stayed at home.

Stephen Dietrich, a white punk/anarchist from Santa Rosa, California,
says that racism, sexism, and other kinds of prejudice continue to be a
problem in the movement. ?These are all the things that we?re fighting
against, but they?re all socialized into us,? he says. Other activists
point out that flying people across the globe to protest at these
summits costs money ? money that communities of color tend not to have.
People of color are also loath to get arrested, concerned about how the
criminal justice system will treat them. Finally, many communities just
aren?t aware of the importance of trade issues. ?Nobody knows what the
FTAA means. White, black, yellow ? nobody knows,? says Barbara
Salvaterra, a Brazilian activist who helped organize protests against
the FTAA for the group Jobs with Justice. ?Most [global justice]
activists are people who are well-informed in politics, in
international politics.?

The movement has made some progress in recent years in bridging these
divides. Organizations like Jobs with Justice and Global Exchange
provide grants to help activists with low incomes afford the costs of
travel and lodging to global justice-related events. At the movement?s
organizing sessions ? known as ?spokescouncil? meetings ? speakers of
foreign languages get running translations of what?s being said. And
when activists return from protests, they often give ?report backs? to
let people back home know what happened.

The Cancún WTO ministerial in September became an occasion for
activists from Latin America to take a more visible role in an
international protest. While there were hundreds of foreigners on hand
? Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Australians, South Koreans, and
South Africans, among others ? the bulk of the week?s turnout was
comprised of Mexican students and farmworkers, with sizeable
delegations from Central and South America. ?I think the real story
here [in Cancún] is the interpersonal connections that are happening,
that totally transcend national borders,? says Dave Meddle, a twenty-
eight-year-old activist from the San Francisco Bay Area.

Activists are also getting better at talking about issues of diversity.
?I think the global justice movement has had a lot of internal dialogue
about race, where you actually saw the movement change,? says Carwil
James, a twenty-seven-year-old activist from Oakland, California. ?It?s
hard to say at a national level, but definitely at the local level
that?s taking place.? In October, James, who is African American, went
to a conference sponsored by Anarchist People of Color, a group founded
two years ago to help people of color find their place in the white-
dominated anarchist community. James feels that lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgendered issues have also gained greater prominence within the
movement in recent years. ?There?s a strong sense of community across
that whole space, and a sense of not atomizing ourselves,? James says.
?One of the things that capitalism has us do is divide ourselves up
into little nuclear families, little consumption units.?

Even as the movement has made progress in working across lines of
identity, however, stark ideological differences have remained between
its two major constituencies ? that is, labor and everyone else.
Whereas some global justice activists argue that poor countries need
greater access to the U.S. market, for example, labor leaders often
favor tariffs to keep foreign competitors out (the recent debate over
the Bush administration?s tariffs on imported steel, which benefited
American steelworkers at the expense of their foreign counterparts, is
a case in point). Union activists are optimistic that they can
eventually bridge these divides. More rank-and-file members ?
especially younger ones ? are coming to the conclusion that they can?t
ignore the plight of workers overseas, says Bill Murphy, assistant
business manager for the Tampa, Florida, local of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. ?There?s a groundswell of
realization that we can no longer succeed with that mindset,? he says.
?It?s about every person sticking up for other people, regardless of
race or sexual orientation, and not [for] the fat cat politicians who
are running our nations and the globe.?

For their part, top officials at the AFL-CIO, the country?s largest
federation of labor unions, point to their current support of immigrant
rights, a dramatic reversal for an organization that from its earliest
years built its strength by channeling workers? anger against African
Americans and immigrant coolie labor. ?We?ve really moved much further
on immigration policy than we have in the past, and this is only in the
past five years,? said John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, said at
a teach-in earlier this month in the Boston area. ?There will be
differences, but we have to find common interests and common ground.?

Kevin Danaher agrees. ?I?m in meetings sometimes with anarchists who
say, ?Fuck the trade unions!?? says Danaher, co-founder of Global
Exchange, an international human rights organization that has played a
prominent role in the global justice movement. But without the trade
unions, he adds, there won?t be a mass movement: ?You aren?t talking
revolution, you?re talking parlor games. You?re talking café debate.?
The movement needs to build a ?unity of diversity,? Danaher says. ?If
you can build unity, my team can be smaller and less well-funded than
yours and less talented, but if we?re more united and your team is
divided against itself, we?re going to kick your ass because you?re
wasting energy fighting amongst yourselves.?

Smart mobs

If ?anti-globalization? brings to mind black-hooded protestors throwing
rocks through storefront windows, David Solnit doesn?t fit the TV
image. A carpenter by profession, a puppetmaker by avocation, the
thirty-nine-year-old activist is stick-thin and boyish-looking, with
only a light stubble of red hair on his jowls and a voice that tends,
in personal conversation, toward the inaudible. His everyday demeanor
may not exactly rouse the rabble, but other activists in the movement
are seemingly uniform on one point: Solnit is one of the movement?s
best organizers, a mover and shaker in a resistance movement that, by
principle, has no leaders.

Solnit also happens to be one of the movement?s most ardent proponents
of unconventional, creative forms of protest. In his view, the
movement?s broad repertoire of tactics and its constant innovations
have allowed it to keep an edge over authorities, even as it has faced
greater repression. ?I think resistance is like an ecosystem and you
need a diversity of ways for different communities and different people
to struggle and try and change things,? Solnit says. ?In a monoculture,
just like in agriculture, if everyone does the same thing it?s
unhealthy. When everybody does different stuff it really complements
[things] and makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts.?

In the mid-1990s, Solnit and his fellow activist-minded artists founded
a radical protest group known as Art and Revolution. Inspired by groups
like Bread & Puppet and Wise Fool Puppet Intervention, activists at Art
and Revolution were trying to get beyond the tactics of traditional
demonstrations: placard-waving, shouted slogans, occupied buildings,
endless petitions. Instead, they used puppetry, music, and street
theater to make their point ? and make it lively. (In Britain, a
similar movement called Reclaim the Streets drew attention by staging
?festivals of resistance? ? huge parties that blockaded the streets
with masses of dancing and singing people.)

The idea was that art could break out of the linear communication of
traditional forms of protest. Signs could be overlooked, slogans could
be ignored, but art was irresistible, directing its messages straight
to the heart and gut. Art and Revolution?s objective wasn?t to decorate
the old sign-and-shout protests, but to restructure them: Dreary
marches were to be exchanged for ?festivals of resistance?; sheep-
following-the-shepherd for ?participatory street theater.? In Seattle,
using these creative tactics helped activists to bring together diverse
groups, assert their presence on the streets, and befuddle authorities
(?partly they didn?t quite know how to respond and partly they looked
ridiculous when they responded rudely to puppets and dance,? Solnit
says).

Especially since Seattle, the artful protest that Solnit and others
pioneered has ?spread like a virus? throughout the movement. Artist-
activists swear by its effectiveness. For the protests surrounding the
2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, Jonathan Youtt
worked with two other artists to create a two-headed ?corporate
monster? puppet: one head was George W. Bush, who wielded a ?lethal
injection? syringe in his hand, and the other head was Al Gore, who was
depicted tossing democracy into the toilet. On the pinstripes of the
suit that the Gore-Bush monster wore were written the hundred
corporations that gave $10,000 donations to both parties. ?One picture,
one image, could basically show corporations controlling the political
system,? Youtt says.

Music, too, has become an important part of the global justice protest
scene. Pod, a thirty-five-year-old San Francisco artist and activist,
carried a drum when he marched in the 1999 Seattle demonstration. He
and other drummers would head to the ?hot spots? ? the places where
cops were about to clash with protestors ? and start a lively rhythm to
try to deescalate the tension. ?I remember being in this alley and
there was a stand-off with cops and protesters and there was a real
nervous tension in the air, as to whether or not people were going to
start getting pepper-sprayed,? Pod says. ?And we started a certain
rhythm ? to create a festive atmosphere.? It worked, Pod says; the
people on the street became visibly calmer as the drummers drummed
away.

At global justice protests these days, you will bump into groups like
the Radical Cheerleaders, who dance at the frontlines shouting cheers
like, ?Free people, not free trade!,? and the Infernal Noise Brigade, a
marching band dressed in black coolie hats and fluorescent orange
stripes that generates a truly infernal, if heart-thumping, racket. In
Miami, the cheerleaders were on hand, dressed in flashy purples and
pinks and fishnet stocking, with their hair in pigtails and wrapped up
in bandannas. ?You get to be loud, you get to run around and do all
this ? and you also get people to listen to ideas that they might not
listen to otherwise,? says Carwil James, the only cheerleader sporting
curly chin stubble along with his pompoms. ?It?s a lot easier to shout
down capitalism and the state with a pompom, for some reason, and have
people on your side.?

In recent years, global justice artists have taken their agitprop to
another level. In Cancún, for instance, puppetistas fashioned an
ensemble of Mayan deities to bring home a political point: The ?gods
were angry? that WTO?s policies were hurting indigenous communities. A
towering, faux-stone rendition of Chac, the Mayan god of rain, was
meant to highlight the dangers of privatizing water utilities ? a WTO-
supported intervention protested by poor people throughout the global
South, who believe they shouldn?t have to pay multinational
corporations for their tap water. In newspaper photographs and TV clips
that appeared afterward, Chac and the other Mayan gods figured
prominently. ?No matter how much control the authorities have over the
press ... still a beautiful image of a puppet is going to get
documented because they got to run something with the story,? says
Youtt.

At the 1999 anti-WTO protest, activists showed off another tactical
innovation: ?direct democracy.? This organizing approach borrowed
heavily from previous movements, including the Spanish anarchists of
the 1930s and American feminist and anti-nuclear activists from the
1980s. In Seattle, non-hierarchical ?affinity groups? of five to twenty
people packed the downtown streets, working as teams within loose
coalitions known as ?clusters.? The clusters, in turn, sent their
representatives (known as ?spokes?) to ?spokescouncil? meetings where
the protesters collectively decided important issues for action ?
though leaving the ultimate decision about whether and how to act to
the affinity groups themselves.

Activists insist that their commitment to direct democracy amounts to
more than a moral fetish. After participating in decision-making, they
say, people are more willing to take ownership over their actions.
?It?s almost a way of ritualizing your own commitment ? saying, ?I?m
committed to this course of action,?? says Golan, who adds that the
?wisdom? of the decisions often improve with more people making them.
Direct democracy also encourages people to stay on top of the relevant
issues. ?You?re going to have more people care and be involved,? says
Youtt. ?They?re going to say, ?Oh, wow, I came to that meeting and I
affected the direction of that meeting by my comment. And I?ll continue
to be informed.?? (Youtt works at a San Francisco arts collective that
runs itself on a ?hybrid? consensus-based model ? that is, the group
strives for consensus, but as a last resort it will allow a three-
quarters majority vote to move things forward.)

In Cancún, the activists held their meetings in a hot and stuffy room
on the third floor of the convergence center. A sign tacked to the wall
listed more than a dozen ?principles and practices? to abide by (?don?t
interrupt,? ?become a good, non-defensive listener,? and so on).
?Meetings are often long and difficult,? the sign concluded. ?Let?s all
work to create a safe, open, and loving space for all to be able to
share their thoughts, feelings, and concerns.? At some meetings,
activists will appoint a person to be a ?vibes-watcher? ? someone pays
attention to the group?s interactions to make sure feelings aren?t hurt
and speakers are sensitive to gender and other issues.

Cesár Ariza, a Mexican global justice activist with the group Juventud
Global, pointed out that the Cancún convergence center was a place with
no leaders. ?There is no group controlling this space. We operate in a
democratic manner,? he said. That sentiment is shared by many global
justice activists, who insist that they will not allow any one person
or clique to define their agenda. For one thing, having a small group
of leaders allows the police to decapitate the movement by arresting
them. Beyond the pragmatic reasons, however, there is also a matter of
principle: Direct democracy is about transforming relationships, and
transforming the larger society. ?We don?t want a few people to be in
charge,? Solnit says. ?That?s part of our critique of society ? that
there are a few people at the top making decisions for everyone else.?

The Cancún protests showed how versatile such a decentralized approach
to organizing could be. When protesters couldn?t march past the fences,
they slipped by the security in taxis and buses posing as small groups
of tourists. Three activists climbed up a construction crane and
hoisted a banner that read ?¡Qué se vayan todos!? (the slogan of
protesters last year in Argentina, loosely translated as ?Throw the
bums out!?) within sight of the convention center. Later that night,
affinity groups converged on the street alongside the center, staging a
sit-down strike that tied up the police for hours. Roving media
activists with camcorders documented the demonstration, watching over
police and gathering evidence for possible legal battles. ?What this
protest shows is where there is a will there is a way,? Golan told me
during the sit-in. ?People have found those holes in the fences and
found ways to get inside the convention center and stage a protest
here.? Their strategy worked, Golan says, because of the decentralized,
autonomous structure of the movement, which allows individual affinity
groups to make quick decisions and adapt to changing circumstances ?
what some call the ?smart mobs? approach to organizing.

In recent years, the activists have refined their use of direct
democracy, discovering new ways to use technology (anything from cell
phones to pirate radio) to keep their various groups coordinated. Weeks
before the FTAA summit in Miami was set to take place, protest
organizers were holding their spokescouncil meetings over telephone
conference calls. ?We?ve had to figure out how you organize with direct
democracy when people are all over the place, and most people can?t
come here weeks early,? says Starhawk, a veteran organizer. Moreover,
activists are getting better about coordinating the protest actions on
the streets and the ones inside the convention halls ? as the
authorities learned, to their chagrin, in Cancún. ?They thought that
they could keep the voice of civil society out, [behind the barricades]
seventeen kilometers away, but everyday we?ve been able to come in, and
show the WTO what the other side is,? says Walden Bello of Focus on the
Global South, who helped stage anti-WTO publicity stunts inside the
convention center the week of the ministerial. The defiance is
contagious: Marches and rallies of thousands of people build up ?street
heat,? which inspires representatives of nongovernmental organizations
to stage their own demonstrations from within the security perimeter ?
which encourage delegates from developing countries to resist the
demands of the United States, European Union, and Japan during trade
negotiations (as members of the G21, a group of twenty-one developing
countries led by Brazil, China, and India, did at the Cancún trade
talks).

If the global justice movement has managed to adapt to growing
repression in recent years, some of its older tactics are increasingly
being questioned. At every large protest, you can find men and women
dressed in black, professing anarchist beliefs, who smash windows and
perform other acts of vandalism ? and sometimes rough it up with cops.
In defense of their form of protest, activists who use ?Black Bloc?
strategies explicitly appeal to the movement?s own notions of
inclusiveness, saying it should be open to a diversity of tactics. As
one woman in black wrote: ?Third World peasants, vulnerable in their
poverty, generally cannot challenge the ultra powerful multinationals ?
We are the voices of the voiceless, and we must be loud, because the
men in suits high up in their office towers don?t hear the screams of
misery below or see the wasted ruins of the Earth. So, we attack their
symbols. It?s the least we can do.?

But as Jerry Mander sees it, the property destruction and violence
simply undermine the protesters? credibility and suppress their
message. ?I understand why people do it, out of frustration and so on,
but ? it?s, in the end, counterproductive,? says Mander, who is the
president of the International Forum on Globalization, a think tank
critical of free trade and corporate power. ?Because then the media
covers the violence.? That has been the trend ever since Seattle,
Mander says, ?Once [the property destruction] happened ? which all the
other protestors tried to stop ? once that happened, the media only
reported that and we had no more substantive reporting from that day
forward. It?s police vs. protestors. Period.?

Mander and other activists say that the actual amount of violence in
the movement is being grossly overstated. ?The only violence is the
violence of the World Trade Organization, which needs to police us as
if we were thieves when they are the ones who are robbing us,? says
Javier Sánchez Ansó, director of international relations for COAG, a
Spanish farmworkers? group. Dietrich, an anarchist who is affiliated

with the Green Bloc (activists into ?guerrilla gardening? and other
forms of pro-environment direct action), says that news reports
misinform the public about his movement. ?The media has just drilled
home that we [anarchists] are violent, angry, young white men,? he
says. ?But that?s not true. I am a young white male, but not violent.
The media portrayal of anarchy and anarchism, it never goes into the
debate about the politics of what anarchy is, it?s just, ?Anarchy is
chaos.? Anarchy is people doing it for themselves, direct democracy at
its best and finest.?

Nevertheless, the focus on violence in the nightly news seems to be
having an effect: In the days before protests began in Cancún, locals
said they feared the activists coming into their city. Gabriel Marez, a
forty-five-year-old waiter at the La Ruina cantina, told me that he was
opposed to the FTAA and other free trade agreements, but added that the
protesters upset him: ?I am not in agreement with radical forms of
protest, with the violence.?

?Personally, I don?t think throwing things at the police brings about
social change,? says Danaher of Global Exchange, whose mother was a
police officer. ?You?re not going to have a revolution in the U.S. with
a unified police force. There has to be a significant portion of the
police who realize that it?s in their self-interest to be neutral in
the class struggle between capital and labor.? Danaher does police
liaison work during demonstrations, and speaks with pride about the
occasions when police officers tell him, ?We really appreciate that
you?re trying to humanize the situation.? These days, Danaher is trying
to start a nonviolence training camp to bring together police and
activists. He says such a confab could help the two sides to better
understand each other, and help the global justice movement win allies
among the ranks of blue.

After Seattle police were roundly criticized for allowing their city to
descend into chaos during the 1999 WTO ministerial, the police have put
on a massive show of force at every international summit. (In Miami,
law enforcement agencies received $8.5 million from the $87 billion
Iraq reconstruction bill to protect the city from protesters: The funds
helped pay for helicopters, armored personnel carriers, and an array of
sophisticated weaponry.) Now that police have so many resources at
their disposal, the global justice movement should think about moving
away from its strategy of ?summit-hopping,? some activists say.

?I think that you?re never going to win a fight with the cops. You just
won?t,? says David Amdur, a community organizer for the East Boston
Ecumenical Community Council, a progressive organization that works
with the local Latino community to further immigrant rights. Before he
landed his current job, Amdur worked for years as an activist on
international causes ? first in solidarity with Latin American social
movements (he lived in El Salvador from 1996 to 2000) and then as a
member of the Boston Global Action Network. But these days he believes
he?s doing more good by working in local communities. ?Part of me feels
that the most important maybe is to stay here, to organize something
here,? he says. ?And the most vital of all is not just to focus on
globalization and a summit ? it?s about educating people about the
FTAA, and motivating people to take action and stop it.?

Amdur and other activists say they shouldn?t abandon the protests,
which help energize people and get different groups talking to one
another. They acknowledge that the global justice movement has made
some efforts to bring local voices to the large-scale protests
(consider, for example, Root Cause, a South Florida-based coalition
that staged a thirty-four-mile march the week of the Miami ministerial
to highlight the FTAA?s potential impact on local communities). But in
their view, some sectors of the movement have a misguided belief that
protests alone will put an end to free trade agreements. Meanwhile, the
focus on demonstrations keeps the movement from doing other important
work, such as building coalitions that include more people of color and
working-class Americans. ?There are times for big mobilizations,? Amdur
says, ?but there are times when you need to have organizing, education,
and mobilizing in your community, because you have to realize in terms
of class, in terms of race, and in terms of immigration status, not
everyone can go to these big protests.?

Global solutions

Writing in The New York Times the very day that global justice
protesters clashed with Italian police in Genoa, Thomas L. Friedman
declared the anti-globalization movement to be a bunch of irresponsible
naysayers: ?To be against globalization is to be against so many things
? from cell phones to trade to Big Macs ? that it connotes nothing.
Which is why the anti-globalization protests have produced noise but
nothing that has improved anyone?s life.? This portrait of an ?anti-
globalization? movement of Luddites and reactionaries became even
darker after September 11. Soon after the terrorist attacks, Britain?s
international development secretary, Clare Short, warned: ?There is a
danger that the terrorists and the anti-globalization protestors will
get what they want, which is to blow up world trade and to separate
us.? Canadian journalist Leonard Stern was a tad kinder: The
demonstrators were ?still several rungs behind Osama bin Laden,? he
wrote, even if they were ?climbing the same ladder.?

Global justice activists say their critics are misguided. ?It has
nothing to do with being afraid of globalization. It has everything to
do with putting forward a new form of globalization,? says Bill Moore-
Kilgannon, director of campaigns and communications for the Council of
Canadians, a Canadian citizens? watchdog organization. But part of what
makes the criticism stick is the fact that the global justice movement
has done such a bad job of getting its message out into the mainstream
media. ?I think some reporters are just lazy,? says Jason Mark, co-
author (with Danaher) of the new book Insurrection: Citizen Challenges
to Corporate Power. ?And it?s a lot easier to just write the story in a
simple way. I think another part of the challenge is that these issues
are a lot more complicated than an anti-war march is. At an anti-war
march it?s very simple to get the message: ?No War.? Two words ? But if
you go and interview somebody in the street about the IMF, even without
their protesting, it?s going to be difficult for them to offer their
vision.?

These days, global justice activists are trying to spell out that
vision ? on the streets and in the convention halls. Instead of just
shouting their opposition to the WTO and other suspect multilateral
institutions, they stage ?alternative? summits just blocks away from
the trade ministerials ? anything from forest forums to farmworker
gatherings to fair trade confabs. (In Cancún, anarchists from the Green
Bloc even built their own ?eco-village? in a city park, featuring
exhibits of some of the sustainable technologies that people could use
in their own communities, such as systems to collect rain for drinking
water.) The movement?s most ambitious effort to institutionalize
alternatives, however, has been the World Social Forum, an annual
gathering that for the past three years has been held in Porto Alegre,
Brazil ? at the same time that business elites and heads of state meet
up in Davos, Switzerland, for their World Economic Forum. The next
World Social Forum will be held in January in Mumbai, India; like the
first, it will bring together global justice activists from around the
world to discuss the movement?s alternatives to neoliberalism.

The going has been slow, but in recent years it seems that the various
activist communities have made some progress in sketching out their
alternative world. Some of their economic proposals include:

Last year, the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) put out a
book, Alternatives to Economic Globalization ? the product of a three-
year discussion by nineteen academics and policy analysts, including
Bello, Mander, and Vandana Shiva. Their report calls for a moratorium
on the negotiation of new trade agreements, and also highlights a wide
range of ?alternative? systems for energy, transportation, agriculture,
and manufacturing ? from hydrogen fuel cells to ?smart growth? urban
planning, from local food production to accounting methods that take
into account environmental cleanup costs.

At the heart of IFG?s alternative vision is a concept called
subsidiarity. ?Subsidiarity doesn?t exactly mean localization,? Mander
says. ?What it means is that power should reside in the governing unit
that?s closest to the people where practical.? When dealing with global
crises like AIDS or ozone depletion, there is a need for international
arrangements with some degree of power ?because everybody?s in the same
soup,? Mander says. ?But they should be one at a time. They should be
one case at a time. There should not be an overall structure that
dominates all of these things, like the World Trade Organization tries
to be.?

Diversity and democracy are entwined in this idea of subsidiarity ?
diversity in the promotion of a variety of local solutions to problems,
and democracy in the decentralization of production. ?The great thing
about wind and solar [energy],? Mark of Global Exchange points out, ?is
you can put it everywhere. The idea is, okay, if each community is
creating their own energy source ... then that creates more community
control, local control. It helps and enhances democracy.? As Danaher
puts it, ?The basic idea is, democratize access to capital. Capital is
horseshit. Concentrated in a pile, it stinks. Spread it out, it makes
things grow. It?s like fertilizer, right??

Promoting diversity is also one of the explicit goals of Berkeley?s
BREAD Hours, one of the world?s local exchange trading systems. An
alternative to the greenback, BREAD Hours allow Berkeley residents to
keep money within the local community. BREAD Hours are based on labor:
Individuals provide services in exchange for Hours, which they can use
at local shops, restaurants, and business. (Ithaca, New York, has a
similar currency called Ithaca HOURS, and Argentina?s RGT system, a
national trading and barter network, transacts several million U.S.
dollars of business every year.)

?Fair trade? is another diversity-friendly form of production that has
taken off in the past decade. To be certified fair trade, goods must
meet certain standards ? among other things, the producers have to
receive a stable, minimum price, and the goods must be made under safe
working conditions, without forced labor or exploitative child labor.
Today, a wide range of products ? including coffee, chocolate, and
crafts ? receive international fair-trade certification, allowing
consumers to make sure their purchasing reflects their values.
According to Global Exchange, fair trade coffee every year benefits
350,000 farmers organized into more than 300 cooperatives in twenty-two
countries; fair trade products overall accounted for $100 million in
sales in the United States in 2000. Even Starbucks ? whose store
managers are never too happy to see anarchists waltz by their plate-
glass windows ? now sells fair trade coffee in its stores.

While some global justice activists want to get rid of corporations
altogether, others want to reform them by getting at the root of their
problem: their obsessive pursuit of the bottom line. The idea of a
?triple bottom line? ? one that takes into account environmental and
social impacts as well as profit ? can be seen in the efforts by the
AFL-CIO and other labor movements to introduce workers? rights in the
WTO and trade agreements. It can be seen in the ?living wage? campaign,
which has focused on implementing city ordinances that require city
contractors to pay their workers a minimum wage that provides adequate
support for their families. And it can be seen in shareholder activism,
a strategy that has been pursued in recent years by groups like Amnesty
International USA to persuade multinational corporations to stop
supporting human rights abuses in countries like Indonesia and Nigeria.
By putting forward shareholder resolutions that stir up dissension,
Amnesty has been able to insert morality into the usual corporate
debates, and promote a form of (albeit limited) democracy in otherwise
unaccountable institutions.

In the anarchist community, activists talk about how their models of
decentralized decision-making can help fashion a more inclusive and
democratic society. For these activists, the whole purpose of the
global justice struggle is to bring radical democracy to the world.
?That?s not just the means to the change, but that is the change,? says
Solnit. ?We can?t change the world through political parties and
politicians or reforming corporations. We have to just make a new
world, and actually very much not seize power, but exercise power.?
These days, Solnit is putting together an anthology of essays (the
forthcoming Globalizing Liberation: How to Uproot the System and Build
a Better World) that spells out the political vision that he and his
fellow activists share ? one opposed to any system of government that
centralizes power. ?Other social movements have had alternatives, but I
think it?s significant in that anti-globalization is at its heart an
anti-systemic movement,? Solnit says. ?In the last decades we?ve been
trapped into single-issue movements that talked about alternatives to
the war, alternatives to sexism, alternatives to racism, but not
alternatives to the entire system.?

New forms of political participation in other parts of the world have
provided inspiration to Solnit and other global justice activists. In
Argentina, where four out of ten people now live in poverty,
spontaneous neighborhood councils have been convened in middle-class
neighborhoods, where residents are upset over unpopular government
decrees. In Brazil, the Landless Workers? Movement (Movimento dos
Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, or MST) has organized hundreds of
thousands of landless peasants to squat on and take over unproductive
land ? carrying out their own version of grassroots, extralegal land
reform. And since 1989, Porto Alegre, a regional capital city of 1.3
million in southern Brazil, has used a ?participatory budget? process
that allows thousands of city residents to make decisions about how
their tax dollars are spent.

If global justice activists fall almost in lockstep behind the general
principles of diversity and democracy, there?s plenty of disagreement
over how far to push these things. On one hand, the reformists question
whether democracy is always a good thing (couldn?t you consider the
genocide of a minority group by a majority group ?democracy in
action?). On the other hand, the radicals are concerned about the
darker side of their movement?s diversity: co-optation. ?To a large
degree, single-issue nonprofits, [nongovernmental organizations], and
trade unions serve a function for the system of normalizing things,
preventing genuine rebellion, keeping people in check, and then
providing someone who?s much more manageable,? says Solnit.

Nevertheless, there are signs that the two camps are growing more
comfortable with each other?s company. Lisa Hoyos, an organizer for the
AFL-CIO, points out that ?radicals? like herself could learn from the
lobbying strategies of more traditional political campaigns. ?When it
comes to international trade and the World Bank and all those things,
it?s Congress that?s voting on these measures and accords,? says Hoyos,
who formerly facilitated the ?Our World Is Not for Sale? global justice
network. ?And I don?t think that, for all the great visibility work
we?ve done in protests and so forth, that we?re pressuring them
enough.? Meanwhile, reformists are realizing that there are tactical
benefits to having a diversity of political viewpoints under one
banner. ?Those of us who are in the reformist camp are beholden to the
abolitionist camp [for] moving our agenda for us,? says Zafra Whitcomb,
business and human rights program coordinator at Amnesty International
USA. ?When a moderate group meets with a governmental or corporate
organization, often the organization will say, ?We?re so glad we can
talk to you. We?re so glad you?re not just out there beating us over
the head.??

A new era in organizing

The conventional wisdom is that ?successful? social movements need a
single, compelling vision, strong, charismatic leadership, and
hierarchical, centralized organization. Throughout history, this
perspective has won over movements that began as experiments in direct
democracy. ?By the late 1960s, many new leftists had abandoned efforts
to create an egalitarian microcosm of a future society in favor of
centralized, often militaristic organizations modeled on those of their
Third World revolutionary heroes,? writes sociologist Francesca
Polletta in her book Freedom Is an Endless Meeting. ?It was among
radical feminists and in a counterculture largely disdained by
politicos, that experiments in movement democracy continued.?
Democracy, in other words, was a luxury of the delusional political
fringe.

From the moment it began in the Lacandón Jungle of Mexico, the global
justice movement has sought to become an exception to the rule. Seattle
became the global rallying cry for a new vision of organizing: one that
saw diversity and democracy not as weaknesses, but as strengths; not
merely as means, but as ends. By taking this position, activists hoped
to avoid the fate of the two progressive experiments whose failures
some of them had witnessed in their youth: the U.S. New Left, and
international communism. The former had been driven into division by
arrogant leadership and an inability to relate across lines of class,
gender, and race. The latter had sought to impose yet another
hierarchical, oppressive model of organizing society and the economy.

Instead, we might compare the global justice movement to another kind
of organizing from another era: the U.S. civil rights movement. It
began as a reaction against Jim Crow in the South ? in Montgomery,
Alabama, against segregated buses, and in Greensboro, North Carolina,
against whites-only lunch counters. In later years, however, it grew
into a much larger movement, with aims that went beyond tearing down
racist laws and institutions. Key leaders, like Martin Luther King Jr.,
and key activist organizations, like the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee, shifted away from a more or less reactive
approach ? demonstrating against specific injustices like Jim Crow ?
and increasingly advanced their own visions of democracy and economic
opportunity in America. By the mid-1960s, the SNCC was working among
black communities in Mississippi to register voters and build black
political power; King and other black leaders were calling for jobs and
education and ?something more? than legal equality for African
Americans. As King said in 1968, two months before his death, ?What
good does it do to sit at the counter when you cannot afford a
hamburger??

Three decades later, another social movement is on the cusp of a
similar transition. In their post-MTV, post-Internet version of the
Montgomery bus boycott, global justice protesters shut down the city of
Seattle and sabotaged the 1999 WTO ministerial. That protest was a
defining moment, which unleashed a wave of other demonstrations around
the country and across the globe. But like the U.S. civil rights
movement did in the late 1960s, the global justice movement has entered
a new stage in its organizing: broadening its ranks, diversifying its
tactics, and dreaming its own versions of tomorrow.

The question, of course, is whether the movement can rise out of the
fringe of left-wing politics ? what one activist calls the ?anarchist
gutter.? Will the movement?s campaign to diversify simply lead to more
crippling divisions? Will its effort to further democratize strip it of
the very tools it needs to confront its enemies? Last year?s massive
rallies against the Iraq War have provided some momentum, and the
general drift of public interest is in their favor, activists insist.
?The point we?re at now is unique,? says Whitcomb of Amnesty
International. ?Even though economic globalization has been going on
for three centuries, there hasn?t been a true awareness. Even in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there were activist movements ...
But now I think it?s more decentralized, filtered out through the
population. And it?s focused on the issues of economic justice, equal
voice, participation, rights to decent work, decent living conditions,
fair wages ? equal participation in the benefits of economic
development. It is shaping a new paradigm.?

HELP NEEDED: To take part in a survey of global justice activists being
conducted by Tom Hayden and Victor Tan Chen, please click here.

© 2003 INTHEFRAY.COM 
P.O. Box 382411 
Cambridge, MA 02238-2411 
617.864.1906

==============================================================

Reuters
December 24, 2003 

US Companies Moving More Jobs Overseas 

By David Zielenziger

NEW YORK - U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in
shifting well-paid technology jobs to India, China and
other low-cost centers, but they are keeping quiet for
fear of a backlash, industry professionals said.

Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs
outsourced to India will double to about 150,000 in the
next three years. Analysts predict as many as two
million U.S. white-collar jobs such as programmers,
software engineers and applications designers will
shift to low cost centers by 2014.

But the biggest companies looking to "offshoring" to
cut costs, such as Microsoft Corp. , International
Business Machines Corp. and AT&T Wireless, are
reluctant to attract attention for political reasons,
observers said this week.

"The problem is that companies aren't sure if it's
politically correct to talk about it," said Jack Trout,
a principal of Trout & Partners, a marketing and
strategy firm. "Nobody has come up with a way to spin
it in a positive way."

This causes a problem for publicly traded companies,
which would ordinarily brag about cost savings to
investors. Instead, they send vague signals that they
are opening up operations in India and China, but often
decline to elaborate.

Moreover, on the threshold of a U.S. presidential
election year, job losses are a hot button issue. A
company that highlighted a major job transfer could
wind up in the campaign debate.

Multinationals find that when they trumpet expansion
overseas, they cause problems at home. When Accenture
Ltd. executives in India this month announced plans to
double their staff to 10,000 next year, they triggered
a flood of calls to the company's U.S. offices about
U.S. job losses.

Offshoring companies "are paying Chinese wages and
selling at U.S. prices," said Alan Tonelson, of the
U.S. Business and Industrial Council, a trade group for
small business. "They're not creating better living
standards for America."

The U.S. sales director for one of India's top computer
services providers said his company has won business
from customers such as Walt Disney Co., Time Warner
Inc.'s CNN and the Fox division of News Corp. -- none
of which want public disclosure.

In India, some technology companies have recently
adopted lower profiles. Microsoft Corp. has been
removing its name from minibuses used to ferry
engineers on overnight shifts. Major Indian
beneficiaries of U.S. business such as Infosys
Technologies Ltd., Wipro Ltd. and Satyam Computer
Services Ltd. have stopped identifying new customers.

While there have been reports that IBM intends to ship
4,700 high-end jobs to India and China next year, they
mark a rare instance when figures "have been reported
in black and white," said Linda Guyer, president of
Alliance@IBM, a union that has tried to organize IBM
employees.

Those numbers were not released by IBM, but rather
disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, which had
obtained an internal memo. The company has declined to
comment.

Guyer believes as many as 40,000 of IBM's 160,000 U.S.
jobs will be transferred overseas by 2005, a figure she
says was gathered from phone calls by IBM employees.

Previously, IBM has pointed to a report by the McKinsey
Global Institute that concludes the U.S. economy
ultimately will benefit. The report was commissioned by
Nasscom, a group made up of Indian tech companies as
well as IBM's Indian services unit -- showing an effort
by those invested in offshoring to sway public opinion.

Recently, AT&T Wireless told the U.S. Securities &
Exchange Commission that it would lay off 1,900
employees this year. Communications Workers of America
members obtained an internal memo prepared by Tata
Consultancy Services of India that discussed how it
would assume those U.S. jobs.

Subsequently, AT&T Wireless officials acknowledged it
was exploring the job shifts but didn't offer details.

While some companies, such as Electronic Data Systems
Corp., CAP Gemini Ernst & Young and Sapient Corp.,
acknowledge they shift jobs abroad to exploit cost
advantages and around-the-clock work, IBM asserts that
it is not moving jobs but creating new ones.

"It's a business strategy, period. You cut costs. You
revamp. You look at what your mission statement says
and try to turn a profit," said Sylvia Thomas, who was
laid off by chipmaker Agere Systems Inc. after
declining offers to relocate to headquarters in
Allentown, Pennsylvania -- or to Singapore.

© 2003 Reuters Ltd

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=4039177

 

==============================================================

With a Whisper, Not a Bang
By David Martin
The San Antonio Current

Wednesday 24 December 2003

Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily.

On December 13, when U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush not only
celebrated with his national security team, but also pulled out his pen and signed into law a bill that
grants the FBI sweeping new powers. A White House spokesperson explained the curious timing of
the signing - on a Saturday - as "the President signs bills seven days a week." But the last time Bush
signed a bill into law on a Saturday happened more than a year ago - on a spending bill that the
President needed to sign, to prevent shuttng down the federal government the following Monday. 

By signing the bill on the day of Hussein's capture, Bush effectively consigned a dramatic expansion
of the USA Patriot Act to a mere footnote. Consequently, while most Americans watched as Hussein
was probed for head lice, few were aware that the FBI had just obtained the power to probe their
financial records, even if the feds don't suspect their involvement in crime or terrorism. 

The Bush Administration and its Congressional allies tucked away these new executive powers in the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a legislative behemoth that funds all the
intelligence activities of the federal government. The Act included a simple, yet insidious, redefinition of
"financial institution," which previously referred to banks, but now includes stockbrokers, car
dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agencies, jewelers, airlines, the U.S. Post
Office, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal,
tax, or regulatory matters." 

Congress passed the legislation around Thanksgiving. Except for U.S. Representative Charlie
Gonzalez, all San Antonio's House members voted for the act. The Senate passed it with a voice vote
to avoid individual accountability. While broadening the definition of "financial institution," the Bush
administration is ramping up provisions within the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which granted the FBI the
authority to obtain client records from banks by merely requesting the records in a "National Security
Letter." To get the records, the FBI doesn't have to appear before a judge, nor demonstrate "probable
cause" - reason to believe that the targeted client is involved in criminal or terrorist activity. Moreover,
the National Security Letters are attached with a gag order, preventing any financial institution from
informing its clients that their records have been surrendered to the FBI. If a financial institution
breaches the gag order, it faces criminal penalties. And finally, the FBI will no longer be required to
report to Congress how often they have used the National Security Letters.

Supporters of expanding the Patriot Act claim that the new law is necessary to prevent future terrorist
attacks on the U.S. The FBI needs these new powers to be "expeditious and efficient" in its response
to these new threats. Robert Summers, professor of international law and director of the new Center for
Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University, explains, "We don't go to war with the terrorists as we went to
war with the Germans or the North Vietnamese. If we apply old methods of following the money, we
will not be successful. We need to meet them on an even playing field to avoid another disaster." 

Opponents of the PATRIOT Act and its expansion claim that safeguards like judicial oversight and
the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, are essential to prevent
abuses of power. "There's a reason these protections were put into place," says Chip Berlet, senior
analyst at Political Research Associates, and a historian of U.S. political repression. "It has been
shown that if you give [these agencies] this power they will abuse it. For any investigative agency,
once you tell them that they must make sure that they protect the country from subversives, it
inevitably gets translated into a program to silence dissent." 

Opponents claim the FBI already has all the tools to stop crime and terrorism. Moreover, explains
Patrick Filyk, an attorney and vice president of the local chapter of the ACLU, "The only thing the act
accomplishes is the removal of judicial oversight and the transfer of more power to law enforcements
agents." 

This broadening of the Patriot Act represents a political victory for the Bush Administration's stealth
legislative strategy to increase executive power. Last February, shortly before Bush launched the war
on Iraq, the Center for Public Integrity obtained a draft of a comprehensive expansion of the Patriot Act,
nicknamed Patriot Act II, written by Attorney General John Ashcroft's staff. Again, the timing was
suspicious; it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to
introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate. 

The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and
Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the
redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and
its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act. 

Even proponents of this expansion have expressed concern about these legislative tactics. "It's a
problem that some of these riders that are added on may not receive the scrutiny that we would like to
see," says St. Mary's Professor Robert Summers. 

The Bush Administration has yet to answer pivotal questions about its latest constitutional coup: If
these new executive powers are necessary to protect United States citizens, then why would the
legislation not withstand the test of public debate? If the new act's provisions are in the public interest,
why use stealth in ramming them through the legislative process?

=============================================================

An engaging, poignant, and comprehensive introduction to electropolution. 

------ found this on http://jediorder.tribe.net

THE COSMIC ITCHING POWDER 

David S. Walonick, Ph.D 

Feeling stressed? Maybe a little edgy? 

There's a reason... and it might not be what you think. 

This is a very scary story. If The Invasion of the Body Snatchers 
made you squeamish, then don't continue. Put this down now and 
forget about it. Heed my warning --- this story is so strange 
that it should not be told to the weak at heart. Its about 
science, technology, stress, intolerance, sickness, and the 
invasion of the cosmic itching powder. Fasten your seatbelt. 
You're about to embark upon a voyage into the bizarre. But most 
of all, remember... 

It's out there right now. Invisible and silent. The cosmic 
itching powder is doing it to you. 

Science fiction? Unfortunately not. 

Most social scientists recognize the stress that humanity is 
experiencing. Only a few have hypothesized that it is being 
caused by the systemic effect of electropollution. This is the 
theory of the cosmic itching powder. I admit that its a somewhat 
untraditional theory. In fact, most people consider it simply too 
fantastic to be possible. It is, however, a theory grounded in 
generally accepted scientific principals, and represents a 
synthesis of many ideas developed by other scholars. 

Deep beneath the surface of the Earth is a spinning core of 
molten iron. This rotational energy creates a dipole magnetic 
field around the planet similar to a bar magnetic. Our compass 
registers a north and south pole. 

Ninety-three million miles away, the sun is emitting lethal 
high-energy atomic particles. These particles, often called the 
solar wind, travel through space and crash into the magnetic 
field of the Earth. The impact creates a strong magnetic field 
distortion. The resulting structure of the Earth's magnetic field 
is known as the magneto-sphere. 

The Earth's magneto-sphere protects us from the deadly radiation 
emitted by the sun. Without it, life could not exist. On the side 
of the planet closest to the sun, the magnetic field is 
compressed by the impact of the solar particles, and on the side 
away from the sun, the field stretches out into a long tail. The 
result is that most solar radiation is either trapped in the 
Earth's own magnetic field, or diverted harmlessly around and 
away from the Earth. 

As the Earth rotates to produce a twenty-four hour day-night 
cycle, the magnetic field at any given location changes (.2 - .6 
gauss). During the day, the magnetic field is compressed, and at 
night, it is diminished. The rise and fall of the magnetic field 
corresponds to our biological rhythms. 

Observing our own circadian rhythms makes it clear that we are 
somehow synchronized with the rotation of the Earth. In fact, it 
may be possible that life itself evolved as a result of Earth's 
fluctuating magnetic energy field. Complex organic molecules can 
exist in two mirror-image forms... a left-hand and right-hand 
molecule. When we create these compounds in a test tube, we 
always get a fifty-fifty mix. All living organisms, however, 
contain only one kind. Recent magnetic techniques have 
successfully produced all left or all right-handed molecules. It 
may be that magnetism played a role in the creation of the first 
DNA... the origin of life. 

In addition to the twenty-four hour cycle, there are several 
other weaker magnetic cycles. As the solar wind crashes into 
Earth's magnetic field, billions of watts of energy are released 
in the form of ionizing radiation and other electromagnetic 
radiation. Some of the radiation becomes trapped in the Earth's 
magnetic field, and begins to bounce back and forth between the 
magnetic North and South poles. These extremely weak magnetic 
ducts make up the background radiation of the Earth. This 
radiation is always present, and roughly corresponds to the 
dimensions of our planet. The Earth itself is resonant at about 
ten hertz, and this is the prominent frequency in the natural 
background radiation. 

Prior to the twentieth century, all electromagnetic radiation was 
of natural origin. The biosphere was an ocean of weak 
micropulsations. Organic life evolved in harmony and 
synchronization with the energy fields that existed. They 
provided the pulse for the evolution of life. 

For thousands of years, we developed in the presence of these 
organic energy fields. The Earth was a part of us, and we were 
able to feel its heartbeat. Our bodies and minds were 
synchronized with the energy cycles of our natural environment. 
The entire biological organism evolved in the presence of these 
fields. Gravitational changes from the moon created a 
twenty-eight day lunar cycle. Magnetic changes from the rotation 
of the Earth created a twenty-four hour circadian cycle. Our 
brains became synchronized with the resonant frequency of the 
Earth itself, a ten hertz magnetic wave created from the energy 
from the sun. This alpha brain-wave frequency is associated with 
feelings of relaxation, peacefulness and harmony. 

We remained in communion with our environment until the beginning 
of the twentieth century. As the "Electronic Revolution" 
unfolded, the environment was bombarded by cosmic itching powder 
--- non-natural electromagnetic radiation. 

Sixty hertz power transmission lines criss-crossed the country, 
and radio waves were beaming music into our homes. For the first 
time in history, man-made emissions overpowered the low-level ten 
hertz wave that had synchronized our brains since the dawn of 
time. We gradually became lost... out of touch with our 
environment. It was difficult to notice at first, and it didn't 
happen suddenly. 

We can't blame the government for what happened next. There is no 
way the Federal Communications Commission could have known about 
the deadly effects of the frequencies they assigned to the new FM 
radio and television technology. Radio and television stations 
sprang up across the country in metropolitan areas. 
Unfortunately, the peak resonant frequency of the human body is 
in the middle of the FM radio and television bands. Cancer became 
a common disease. 

Electropollution is out there. No scientific investigator would 
deny this fact. Its measurable and quantifiable. The question is 
how, and to what extent, does it affect us. 

The most significant effect of electropollution has been to 
produce chronic stress in all living organisms. This has had 
profound effects on our total physical and mental well-being. 
Physically, our immune systems are weakened and we are more prone 
to disease. We have seen significant drops in fertility levels, 
and increases in birth defects and impaired brain functioning. 
Mentally, we are in a constant state of stress. Our rationality, 
as a species, is in question. Humanity is stressed out. 

Stress is a catalyst for intolerance, one of the most important 
social issues facing the world. Intolerance often leads to 
violence. We will always have ethnic, religious, and 
philosophical differences. If we can learn to tolerate each 
others differences, we may survive as a planet. If we don't, we 
shall surely destroy ourselves. 

The notion of an invisible energy force affecting us is not as 
strange as it might first seem. Millions of women report similar 
PMS symptoms during their twenty-eight day lunar cycle. 
Electropollution acts like an itching powder, directly affecting 
our subconscious mind... below our level of perception. It just 
makes us edgy. Everyone is affected to some degree, but some 
individuals appear to be more sensitive than others. 

Electropollution levels in technologically advanced areas have 
become so intense that they completely overpower the natural 
background energy of the Earth. The result is that humanity has 
lost its communion with the Earth. We have lost our feeling of 
oneness with the planet, and we have allowed the poisons in our 
environment to reach critical levels. 

During the first half of this century, it became clear that 
biological organisms are indeed physically sensitive to some 
forms of electromagnetic radiation. Symptoms included burns, 
fevers, eye cataracts, brain tumors, leukemias and chromosomal 
abnormalities. The military established safety limits based on 
the thermal heating effects of radiation (i.e., burns and 
fevers). Other non-thermal effects were ignored, even though 
their existence was well documented. In 1966, the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) adopted the military 
standards for civilian exposure in the workplace. 

These standards were brought into question by the scientific 
community almost immediately. In the early 70's, the Oregon 
Health Sciences University, in conjunction with the Environmental 
Protection Agency, found a significant correlation between the 
incidence of leukemia in Portland and the intensity of FM radio 
waves. The EPA took no action, but throughout the 70's, 
scientists around the world reported finding significant 
biological effects from very low levels of electromagnetic 
radiation. 

By 1980, the military and civilian standards were being 
challenged. In order to quell the rising controversy, the U.S. 
Air Force funded an expensive animal study to prove that chronic 
exposure to low levels of electromagnetic radiation were not 
dangerous. The laboratory rats were "gnotobiotic" animals, 
delivered by cesarean section, and raised in a sterile 
environment to be free from germs and viruses. The radiation 
levels in the experiment were twenty times less than the military 
and civilian safety standards. It was a shock to the entire 
scientific community when the experimental group developed over 
three times as many malignant tumors as the control group. 
Electromagnetic radiation (the kind that you're being exposed to 
right now), can cause or trigger cancer. 

In 1986, the Department of Public Health in Honolulu learned that 
cancer rates were higher in nearly every area where a broadcast 
tower was located. No action was taken by the State of Hawaii. 

By 1988, researchers at the University of Texas had found that 
electric-power company workers had an incidence of brain tumors 
thirteen times that of the normal population. The tumors were 
specifically linked to the sixty hertz fields that the workers 
were exposed to. This is the same sixty hertz field that emanates 
from the power lines around the country. In 1991, two Swedish 
studies and one U.S. study again confirmed the link to cancer. 

Over the past thirty years, many thousands of well-designed 
research studies and replications have conclusively proved that 
low levels of electromagnetic radiation have strong biological 
effects on humans. The two most prominent effects are increases 
in stress and cancers. We have also been able to identify changes 
in brain neurochemicals and genetic abnormalities. 

It turns out that all these effects are caused only by extremely 
low frequency radiation. The ELF frequencies occupy a very narrow 
portion at the bottom of the electromagnetic spectrum (0-100 
hertz). These are the frequencies that the Earth uses to 
communicate with her offspring. With the exception of lightning, 
all natural electromagnetic emissions from the Earth are in the 
ELF portion of the spectrum. 

Human beings are receivers and transmitters of energy. Our cells 
show the same crystalline properties of the earth we evolved 
from. Crystals have the ability to manipulate energy. They can 
convert, store, rectify and control energy. All living organisms 
exhibit these same properties at macro and micro levels. In 1992, 
scientists discovered microscopic magnetite crystals scattered 
throught the human brain. This magnetic substance was the missing 
link. It provided a possible answer as to how this communication 
could be possible. Recent studies suggest a mechanism of action 
involving cyclotron resonance where the magnetic energy field 
concentrates its effect on biologically important ions, such as 
sodium, calcium, potassium, and lithium. 

Are non-ELF frequencies safe? No. It turns out that, regardless 
of their frequencies, all man-made electromagnetic fields produce 
the same biological effects. Radio waves and microwaves of all 
frequencies are carriers of ELF signals. The ELF's modulate the 
radio signals and "ride" them around the planet. The magnetite 
crystals in the brain sense the changing electromagnetic energy 
field, and through some yet unknown mechanism, the brain 
demodulates the signal and responds to it. 

The loud jungle of non-natural electropollution makes the signals 
of the Earth and cosmos pale in comparison. We have literally 
been cut off from our natural environment by the overpowering 
bombardment of electromagnetic pollution. Non-natural 
electromagnetic energy is everywhere on the planet. It is 
generated by our technology. There's no place you can go to 
escape from it. 

It is not enough to simply identify societal problems. A good 
theory must be able to provide solutions, or at least directions 
for further study. The theory of the cosmic itching powder is no 
exception. 

Human sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is a 
well-documented fact. However, social policy makers will not 
address the issue unless public pressure is applied. 

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal 
Communications Commission must join forces to re-evaluate the 
current civilian exposure limits. New standards need to be 
implemented that reflect current scientific knowledge. The 
Surgeon General should issue a general health warning to the 
public. These things will not happen, however, until the public 
perceives the seriousness of the problem. The need for public 
education is obvious. 

The scientific community must initiate a full scale effort to 
educate the public regarding this public health risk. The most 
immediate need is to disseminate information on "practical 
prudent avoidance techniques". These techniques involve taking 
measures to avoid magnetic field exposure that entail little or 
no cost. In other words, finding simple ways to reduce the dose 
of radiation that we are exposed to. 

Several steps can be taken to minimize ones risk from 
electromagnetic energy. The goal is to reduce the total dose of 
radiation that we are exposed to. This involves minimizing both 
the duration and levels of the exposure. The appendix contains a 
list of practical prudent avoidance techniques that the reader 
can implement for their own personal safety. 

The technology for long term solutions to this problem is 
available now. It will not be implemented without intense public 
pressure. Major corporate and military entities control the power 
switch. 

1. Use cable and direct satellite broadcasts to replace existing 
radio and television transmitting towers. These towers produce 
very strong energy fields for distances up to a half mile. Most 
could be readily converted to cable or satellite. Satellite 
repeaters cover wide geographic areas and produce very low energy 
power levels on the ground. They can provide a relatively safe 
public communications system. Shorter term solutions involve 
restricting transmitter power levels and possible blackout times. 
The goal is to reduce the total ambient radiation. 

2. Convert the basic structure of the entire national power 
system. The production and distribution of energy is in the hands 
of powerful corporate entities. They will not willingly release 
their monopolistic concerns. Photovoltic, wind, and other 
renewable energy sources can be used to replace our nationwide 
transmission power grid. This dispersed type of energy generation 
structure will reduce (or eliminate) the need for high-voltage 
long-distance transmission power lines. The cost of the 
technology to accomplish this conversion is currently competitive 
with public utility rates. 

Nearly everyone agrees that our society is stressed. The systemic 
effect of electropollution directly affects our feeling of 
well-being. We can reduce our stress level by reducing our 
exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The next time that you 
drive out of the city, notice what happens to your stress level 
as you get further away from the high intensity radiation of the 
metropolitan area. 

Unfortunately, there's an even darker side to this theory. 
Electropollution is destroying society as we know it. It may be 
producing either evolutionary changes or extinction of the human 
species. 

Hays examined the magnetic field reversals of our planet's 
history and found that many species became extinct following 
these magnetic anomalies. The great "die-outs" were somehow 
linked to the disruption of the magnetic fields that existed 
during the evolution of the species. The dinosaurs were part of 
the last great extinction during the Cretaceous geological era. 
During each magnetic field reversal, the most advanced species 
were the most affected. 

Scientists have proposed two possible explanations. One is that 
magnetic field reversals were accompanied by changes in the 
Earth's ELF background radiation, thus causing modifications in 
behavior that reduced the survival efficiency of the more 
advanced species. The other is that the magnetic changes caused 
genetic alterations, resulting in defective offspring. Both 
theories may be correct. 

The natural geological magnetic field reversals of the past are 
dwarfed by the electropollution created by modern society. We 
cannot afford to neglect this problem any longer, for if we do, 
humanity may follow the footsteps of the dinosaurs. 

Suggested Reading 

Becker, R. 1990. Cross Currents: The Perils of Electropollution 
/ The Promise of Electromedicine. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. 
Tarcher. 

Appendix 

Electromagnetic Radiation Practical Prudent Avoidance Techniques 

Many studies have found that even short exposures to field 
strengths of 3-milligauss will produce biological effects. 
Leading researchers suggest that continuous exposure to a sixty 
hertz power levels should not exceed energy levels of 
1-milligauss. All of the following "practical prudent avoidance 
techniques" will result in exposure levels that meet this 
requirement. 

1. The use of electric blankets should be discontinued because of 
the high magnetic field strengths and the length of exposure. 
Electric razors, hair dryers, and curling irons also produce 
high-strength magnetic fields, and although the exposure is of 
much shorter duration, their use should be discouraged. 

2. Position yourself at least four feet away from the television. 
Many people are already taking this precaution after having heard 
about the ionizing radiation being emitted from the television 
screen. This radiation described in this paper is different, and 
is being produced by the electronics within the set itself. 

3. Maintain a distance of two and a half feet from your computer 
video-display terminal. Models built before 1982 give off 
substantially higher levels of radiation and should no longer be 
used. If possible, install an ELF filter on the video monitor. 

4. Avoid long exposures to fluorescent lights. Maintain a 
distance of three to four feet from overhead fluorescent light 
fixtures. Stop using floor and desk lamps that contain 
fluorescent bulbs. 

5. If your home utilizes electric baseboard heaters, position 
your furniture and bed at least three feet away. Use the same 
precaution for small electric space heaters. 

6. Do not use hand-held cellular phones, portable phones, 
walki-talkies, or any other hand held transmitting devices. The 
problem is that the power radiated from the antenna is very close 
to the brain. If you must use any of these devices, limit your 
exposure to the minimum duration possible. Car phones that have 
an external antenna are usually okay because the occupants are 
shielded by the metal of the car. 

7. Avoid prolonged exposure to all plug-in type electric motors. 
These produce extraordinarily high magnetic fields for several 
feet. Bedside electric clocks should be removed since they emit 
strong magnetic fields near your brain while you sleep. (Digital 
or battery operated clocks are not dangerous.) Run dishwashers 
only when you are not in the kitchen. 

8. Turn all electric appliances "off" when not in use. 

9. If you live near a radio or television transmitting tower, or 
near a high-voltage power line... move. Unfortunately, there is 
no cost-effective shielding for the strong electromagnetic fields 
emanating from these sources.