"They just can’t take it"

February 22, 2001

By Dr. Ridgely A. Mu’min Muhammad

We have been feverishly at work putting together our Saviour’s Day weekend events to be held near Muhammad Farms. However, there was one event that may seem small but is worth reporting.

On Monday, February 19th, during "Black History Month" I was asked to give a lecture to 12 students at the Terrell County Adult Education program. There were 9 black students and 3 white students. All except one were in their late teens or early twenties. The subject of my lecture was "The Inarticulate Major Premise". This title was taken from a book by Basil Davidson called the "Lost Cities of Africa". In his book he stated that,

"Time and again the achievements of men in Africa --men of Africa--have been laid at the door of some mysterious but otherwise unexplained "people from outside Africa." It is not only "Hamites" who have given scope for the ‘inarticulate major premise’ of an inherent African (or black) inferiority. Over the last fifty years or so, whenever anything remarkable or inexplicable has turned up in Africa, a whole galaxy of non-African (or at any rate non-black) peoples are dragged in to explain it."

After reading this statement I began to show slides that showed that the Ancient Egyptians or Khemites were Black with "Negroid" features and hair, I went into my stuff on the pyramids. I always watch the reaction of my audience whenever I give lectures to see if they are "with me". All but one of the black students were all up in it. The one black male that seemed to be trying to resist kept interrupting to ask questions in an attempt to challenge what I was presenting. The back and forth between myself and the young man was quite amusing to me, but I made sure that he did not feel that I was making fun or being condescending to him. After a few minutes, even he settled in and became engrossed in the presentation and stayed an extra 15 minutes over the allotted hour for the lecture.

On the other hand, two of the three young white students became more and more agitated, less and less attentive and more and more disrespectful. One young white girl kept dropping her keys on her table, turning around to converse with the young white guy behind her. When I asked the audience questions about a particular slide or overhead, the young white male would always try to interpret the pyramids and their functions based on the old "dead and buried" philosophy. I was very careful not to be dogmatic or offensive to anyone, however after about 45 minutes into the lecture, two of the white kids just couldn’t take it and asked to be excused.

What I witnessed was the mirror image of what goes on everyday in the "integrated" public school setting. In my case it was a black male giving information to a mixed audience about the achievements of black people. The white kids just could not take it. They became disinterested, restless and eventually dropped out. On the other hand the black students were interested, enthralled and would have stayed for hours. And we still wonder what is going on with our children in the school system. P-lease!

Peace, Doc

More information on Saviours' Day Weekend

Back to Main News Page




GM slashes output to June to cut inventories 

By Christopher Bowe in Chicago 
February 22 2001 

General Motors, the world's largest automaker, said on Thursday it planned to  suspend production intermittently at 14, or almost half, of its North American plants  until the end of June in an attempt to align supply with demand. The move is the latest in US automakers' struggle to curtail production in the face of  lower demand and a slowing US economy. This had left GM and its peers with  bloated inventories, as factories continued to churn out vehicles.  Nicholas Lobaccaro, Lehman Brothers analyst, noted that GM's and Ford's  inventories were at "alarming levels". He expected GM to cut production in the  second quarter by as much as 20 per cent. 

GM declined to detail the number of vehicles and effect on its production forecast because of the planned shutdowns.  It is unlikely that all the plants will close at one time, and none is likely to be closed  the entire period.
GM's plan is to juggle plant closures of one to four weeks during the period in 
connection with altered production schedules. "It's really up and down, up and 
down," said Tom Wickham, GM spokesman.  About 37,500 hourly workers and 3,000 salaried employees will be affected by the  temporary plant shutdowns. GM said nine plants would be idle next week. 

February 22, 2001 

GM Announces More Production Cuts


DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors Corp. said Thursday it will periodically idle 14 North  American assembly plants through June, affecting thousands of workers as the  automaker continues paring production in light of slackened U.S. sales. The temporary closings will affect nearly half of the world's largest automaker's 29  North American assembly plants, including some in Michigan, Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio,  Oklahoma, as well as Canadian plants in Ontario and Quebec and in Mexico.

GM also plans to slow car and truck assembly indefinitely at four plants, including the  Detroit-area Orion Township one where the Oldsmobile Aurora, Pontiac Bonneville,  Buick Park Avenue and Buick LeSabre are made.
While GM did not immediately specify the number of workers affected by the plant  idlings ranging from one to five weeks in duration, the automaker said the factories have  more than 37,000 hourly workers and 3,000 salaried ones.

GM spokesman Tom Wickham declined to identify all of the targeted plants, saying the  company first seeks to apprise affected workers and related union officials. But GM confirmed it will idle its Lansing Craft Center for four weeks starting May 21,  looking to cut inventories of Cadillac Eldorado coupes.
Laid-off members of the United Auto Workers union will receive 95 percent of their take-home pay under their contract, while employees belonging to the Canadian Auto  Workers will get 65 percent of their salary.

GM, Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler arm over the past several  months all have been idling plants to trim bloated vehicle inventories, which automakers  typically prefer to be about a 60-day supply. GM looks to pare production by 21 percent over this year's first three months in light of 
slower U.S. vehicle sales. Wickham would not say how much the automaker plans to cut  second-quarter production.

At the end of January, GM had a 102-day supply of unsold vehicles on dealer lots, up  from 100 days the previous month and 89 in January 2000, according to Autodata Corp.,  a New Jersey-based industry research firm. Ford's supply was 98 days as of Jan. 31, up 10 days from December and 15 days from 
January last year. DaimlerChrysler had an 82-day supply of unsold vehicles at January's  end, up from 79 in December but down slightly from 84 days in January 2000, Autodata  reported.

Bill Seltenheim, Autodata's vice president, said GM's latest production cuts ``pretty  much had to be done'' to chip away at inventory levels. Seltenheim said such production  cuts could go well into to the summer, depending on whether the U.S. economy perks up  and draws consumers back into dealer showrooms. Still, he said, the U.S. market's ``coming off of two consecutive years of record sales  makes the production cuts a shock to the system.''

Last week, GM halted work on the third production shift at the Pontiac East truck  assembly plant in a move that will idle about 1,000 GM workers indefinitely in the next  several weeks. Pontiac East builds GMC and Chevrolet pickup trucks.
On the Net:

Back to Main News Page


Stephen Jay Gould on the human genome


New York Times
Feb 19, 2001

Two groups of researchers released the formal report of
data for the human genome last Monday — on the birthday
of Charles Darwin, who jump-started our biological
understanding of life's nature and evolution when he
published "The Origin of Species" in 1859. On Tuesday,
and for only the second time in 35 years of teaching, I
dropped my intended schedule — to discuss the
importance of this work with my undergraduate course on
the history of life. (The only other case, in a distant
age of the late 60's, fell a half-hour after radical
students had seized University Hall and physically
ejected the deans; this time at least, I told my
students, the reason for the change lay squarely within
the subject matter of the course!)

I am no lover, or master, of sound bites or epitomes,
but I began by telling my students that we were sharing
a great day in the history of science and of human
understanding in general.

The fruit fly Drosophila, the staple of laboratory
genetics, possesses between 13,000 and 14,000 genes.
The roundworm C. elegans, the staple of laboratory
studies in development, contains only 959 cells, looks
like a tiny formless squib with virtually no complex
anatomy beyond its genitalia, and possesses just over
19,000 genes.

The general estimate for Homo sapiens — sufficiently
large to account for the vastly greater complexity of
humans under conventional views — had stood at well
over 100,000, with a more precise figure of 142,634
widely advertised and considered well within the range
of reasonable expectation. Homo sapiens possesses
between 30,000 and 40,000 genes, with the final tally
almost sure to lie nearer the lower figure. In other
words, our bodies develop under the directing influence
of only half again as many genes as the tiny roundworm
needs to manufacture its utter, if elegant, outward

Human complexity cannot be generated by 30,000 genes
under the old view of life embodied in what geneticists
literally called (admittedly with a sense of whimsy)
their "central dogma": DNA makes RNA makes protein — in
other words, one direction of causal flow from code to
message to assembly of substance, with one item of code
(a gene) ultimately making one item of substance (a
protein), and the congeries of proteins making a body.
Those 142,000 messages no doubt exist, as they must to
build our bodies' complexity, with our previous error
now exposed as the assumption that each message came
from a distinct gene.

We may envision several kinds of solutions for
generating many times more messages (and proteins) than
genes, and future research will target this issue. In
the most reasonable and widely discussed mechanism, a
single gene can make several messages because genes of
multicellular organisms are not discrete strings, but
composed of coding segments (exons) separated by
noncoding regions (introns). The resulting signal that
eventually assembles the protein consists only of exons
spliced together after elimination of introns. If some
exons are omitted, or if the order of splicing changes,
then several distinct messages can be generated by each

The implications of this finding cascade across several
realms. The commercial effects will be obvious, as so
much biotechnology, including the rush to patent genes,
has assumed the old view that "fixing" an aberrant gene
would cure a specific human ailment. The social meaning
may finally liberate us from the simplistic and harmful
idea, false for many other reasons as well, that each
aspect of our being, either physical or behavioral, may
be ascribed to the action of a particular gene "for"
the trait in question.

But the deepest ramifications will be scientific or
philosophical in the largest sense. From its late 17th
century inception in modern form, science has strongly
privileged the reductionist mode of thought that breaks
overt complexity into constituent parts and then tries
to explain the totality by the properties of these
parts and simple interactions fully predictable from
the parts. ("Analysis" literally means to dissolve into
basic parts). The reductionist method works
triumphantly for simple systems — predicting eclipses
or the motion of planets (but not the histories of
their complex surfaces), for example. But once again —
and when will we ever learn? — we fell victim to
hubris, as we imagined that, in discovering how to
unlock some systems, we had found the key for the
conquest of all natural phenomena. Will Parsifal ever
learn that only humility (and a plurality of strategies
for explanation) can locate the Holy Grail?

The collapse of the doctrine of one gene for one
protein, and one direction of causal flow from basic
codes to elaborate totality, marks the failure of
reductionism for the complex system that we call
biology — and for two major reasons.

First, the key to complexity is not more genes, but
more combinations and interactions generated by fewer
units of code — and many of these interactions (as
emergent properties, to use the technical jargon) must
be explained at the level of their appearance, for they
cannot be predicted from the separate underlying parts
alone. So organisms must be explained as organisms, and
not as a summation of genes.

Second, the unique contingencies of history, not the
laws of physics, set many properties of complex
biological systems. Our 30,000 genes make up only 1
percent or so of our total genome. The rest — including
bacterial immigrants and other pieces that can
replicate and move — originate more as accidents of
history than as predictable necessities of physical
laws. Moreover, these noncoding regions,
disrespectfully called "junk DNA," also build a pool of
potential for future use that, more than any other
factor, may establish any lineage's capacity for
further evolutionary increase in complexity.

The deflation of hubris is blessedly positive, not
cynically disabling. The failure of reductionism
doesn't mark the failure of science, but only the
replacement of an ultimately unworkable set of
assumptions by more appropriate styles of explanation
that study complexity at its own level and respect the
influences of unique histories. Yes, the task will be
much harder than reductionistic science imagined. But
our 30,000 genes — in the glorious ramifications of
their irreducible interactions — have made us
sufficiently complex and at least potentially adequate
for the task ahead.

We may best succeed in this effort if we can heed some
memorable words spoken by that other great historical
figure born on Feb. 12 — on the very same day as
Darwin, in 1809. Abraham Lincoln, in his first
Inaugural Address, urged us to heal division and seek
unity by marshaling the "better angels of our nature" —
yet another irreducible and emergent property of our
historically unique mentality, but inherent and
invokable all the same, even though not resident
within, say, gene 26 on chromosome number 12.

Stephen Jay Gould, a professor of zoology at Harvard,
is the author of "Questioning the Millennium."

Back to Main News Page


Regret: That He Didn't Get More Votes

By EVELYN NIEVES -- The New York Times February 18, 2001

RALPH NADER'S name used to be synonymous with consumer advocacy and
corporate muckraking. But since running for president on the Green
Party ticket, Mr. Nader, 67, has been more often described as a

Among many Democrats, who blame him for taking votes away from Al
Gore, effectively costing their party the election, Mr. Nader has
been treated like a modern-day Hester Prynne, banished to the
outskirts of the political arena and spoken of with open disdain.
Former Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, who had said he would "strangle the
guy with my bare hands if he helps George W. Bush beat Al Gore," has
refused to apologize for his comment. Hillary Clinton, who said
"that's not a bad idea" when the publisher and editor Harold Evans
joked that he wanted to kill the Green Party candidate, has ignored
16 phone calls asking for an apology, Mr. Nader says.

In an interview last week with The New York Times, Mr. Nader said
that although he considers such language irresponsible, he would
rather not focus on gossip that "coarsens the public dialogue." And
he remains defiantly proud of his candidacy, convinced that it has
helped to energize progressive liberals disenchanted with the two
major "corporate-dominated" political parties.

Q. What have you been doing since the election? There are a lot of
"Where's Ralph?" articles that say you seem awfully quiet these

A. Well, I've been pursuing a number of civic projects, ranging from
the California power crisis to advancing consumer protection on the
Internet and other pro-democracy electoral reforms. I've been
looking at worldwide health and diseases like TB and malaria. I'm
also writing a book on the campaign.

And then I'm also in the process of building the Green Party; 900
campus Green Parties will be established by the end of the year. The
organizing group, Campus Greens, has already gotten under way. We're
looking for candidates for the 2002 election to run at the local,
state and national levels. Most of the coverage of the campaign is a
horse race, so when the horse race goes away, the coverage goes

Q. You seemed to stay out of the fray during the post-election
Florida recount.

A. No. When I was out on the road, I had a lot to say, but the
mainstream press didn't cover any of it. The campus papers or the
small newspapers did. People who say that I've been out of the media
- well, it's up to the media to cover what we say. We've had nine
press conferences since the elections. You haven't heard much about
them. I've spoken out on the California power crisis. We're taking
on the New York Stock Exchange now over the $1.1 billion taxpayer-
funded deal to buy land and build a new building for the super
wealthy capitalists. . . .

Q. You won less than 4 percent of the national vote, yet your votes
were enough to put George W. Bush in the White House. What do you
say to the people who say that you were nothing but a Gore spoiler
all along?

A. I say there must be 20 spoilers: the state of Tennessee, the state
of Arkansas, the Democratically controlled counties of Palm Beach
that didn't recount in time for the Supreme Court deadline, George
Bush taking 10 times the number of Democratic votes in Florida that
I did. Ten times! There were too many spoilers to single out one for
his alleged defeat.

Q. Arrogant. Conceited. Self-serving. Those are some of the
adjectives that have been used to describe you and your campaign.
Were you prepared for this kind of vitriol?

A. I've had a lot of words used in the past. I've never had
egotistical or those words used. That's what some people call you
when you crash the political parties and try to give people a
broader choice than the two political parties, and give them a
broader political agenda. People who called me those things were
people who thought Gore was entitled to all votes to the left of
center. They were saying, "How dare the Green Party clutter the
playing field?" . . .

Q. Are you watching this presidency with fear and trepidation?

A. The same decision makers under Clinton-Gore are operating under
Bush-Cheney. They're all over the place and they've always been all
over the place. We're talking about the politicians taking their
orders from corporate paymasters.

Q. So you really believe that the two parties are the same?

A. Yes, on most issues. On the most basic issues of cordoning power
from people as voters, consumers and taxpayers, they've very
similar. Look at the massive mergers that went on during Clinton-
Gore. GATT, Nafta, corporate crime, corporate welfare - the same.

Q. You kept calling Gore and Bush Tweedledee and Tweedledum during
the campaign. So you still think there's hardly any difference
between the two?

A. On most issues. In foreign policy, the Commerce Department,
agriculture, criminal justice, defense, the Treasury, the Federal
Reserve and even most of the regulatory agencies.

Q. Do you think Gore would have appointed John Ashcroft attorney

A. No. He wouldn't have appointed Ashcroft. But the Justice
Department under Clinton-Gore has been horrendous. Their litigation
enforcement rate is lower than the administration before them on
illegal police violence and affirmative action. Environmental crimes
prosecution is down more than 25 percent under Clinton-Gore than it
was during the Reagan-Bush administration. This surprises a lot of
people, but it's true. Only in housing anti-discrimination
enforcement were they better.

The similarities regarding the concentration of corporate power over
our government tower over the dwindling differences between the two
parties. . . .

Q. And abortion?

A. They differ on abortion. But I don't believe that Roe v. Wade is
going to be overturned. And both parties condone the criminal
injustice system, corporate prisons, the death penalty, the failed
war on drugs.

Q. Guns?

A. On guns they're different, but not that different. We'll put guns
in the column of a real difference. But are they that different on
corporate armament?

That's what the frightened liberals don't think about. They think
that the five issues that the two parties differ on are the only
ones. They're different on abortion. And on forest regulation
they're very different. But the way I look at it, I make a list of
all the departments and check where they differ. The F.A.A. has been
asleep for eight years. OSHA's been asleep. The F.D.A. There's no
difference. So that's the way really to rigorously support the
conclusion that on most of the issues involving the corporate
takeover of elections and the weakening of democracy, the two
parties are humming along on parallel tracts, moving to the marching
orders of the corporate paymasters.

Q. Are you a pariah to the Democratic Party?

A. That assumes I care about that. I did meet with [Representative
Richard A.] Gephardt last week at his invitation and he said to me
that the vituperatives that some Democrats are hurling at us - that
the nasty comments that some Democrats are hurling at us - that he
disapproves of that. I told him, you know the Democrats have been
known to work with Gingrich and Lott and Delay between elections.
What's their problem with working with progressive Greens?

You know, every one of these Democrats who says that I cost Gore the
election says that Gore has won the election. (Laughs.) They say he
won the popular vote and the electoral vote. So how much of a margin
did I cost him?

Q. You've said you spent a great deal of time in California rather
than focusing on swing states. Yet in the last week or so of the
campaign you spent a lot of time in the swing states.

A. That was making up for not spending time in them before. I mean, I
went to Wisconsin three times, Gore went nine times and Bush went 11
times. Actually, it was Buchanan who cost Bush four states -
Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon and New Mexico. He gave them to Gore by
taking them away from Bush. And the Republicans didn't whine the way
the Democrats did as if they were entitled to those votes.

Q. Will you run again?

A. Too early to say.

Q. Any regrets?

A. Yeah, I didn't get more votes. The Democrats' scare tactics in the
last month took millions of votes that were leaning my way. The
Washington Post said that there were five million votes that were
leaning my way that got cold feet. People get cold feet. That
happens a lot with third party candidates. . . .

Q. Anything you'd like to add?

A. Just that basically, for us, the future is party building,
corporate reform and promoting a pro-democracy agenda. We've got to
make the term corporate reform as popular as tax reform. That's the

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

[This message sent using the IPPN Announce e-mail list. You can join this
low-traffic email group on alternative politics by sending a blank email to:
ippn-announce-subscribe@topica.com You can unsubscribe by writing ippn-announce-unsubscribe@topica.com

To participate in a more active discussion of independent and third
party politics, please send a blank email to:

Thanks! And please visit www.ippn.org for information on the on-going work of the Pro-Democracy Campaign and other ippn activities.

Back to Main News Page


February 18, 2001

The Farmer

"3/5ths, But Still Men"

by Dr. Ridgely A. Mu’min Muhammad

A two day workshop was held by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives in Albany, GA on Friday and Saturday of last week, February 9th and 10th. On Friday the monitor, for the Pigford Vs Glickman class action lawsuit, Randi Roth, was in attendance to update farmers on the status of the lawsuit and interview individual farmers who had not received payment or had been denied.

According to the USDA’s website of the 21,202 applications that were accepted for processing 60.4% were ruled in favor of the claimant and 39.6% were denied. In other words 3/5ths were approved and 2/5ths denied which is the same ratio that the Constitution used to count Black people to determine the number of representatives a state would have in the House of Representatives. The number of House seats plus the number of Senate seats then determine how many Electors each state would have in the Electoral College which chooses the president.

Interestingly an article done in the June 7, 1999 Newsweek magazine on the Status of Black America revealed that the median income for a family of four for Blacks was $35,000 per year but for Whites was $58,000 per year, or 3/5ths. This ratio of 3/5ths continues like the bass drum in a march. The underlying tone is set.

We had a chance to interview 29 farmers at the event in Albany and discovered that only 3 had been approved, 3 did not know their status but 23 were denied. We categorized these 23 denials into 13 possible categories but found that 15 of these denials were either because there was "no substantial evidence of discrimination",  or the farmer had picked the wrong "similarly situated white farmer". So I asked the monitor for the settlement, Randi Roth, could she help these 15 farmers.

"Sometimes the monitor will reverse and sometimes we won’t". Now in case of the similarly situated white farmer she said. "What the word similar means to the adjudicator is not necessarily what it means to the monitor..." Many people lost on the similarly situated white farmer however, "It is in the consent decree and it is not something that can change now. But the judge wrote in his opinion that he thought that class counsel would have the information about white farmers for people but it turned out that class counsel did not have it." In other words, Al Pires left a loophole in the consent decree that he was supposed to fill in, but he did not, leaving the individual black farmers with the burden of finding out which white farmers got loans from FmHA without having access to those white farmers’ records in the USDA office.

When the leadership of BFAA read that consent decree two days after it was submitted on November 3, 1998, they begged the judge in March of 1999 not to accept that line about the "similarly situated white farmer". However, the farmers own lead attorney, Al Pires, did not demand that the wording be changed and the judge signed the decree as written in April of 1999 and now the worst fears of the Black farmers has come to pass, 40% have been denied.

The "devil is in the details" and the Black farmers got the shaft. However, although treated like slaves and 3/5ths of a citizen they are continuing to fight to be productive citizens in the land that they and their forefathers enhanced.

According to Gary Grant, President of BFAA, "Al Pires and the USDA and the other "beltline bandits" around Washington have not finished hearing from us yet. That is a promise."

Click here to learn more about the lawsuit-->Perfect Crime

Back to Main News Page


Prisons for Sale        February 18,2001
By David Wilson

[Corrections] Director, Ashley Hunt, remembers reading a New 
York Times article, "They were analyzing a juvenile prison and 
uncovered gross human rights violations, and being a privatized 
prison, the focus was profits rather than helping to rehabilitate 
the children who are thrown behind bars." Hunt's interest in 
privatization of prisons and the prison industry grew and lead 
him to making, Corrections, perhaps the most controversial film 
at Slamdance this year. From his first-class documentary, one can
see that the corruption in our penal system isn't anything new, but 
is getting progressively worse. Corrections is a daring critique of 
capitalism and how it impacts minorities and victims of poverty.

"After the Civil War the US South had a large problem-their 
primary labor resource had been a free one-slave labor," says 
Hunt, "White southerners felt extremely threatened by the 
notion of 'free blacks'. As a result, criminal codes were 
expanded in order to target the newly emancipated men, 
women and children."

Corrections exposes the fact that the Civil War never truly 
abolished slavery. Almost immediately following the war, 
politicians and corporations were already finding ways to re-
enslave newly liberated African-Americans. At a time when 
most African-Americans had no land, laws were passed 
prohibiting vagrancy. In addition, the Thirteenth Amendment 
passed, outlawing slavery in all cases except when people were 
convicted of crimes.

With the new laws outlawing vagrancy, many African-Americans 
found themselves criminalized and held behind bars. Southern 
states began leasing their African-American convicts out to 
private businesses; often back to the same plantation owners they 
had just been freed from. Atrocious as it sounds, none of what 
happened after the Civil War could foreshadow the mass 
institutionalized-slavery that was to come in today's privatized 
prison industry. "If you look at history, before the 60's we still 
used far more rehabilitative measures to lower crime than we do 
today," explains Hunt, "Right now, our government is wasting 
millions of tax dollars to lock people up, yet spending little funds 
to prevent crime and rehabilitate criminals."

Since prisoners in privatized prisons labor for free to keep their 
prisons running (such as kitchen and janitorial labor), and since 
these privatized prisons can charge states $30 to $60 per bed per 
day, they are making a huge profit.

"It's legalized slavery," claims Hunt.

Due to the powerful lobbying efforts of the corporate prisons, the 
masses in the US appear to be convinced that increased sentences
are essential for reduction of crime-which according to Hunt, doesn't 
add up.

"The 'tough on crime' ideology assumes that people commit crime 
because laws aren't strict enough," Hunt continues, "People commit 
crimes out of poverty, rage, ignorance, drug addiction and even 
mental illness, but I have yet to see a convict who committed a
crime because a law wasn't strict enough."

Hunt makes a good point, and the statistics are in his favor. As 
sentences for nonviolent crime increased, crime and incarceration 
increased. Since 1970, prison population growth increased 614%. 
Today, the U.S. has a higher rate of incarceration than any other 
country in the world-some experts claim the highest in history.

"Prisons are factories for crime-not a solution," Hunt continues, 
"Many prisoners will be locked up again and again, oftentimes 
for the same crimes, because the prisons do little or nothing to 
rehabilitate them-which is the only way to insure consistent growth 
and profit for the privatized prison business."

Judging from the facts, the privatized prison industry is big business-
a 50 billion dollar industry that thrives on putting people behind bars 
and free labor.

Right now, the prison industry is targeting children, which leaves 
human rights groups in a panic.

"It's really sad," says Hunt, "Our government won't sufficiently 
increase funding for public schools or build decent recreational 
facilities, but they will spend millions of tax dollars on juvenile 

Exploiting the ‘do-the-adult-crime-do- the-adult-time’ rhetoric, 
the juvenile prison industry is booming, targeting children at ages
as young as 9. To keep profits high, these young victims of the 
prison business are often malnourished and physically abused. 
Human rights organizations have documented cases of children 
with ruptured eardrums, resulting from blows to their heads. 
Cuts and bruises seem commonplace. Cases of sexual abuse are 
also documented.

When asked by Human Rights Watch what they wanted to change 
about the juvenile prison in Tallulah, the children responded, 
"We'd like for the guards to stop hitting us, and we'd like more food."

"The privatized prison industry is not concerned with addressing the 
real problems that cause crime or reducing crime," explains Hunt, 
"What they are concerned with is their shareholders and continuing 
to make a profit."

See this film and brace yourself to be forever changed in the way you 
view criminals, prisons and our government in general.

For more information, visit: www.independentfilms.com/corrections.

Back to Main News Page