Monday, January 30, 2012

The Human Cost Of An iPhone - Charles Duhigg and David Barboza

In the last decade, Apple has become one of the mightiest, richest and most successful companies in the world, in part by mastering global manufacturing. Apple and its high-technology peers — as well as dozens of other American industries — have achieved a pace of innovation nearly unmatched in modern history.

However, the workers assembling iPhones, iPads and other devices often labor in harsh conditions, according to employees inside those plants, worker advocates and documents published by companies themselves. Problems are as varied as onerous work environments and serious — sometimes deadly — safety problems.

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk.

Underage workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

More troubling, the groups say, is some suppliers’ disregard for workers’ health. Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77. Before those blasts, Apple had been alerted to hazardous conditions inside the Chengdu plant, according to a Chinese group that published that warning.

The full article is available here

Friday, January 20, 2012

Catholic Leaders Call On Gingrich And Santorum To ‘Stop Perpetuating Ugly Racial Stereotypes’ About Poverty - Marie Diamond

Faith in Public Life reports that more than 40 Catholic leaders and theologians across the country are calling on two of their “fellow Catholics,” GOP contenders Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, to stop using divisive rhetoric about race and poverty on the campaign trail.

Noting that Catholics consider racism an “intrinsic evil,” the open letter confronts the two candidates about their comments singling out minorities who receive welfare.

Despite the fact that 39 percent of Americans on welfare are white, Gingrich and Santorum have directed their vitriol toward minorities in speeches before mostly-white audiences. Instead of acknowledging that millions of American families are looking for help in difficult times, the candidates have played up stereotypes of “lazy blacks” who prefer a government handout to hard work.

The full article is available here

Movie Review: Contraband - The AV Club

No one will confuse it with Maria, Full Of Grace, but like that more accomplished film about moving illegal material across borders, the little-hyped Mark Wahlberg smuggling drama Contraband benefits from elegant simplicity. (Even its brown-paper-bag of a title gets right to the point).

Wahlberg is always better as a character actor than an action star, but Contraband plays to his strengths by casting him as a fundamentally decent working-class man forced by circumstances into a desperate situation. Contraband’s modest goals keep it from ever soaring too high: It’s pretty much exactly as good as it needs to be. It’s little more than an effective genre film, but in this era of bloated, convoluted epics, that’s cause for minor celebration.

The full article is available here

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Fact-Checking Newt Gingrich's "Food Stamps " Southern Strategy

Gingrich Rides Racially Coded Rhetoric to Surge in South Carolina - Ben Adler
Gingrich’s rhetoric -- calling President Obama “the best food stamp president in history” and so forth -- is a dog whistle designed to appeal to South Carolina’s white Republican voters. Gingrich boldly promised to "continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job," as if the majority of poor people were not, in fact, employed and as if the unemployed lack knowledge rather than opportunity.

Gingrich knows the secret to his success among Republicans is his penchant for mocking and excoriating liberals. In South Carolina that approach has taken on a racially inflammatory element, and it seems to be working.  This was the first state to secede from the Union. Surrounding the state capitol building there is a street named for slavery defender John Calhoun, a statue of segregation defender Strom Thurmond and a Confederate flag flying.  When he says black parents will take him up on his offer of jobs instead of food stamps some listeners might hear “get blacks off of food stamps,” particularly when it comes after his boast of having passed welfare reform.

Cynically, the rhetoric was a brilliant piece of jiu jitsu: Gingrich plays to racial animosity while claiming credit for trying to empower poor minorities.


Myths about Food Stamps - The Cost of Hunger Blog
MYTH 1: Most food stamp recipients wouldn’t need this benefit if they would just get a job.
50 percent of food stamp participants are children and 8 percent are elderly citizens. In fiscal year 2005, of all food stamp households, 84% contained either an elderly or disabled person or a child, and these households received 89% of all food stamp benefits. Commonly referred to as the “working poor,” many food stamp users who are employed full-time still earn poverty level wages, making it difficult to afford food.

MYTH 2: The Food Stamp Program uses tax dollars that never benefit my community.
every dollar in food stamp benefits generates two dollars in household spending. Food stamp benefits not only support grocery purchases, but also free up cash for other necessities, such as medical care, children’s clothing, house repairs, and child care. As more money is spent, more jobs are created, ultimately promoting a more robust local economy.

MYTH 3: Only people who are on welfare get food stamps.
As of 2005 less than 15 percent were receiving welfare and over 29 percent were gainfully employed. Participants need not be receiving welfare to receive food stamps.

MYTH 4: Food stamp recipients are all the same
Currently, food stamp beneficiaries are a diverse group. USDA statistics show that:

59 percent of food stamp recipients are female,
43 percent are Caucasian,
33 percent are African American,
19 percent are Hispanic,
2 percent are Asian, and
2 percent are Native American.


Fact-Checking Newt Gingrich's Food Stamps Claims - Huma Khan
It is true that the number of Americans who rely on food stamps is at a record high. Nearly 46 million Americans received benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — better known as food stamps — this year, the highest number in recorded history. But experts attribute that mainly to the weak economy and high unemployment. Additionally, George W. Bush’s administration expanded eligibility for food stamps to get more Americans to apply, which also contributed to an increase in recipients.

The idea that administrators are not working to cut fraud can also be challenged.  The Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, contracts with a computer firm to analyze food stamp purchases to root out fraud, for which it has received kudos from the Government Accountability Office.

While fraud remains a problem, it is not just a federal government issue. The problem also lies within states, each of which has a different requirement for who receives such benefits. In 35 states, people can get food stamps even if they don’t partake in any other assistance programs.  States are also responsible for targeting fraud by recipients, while the federal government monitors such misdemeanors on the retail side.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Walmart Trims Its Local Taxes - Worcester Telegram

A tax break for Walmart means higher taxes for residents, according to assessors in several area communities.

Wal-Mart Associates Inc. is headquartered in Bentonville, Ark., but stores incorporated in Massachusetts become domestic corporations — eligible for tax breaks — and it appears that many of the state’s Walmarts have recently taken advantage of those breaks.

Bob Bliss, spokesman for the state Department of Revenue, said, “One effect is that they are exempt from most personal property taxes. On the flip side, this may result in more state excise taxes paid. This is an individual decision each entity can make.”

Bob Ellia, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of Assessing Officers, said the practice of incorporation for tax savings is common.

“I don’t know if this is a trend, but I do know it is not at all uncommon. Major companies do an analysis and compare what they pay in taxes under what status and do what they can to save money.”

Wal-Mart reported $419 billion in sales last year, to earn first place in the 2011 Fortune 500 list of the world’s largest companies by revenue.

The full article is available here

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Christmas Post-Mortem: Market Culture’s Attack on US Families - John Brueggemann

As I join many in my community in the annual post-feast January slim-down, it occurred to me that this is a fitting moment to reflect on how expansive market culture is damaging the health of our families.  The symbolism of the religious spirit and the commercial frenzy of the holiday season are now thoroughly intertwined.

Without much consideration of this conflation, some Christians condemn “the attack on Christmas.” They blame secularists or other faith traditions. The irony of the imperative to defend Christmas and “put Christ back in Christmas” is that this problem is mainly a struggle between the Christian Jesus and the “Christian” Santa.

It is not Jews (or atheists) hassling Christians to spend weeks scurrying around worrying about stuff (which used to jumpstart on the hideous day of shopping after Thanksgiving known as Black Friday but now seems to begin after Halloween). If anything, the cultural imperialism of Christmas seems to have enabled a sort of Christianization or really Santafication of Chanukah.

One theme that helps define modern Christmas is the rapidly changing role of media technology.  As we come to terms with the cultural transformation of the information revolution, we have not yet figured out who is going to determine the ideals, laws, and manners around technology use and media exposure. I know many families in my community who feel outgunned in this regard. This is especially important as we shift from optional use of digital technology to basic dependence.

In Longing and Belong: Parents, Children, and Consumer Culture, Allison J. Pugh observes that what really concerns parents in this regard is the “economy of dignity.” They know their children’s desire is not just about having stuff. It is about fitting in, about literately participating in discussions of popular culture on the playground.

Pugh finds that those families who effectively negotiate the question of spoiling versus their children being left behind raise kids who are socially successful. Because this is a very difficult time to fit in without competing and shopping like everyone else, resisting market culture is a relentless struggle. At no time during the year is this struggle more intense than the holidays.

Most people want to be comfortable, informed, active and connected. And we all need to come to terms with the culture in which we live. But that does not mean we have to passively accept all the craziness that comes our way.

The full article is available here

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

FDA Gives Up On Antibiotic Restrictions In Livestock - Tom Laskawy

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pulled a Scrooge move just before Christmas. The agency published an entry in the Federal Register declaring that it will end its attempt at mandatory restrictions on the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture.

According to the vast majority of microbiologists and public health experts, restrictions on agricultural uses are key to preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics as well as to preventing the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA and salmonella Heidelberg (cause of last summer's record-breaking ground turkey recall).

Consumer groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Pew Charitable Trusts have been calling for an end to the practice for years. But it's not just outsiders who are fed up with the agency's work on this issue; the administration's own watchdog group, the Government Accountability Office, recently gave the agency a failing grade in the subject.

It seems that as long as the industry opposes it, the agency can't keep antibiotics out of our meat and dairy products (nor, for that matter, can it ensure that antibiotics will remain effective). If the agency continues to favor industry's concerns over the public health, it begs the question: Who exactly is looking out for us?

On the brighter side, several organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Public Citizen have actually filed a lawsuit against the FDA demanding the agency restrict antibiotics in animals. So it may just fall to a federal judge to determine what's truly good for the public interest. Of course, it would be nice if the agency actually tasked with that responsibility would step up to the plate.

The full article is available here

Monday, January 2, 2012

2011: The Year of Resistance to Conservatism's "War of the Words" - Richard Eskow

Words are the weapons of choice in economic and political wars. Corporatists own the Republican Party, and large swathes of the Democratic Party too. Most Americans disagree with their ambitions, but they've been so good at designing and using these linguistic weapons that the public hasn't had a chance. 

From "death tax" to "job creators," the public has been saturated with prefabricated words and phrases that reshapes the thinking of millions of people in an Orwellian way.  Teachers, police, bus drivers and firefighters became "special interests" while mega-corporations became "people" who were being "deprived of their rights."

But something was different this year. This was the year that the people came up with some words of their own, outside the corporate- and billionaire-funded think tanks of conservatism. For the first time in many years, the right-wing warriors of language ran into heavy resistance. That's an important development that should be celebrated - and repeated.

The full article is available here