I have no doubt that Japan is grateful for the ocean’s bounty. So grateful, in fact, that the government continually lobbies against international protections for endangered marine species like the bluefin tuna, and flaunts their disregard for international law when it comes to whaling. The holiday not only comes on the tail of the discovery of the shark massacre, but it’s also just days after the start of Japan’s summer whaling mission in the Northwest Pacific ocean, where they plan to kill 100 minke whales, 100 sei whales, 50 Brydes whales and 10 sperm whales.

Although Marine Day has a patriotic, national security bent, it is, according to the Japan Maritime Public Relations Center, a time to “realize our obligations to the oceans.” Which is pretty ironic, considering how one-sided Japan’s relationship is with the ocean ecosystem.

But it’s not surprising that Japan wants to promote its love of the ocean through colorful fish tanks and sushi dinners on Marine Day. They’ve tried to suppress the truth about the dark side of their relationship with the ocean before, pinning whaling on “cultural traditions” instead of owning up to the politics and economics driving the hunts, and even going so far as to censor screenings of The Cove, the Oscar-winning documentary about the annual dolphin slaughter in the village of Taiji.

Seems like Japan is hoping to redefine their relationship with the ocean through a few fish tanks and day off of work. Marine Day is government propaganda at its best. It’s a good thing none of those fish in the Ginza shopping district jumped for their freedom like the dolphin at Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium who leapt out of her tank during a show in early July — that might have ruined the image of a happy co-existence between Japan and marine animals.

As an island nation, Japan has every reason to celebrate respect and gratitude for the ocean, but instead of a meaningless national holiday, they’d be better off changing their destructive policies before the ocean has nothing left to give. 

Photo credit: ajari

Japan’s Ironic National Holiday

This year, Norway will hunt and kill nearly 1,300 minke whales in defiance of an international ban on commercial whaling. Norway sees itself as a progressive and modern country, but this year’s quota of 1,286 minke whales puts Norway years behind the times.

Despite boasting a new Animal Welfare Act, the country has made no provision for marine mammals at all. Because there is no known humane way to kill whales at sea, some whales endure an hour of suffering before finally dying an agonising death after being shot with exploding harpoons and rifles.?

Norway is one of three countries flying in the face of the international ban %u2013 both Japan and Iceland also carry out this bloody and violent crime. Only 1 per cent of the Norwegian public eats whale meat on a regular basis, and the majority of Norwegians agree that the suffering caused by whaling is unacceptable.

This year’s quota is the highest in 25 years. Take action by writing to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and asking him to stop the suffering of whales today and to live up to Norway’s desire to be seen as a progressive and modern country by promoting whale watching, not whale hunting.

Due to an increased global demand for the fish’s meat, shark populations have seriously plummeted in recent years. According to Oceana, more than 100 million sharks are killed every year for their meat, oftentimes through “finning,” a brutal process where fishermen cut off sharks’ fins and throw their bodies into the ocean to die. In other cases, sharks get trapped and killed as bycatch during longline tuna fishing. Some species of shark have declined by as much as 99 percent. Sharks may reign at the top of the ocean’s food chain, but the fish’s survival is nothing short of precarious.

The severity of the shark situation is well-documented, yet stores and restaurants across the world still serve up shark meat. Even Henry’s Farmers Markets, a grocery store chain, sells shark meat, despite the store’s supposed commitment to providing products that “support a healthy lifestyle.” I’ve got news for you, Henry’s: Shark meat isn’t healthy for people, and it sure as heck isn’t healthy for ocean ecosystems.

This whole situation begs the question of why shark meat is so popular in the first place. Historically, only the most uppercrust families in China consumed shark fin soup. But recently, the soup’s popularity expanded exponentially, and is now eaten throughout Asia by middle and upper classes. Folks throughout the world also consume the fish’s meat, but the fins are where the real money lies. To show just how popular shark fin soup has become, according to an Oceana report (pdf), in 2008, 87 countries exported shark fins to Hong Kong, including the U.S.

Maybe I’m naiive or just fussy about my fish, but I’m truly surprised by shark’s popularity, especially considering that shark fishing is so unhealthy for both people and the environment. Most species of shark contain extremely high levels of mercury, so consuming them really isn’t advisable for anyone. Plus, sharks reign at the top of oceanic food chains, serving the all-important task of keeping populations of other species in check. Remove the top of the food chain and the world’s waters can get—to put it mildly—irreparably damaged. Shark fin soup already seems pretty unappetizing. The fact that it’s loaded with mercury and is largely responsible for the world’s declining oceans—well, I’d rather eat something as gross as KFC’s Double Down sandwich.

To really boost shark populations, the world needs to institute international shark fin bans, adopt species-specific management, and make efforts to reduce shark bycatch. According to the International Union of Conservation for Nature (IUCN), 50 of the world’s 307 shark species are listed as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered. Yet only three shark species—the white, whale, and basking—are protected internationally by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The population data on sharks is out there, but legislative bodies can’t (or rather, won’t), put the proper protections in place.

Groups like Oceana and Iemanya Oceanica are pushing for greater protections for sharks. But consumers can take action now by refusing to eat the fish and calling out supermarkets that continue to sell the threatened swimmer. If we decrease demand for shark meat, fishermen will eventually realize it’s not worth their while to keep killing the animals. Sign this petition telling Henry’s Farmers Market to stop selling shark meat, and be on the lookout for other supermarkets that may stock imperiled sharks.

Photo credit: StormyDog via Flickr

Why are Supermarkets Selling Shark Meat?

On June 22, the AP broke what should be a significant story to very little attention; most media outlets simply reprinted the brief report. “CSC gets $25M gov’t records task order,” read the headline. The $25 million order allows CSC to perform scanning, indexing, and records management for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Good for them right? Well not really. Further investigation shows that CSC — Computer Sciences Corporation — has a long history of “winning” government contracts. Yet the disastrous state of the immigration system suggests that we’re not getting what we pay for.

According to the company timeline, starting in May of 1961 with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory contract, CSC has won billions in government contracts, including services for every U.S. Armed Forces division, NASA, the IRS, and major airports; Medi-Cal and Medicare claims processing; and even processing claims when natural disasters strike. In cases where CSC has not won the contracts, CSC often buys the companies that do, like DynCorp, which they acquired in March of 2003.

Through DynCorp, CSC was able to profit from a $50 million contract to support law enforcement functions in Iraq and a $200 million contract extension from the U.S. Postal services. With every awarded contract, CSC’s goal is eerily similar: to modernize the respected agencies technology capabilities with innovative concepts such as outsourcing so they can focus on their tasks. So what, this is America and we reward innovation, right? And what does it have to do with immigration reform?

What happened to rewarding competition? CSC has long had been profiting from contracts with divisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS.

In May 2009, CSC “won” $27 million for record digitization from USCIS. Before that, Datatrac Information Systems Inc., was awarded a $150 million contract in 2006 for the same services; CSC acquired Datatrac in December 2006. CSC also “won” $53 million in October 2007, for among other things, “modernizing” the operational technology requirements associated with the REAL ID Act of 2005 and legislation mandating the use of E-Verify. In November 2007, they “won” a $34 million contract to assist with immigration’s customer service center. That is $289 million in less than three years!

One need only add their press releases for 2010 to realize that not counting immigration services, CSC has “won” over $717 million in government contracts this year alone. And that excludes the $2.8 billion opportunity for a visa application contract. I wonder if they’ll win?

Yet despite all of this “modernization,” “outsourcing,” and “innovation integration,” any immigration attorney will tell you that the U.S. Immigration system is a horrendous backlog of expired visas and citizenship requests. Meanwhile, CSC keeps “winning” in the form of revenue, without offering great results.

CSC’s most recent reported revenue for the fiscal year ending in April 2010 was $16.1 billion. Our elected officials like to preach about pork barrel spending, yet, amid a campaign season, not one is inquiring about the excessively large funds currently allocated towards Immigration Services. Is this really the best use for taxpayer money? Has our immigration system improved with the help of CSC?

Watch CSC North American Public Sector promo here .

Where Do Billions Of U.S. Immigration Service Funds Go?

On June 22, the AP broke what should be a significant story to very little attention; most media outlets simply reprinted the brief report. “CSC gets $25M gov’t records task order,” read the headline. The $25 million order allows CSC to perform scanning, indexing, and records management for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Good for them right? Well not really. Further investigation shows that CSC — Computer Sciences Corporation — has a long history of “winning” government contracts. Yet the disastrous state of the immigration system suggests that we’re not getting what we pay for.

According to the company timeline, starting in May of 1961 with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory contract, CSC has won billions in government contracts, including services for every U.S. Armed Forces division, NASA, the IRS, and major airports; Medi-Cal and Medicare claims processing; and even processing claims when natural disasters strike. In cases where CSC has not won the contracts, CSC often buys the companies that do, like DynCorp, which they acquired in March of 2003.

Through DynCorp, CSC was able to profit from a $50 million contract to support law enforcement functions in Iraq and a $200 million contract extension from the U.S. Postal services. With every awarded contract, CSC’s goal is eerily similar: to modernize the respected agencies technology capabilities with innovative concepts such as outsourcing so they can focus on their tasks. So what, this is America and we reward innovation, right? And what does it have to do with immigration reform?

What happened to rewarding competition? CSC has long had been profiting from contracts with divisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS.

In May 2009, CSC “won” $27 million for record digitization from USCIS. Before that, Datatrac Information Systems Inc., was awarded a $150 million contract in 2006 for the same services; CSC acquired Datatrac in December 2006. CSC also “won” $53 million in October 2007, for among other things, “modernizing” the operational technology requirements associated with the REAL ID Act of 2005 and legislation mandating the use of E-Verify. In November 2007, they “won” a $34 million contract to assist with immigration’s customer service center. That is $289 million in less than three years!

One need only add their press releases for 2010 to realize that not counting immigration services, CSC has “won” over $717 million in government contracts this year alone. And that excludes the $2.8 billion opportunity for a visa application contract. I wonder if they’ll win?

Yet despite all of this “modernization,” “outsourcing,” and “innovation integration,” any immigration attorney will tell you that the U.S. Immigration system is a horrendous backlog of expired visas and citizenship requests. Meanwhile, CSC keeps “winning” in the form of revenue, without offering great results.

CSC’s most recent reported revenue for the fiscal year ending in April 2010 was $16.1 billion. Our elected officials like to preach about pork barrel spending, yet, amid a campaign season, not one is inquiring about the excessively large funds currently allocated towards Immigration Services. Is this really the best use for taxpayer money? Has our immigration system improved with the help of CSC?

Watch CSC North American Public Sector promo here .

Where Do Billions Of U.S. Immigration Service Funds Go?

The just-announced 2010 Laureates — David Beckmann and Jo Luck — are both innovators in grassroots efforts to help fight hunger and poverty around the world. They have each shaped their organizations, Bread for the World and Heifer International, into leaders in global poverty-alleviation and hunger-reduction by figuring out the best ways to inspire widespread support and action.

Beckmann, a Lutheran pastor and economist, heads Bread for the World, “a collective Christian voice urging decision makers to end hunger at home and abroad.” The organization has inspired at least a quarter of a million constituents every year to contact their elected officials to demand policies that help the world’s poor get enough food.

As CEO of Heifer International, Luck has helped 12 million families feed themselves by getting donors to provide them with food- and income-producing animals. Luck has institutionalized the idea of “paying it forward,” or, in Heifer-ese, “Passing on the Gift,” a policy that asks every family that receives an animal to give one of the animal’s female offspring to another needy family. The gifts allow families to sustain themselves, leading to greater independence, self-empowerment, and food security.

Innovators like Beckmann and Luck teach us more than just the technicalities of how to feed hungry people around the world. These types of visionaries are looking at systems and institutions in new ways and forging new paths to help fix old problems. This type of thinking is what we need in every aspect of the world’s food systems.

Around the U.S., people are similarly engaged in looking at our own food systems in new ways. Folks across the country are finding ways to work in food kitchens and community gardens, change policies to help feed more hungry children and level the playing field for small food producers, and campaign to support small farmers.

What all these people demonstrate is that when things seem hopeless, there’s always something that can be done if you have the heart and the will. All you need is to look at things with new eyes and get busy working in innovative ways.

Photo: stock.xchng

2010 World Food Prize Recognizes Grassroots Hunger-Fighters

Source

Pupils in a Irish school are being asked to bring their own toilet paper to school to help offset funding cutbacks.

The principal of St John’s Girls National School in Carrigaline, County Cork, confirmed she had sent out a memo to parents last week requesting that their daughters occasionally bring a roll of toilet paper to give to the class teacher, who would dispense the rolls to students when needed.

The bizarre request is part of the school’s cost-containment programme so that dwindling state funding can be better spent on education, says principal Catherine O’Neill.

She refused to divulge the school’s annual budget but said that the Government’s abolition of various grants was behind the request.

The letter, dated 1 October, reads: “Dear parent. From time to time we will request your daughter to bring in a toilet roll to her class teacher. These rolls will be specifically for your daughter’s class and will be dispensed by the class teacher. We would also request that your daughter has tissues in her sack at all times. This is due to cutbacks. we are endeavouring to trim down expenses and ensure we use our grants towards the educational needs of your child.”

She stressed that the request was just that, and pupils were not obliged to comply.

“We thought with this request that it wouldn’t be a burden on families. We’re just hoping to spend money on education,” she said.

“We’re all aware of cutbacks. We didn’t mean to insult anyone. It’s kind of humorous,” she said, adding she didn’t believe her school was the first to make such a request.

But a parent of one pupil said he was astonished when he got the letter last week.

“Are things really this bad? This is like something Frank McCourt might have written about growing up in the 1930s,” he said. “I was flabbergasted.”

Irish National Teachers’ Organisation spokesman Peter Mullan said many schools were reeling under funding cutbacks and parents were being asked to shoulder an even greater burden of their child’s educational costs.

Despite the Government increasing the capitation grant to cover basic operating costs in the last budget, other grants have been removed. They include the free-book scheme for low-income students, the school library grant and a special grant for Traveller children, he says.

“Two years ago, the Government promised to spend €252m to upgrade computers but not a cent has been spent on them,” he said.

Consequently, parents are being asked to hold fundraising drives in order to pay for basic upgrades of their school’s computer system, he says.

Students are also being asked to bring items like egg cartons and yoghurt containers to use for art class, he says.

“Parents were being asked to fund superficial things but now they’re being asked to pay the core things,” he said.

“It’s no longer a few books or computer equipment. It’s now for basic running costs,” he said.

The Department of Education, however, said that schools were now getting more funding for basic operating costs after the capitation grant was increased last year to €200 per student.

He added that St John’s Girls school had received close to €379,000 in state funding for its 540 pupils since January 2008.

“The school has not come to the department about any financial difficulty,” he said.

Source Irish Independent

Government officials are investigating allegations that recent renovations and new builds in Florida, Louisiana and Alabama may be hazardous to health.

Chinese made drywall, imported during the building material shortage in 2005/6 are the homes most likely to be at risk according to the Consumer Safety Commission. The Florida Health Department is investigation over one hundred fifty complaints from homeowners who expressed health problems related to the drywall.

A class-action lawsuit is under-way which alleges this drywall has caused problems in the three states that not only results in property damage but negative health affects too. It is alleged that the composition of the drywall includes high levels of sulfur, which produces acid in the form of Sulphuric acid. It is also believed to be producing noxious gases like carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide and hydrogen sulfide. These gases can be identified by the rotten egg small they produce, and are connected to respiratory problems and other health issues.

The lawsuits allege that the imported drywall is causing these health problems which also include headaches, asthma, coughing, dizziness, ear infections and eye irritation to name a few.

In the wake of these problems companies such as Chinese Dryall Experts have sprouted up to offer a solution to home owners suffering from bad drywall.

Damage to the property is thought to be because of the high levels of sulfur which in box gas and liquid form corrodes wiring, copper based pipes and maybe even building fixings. Appliances have failed, home wiring has been declared unsafe and structural elements like steel brackets, braces and nails have also been found to be corroded.

The material shortage arrived as a result of hurricane Katrina. The demand for building supplies was so great in order to rectify the devastation left behind, that suppliers had to import what they couldn’t produce. One of these materials was the drywall made by Knauf Tianjin Ltd. Knauf is a household name in the building trade, having a worldwide presence and profits in the hundreds of millions. They aren’t the only company who imported the drywall though, there were many other companies who did the same, but Knauf always labeled it’s material so was the easiest to identify.

It is estimated that in the period between 2004 and 2007 over one hundred million pounds of this Chinese drywall was imported into the United States and used in home construction. Over thirty seven million of those came though Florida and is believed to have been used here. Current estimates cite that this material may be present in over one hundred thousand homes throughout the state.

The situation isn’t as clear cut as it may seem though, as there has so far been no definitive proof that the health issues are related to the import. It is only subjective proof so far that points the finger in that direction. Tests and studies are still being undertaken in order to find out exactly what is going on.

The situation is still evolving but all evidence collected so far points towards Chinese imported drywall being the cause of both the damage to homes, and the health issues suffered by the occupants.