-Caveat Lector-
RadTimes # 85 October, 2000
An informally produced compendium of vital irregularities.
"We're living in rad times!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE:
"The exploitation of the poor can be extinguished not by effecting the
destruction of a few millionaires but by removing the ignorance of the poor
and teaching them to noncooperate with the exploiters."
--Mohandas K. Gandhi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:
---------------
--Profiting on the Backs of Child Laborers
--FBI's Carnivore Just the First Step In Cyber Surveillance
--Globalisation Heightening Gender Inequalities
--Lobbying, Advertising and Political Donations Surpass All Previous Records
--Diamonds are Forever
Linked stories:
*Gun Injuries, Deaths Decline
*Gun Accidents, Suicides Increase Among Kids
*European Biotech Biz Booming
*Court: Net Speech Isn't All Free
*"Scared Straight" for the business set
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin stories:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profiting on the Backs of Child Laborers
<http://www.latimes.com/news/comment/20001012/t000097077.html>
By Victoria Riskin, Mike Farrell
Damaris was 13 years old when she began working in the broccoli and
lettuce fields of Arizona. During peak season, she would often work 14
hours a day in 100-degree temperatures. For months on end she suffered
frequent nosebleeds and nearly passed out on several occasions. Despite
illness from exposure to dangerous pesticides, she kept on working. "It
was very difficult," she told Human Rights Watch. "I just endured it."
Between 300,000 and 800,000 children like Damaris are working as hired
laborers in commercial U.S. agriculture today. These farm-worker
children weed cotton fields, pick lettuce and cantaloupe and climb
rickety ladders in cherry and apple orchards. They often work 12 or more
hours a day, sometimes beginning at 3 or 4 in the morning. They risk
serious illness, including cancer and brain damage, from exposure to
pesticides, and suffer high rates of injury from working with sharp
tools and heavy machinery.
Despite long and grueling days, some child farmers are paid only
$2 an hour. Many of them drop out of school, too exhausted to study.
Nearly half of them never graduate from high school. Lacking other
options, many are relegated to a lifetime of low-wage field labor that
perpetuates the cycle of farm-worker poverty through generations.
Agriculture is the most dangerous occupation open to minors in the
United States. Work-related fatalities among child farm workers are five
times higher than for children working in non-agricultural jobs, and an
estimated 100,000 children suffer agriculture-related injuries annually
in the United States. The long-term effects of pesticide exposure are
not yet completely known, but have been linked to cancer, brain tumors,
brain damage and birth defects. Child farm workers interviewed by Human
Rights Watch for a recent study described working in fields still wet
with poison and being exposed to pesticide drift from spraying in nearby
fields. One 16-year-old boy told us that he mixed and sprayed pesticides
several times a week, but wore no mask or protective clothing because
his employer told him he had nothing to worry about.
Despite the hazards of agricultural work, current U.S. labor law
allows children working in agriculture to work at younger ages and
for longer hours than minors in other jobs. Surprisingly, the 14-hour
days worked by a 13-year-old are not prohibited by law. Children as
young as 12 can legally work unlimited hours in agriculture. In
contrast, kids cannot work in the fast-food industry before age 14
and are limited to no more than three hours of work on a school day
until age 16. This legal double standard amounts to de facto
race-based discrimination, since the vast majority of farm-worker
children are Latino and other racial minorities.
This shameful tolerance for abusive child labor in American fields
stands in stark contrast to U.S. leadership in combating child labor
overseas. The U.S. devotes $30 million a year to international
programs to end abusive child labor--a tenfold increase from just two
years ago. Last year, the U.S. became one of the first countries to
ratify a new international convention to eliminate the worst forms of
child labor, including such practices as child slavery, debt bondage,
sexual exploitation and forced labor. Congress recently acted to deny
trade preferences to countries that fail to meet their legal obligations
to end such abusive child labor.
This commitment to abolish inappropriate child labor abroad must be
matched by a commitment to protect children from abusive labor here in
the United States. Labor laws that exempt agriculture from basic child
labor restrictions date back to 1938, a time when nearly a quarter of
Americans still lived on farms, and Congress was understandably
reluctant to regulate the ability of children to work their parents'
land. The reality today is vastly different. The
overwhelming number of child farm workers are not working their
families' farms, but are hired laborers in large-scale commercial
agriculture.
Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)--backed by the Clinton
administration and a national coalition of more than 50 child labor
organizations--introduced legislation to update child labor laws, to
bring protections for child farm workers into line with those for other
working children. He also proposes to toughen civil and
criminal penalties for willful child labor violations.
Child labor in U.S. agriculture is America's shameful secret. Our
laudable efforts to protect children from exploitative labor overseas
appear deeply hypocritical unless matched by efforts such as Harkin's
to protect children here at home.
----
Victoria Riskin and Mike Farrell Are Co-chairs of the California
Committee (South) of Human Rights Watch
For more Human Rights Watch commentaries, please see:
<http://www.hrw.org/editorials/index.htm>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI's Carnivore Just the First Step In Cyber Surveillance
Monday, October 16, 2000
Fox News
By Patrick Riley
Amid all the hubbub over whether the current system violates
privacy rights, the agency has been quietly working on both
"Carnivore 2.0" and "Carnivore 3.0," according to FBI documents
released this month under a Freedom of Information Act claim
filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The current
Carnivore is version 1.3.4, according to the documents.
An "Enhanced Carnivore" program has been under development since
last November — under a $650,000 contract scheduled to end
in January 2001. Most of the details on the souped-up snoopers
were blacked out in heavy black marker before the papers were
released.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation makes no bones about its
plans for the system, which sifts an Internet Service Provider's
transmissions to track suspects' online activity.
"As it looks today, it could be completely different a year from
now," said FBI spokesman Paul Bresson. "Really, we've only seen
the tip of the iceberg in terms of the change in technology."
He said improving Carnivore is vital for keeping pace with
criminal elements.
"This is going to continue to be a cat-and-mouse game," he said.
"There's always going to be software and other encryption
technology that render a system less useful."
He declined to give specific details. But privacy experts say an
evolving Carnivore presents a problem for those trying to keep an
eye on it.
"It's a moving target," said David Banisar, a senior fellow at
EPIC. "It means there needs to be continual oversight, not just
onetime oversight. It means that if we get the source code we'll
have to get the source code as it changes also, and do a
re-analysis as the functions of the software change."
The program's source code, the piece of information most sought
after by activists trying to figure out if Carnivore reads the
e-mail of more than just those targeted by a court order, was
omitted from the 600-plus pages given to EPIC in the first of
several planned releases. But the organization has vowed to
continue fighting for it.
Despite the incomplete technical blueprint, the newly public
papers do shed some light on what sequels to Carnivore might look
like.
Three jargon-heavy lines of text that survived the FBI censor
reveal that Version 2.0 will be capable of "built-in data
analysis that Carnivore doesn't appear to do now," Banisar said.
That means being able to display captured Internet data as soon
as Carnivore intercepts it. The current system merely stores the
data and two other programs — "Packeteer" and "Coolminer"
— must be used to process and display it.
No information was released from the Version 3.0 section but
research mentioned elsewhere in the unclassified papers involves
an aspect of the technology dubbed "Dragon Net" that captures
telephone conversations held via the Web — a process known
as "voice over IP" technology.
Banisar suspects the FBI might also want its future sniffers to
have the ability to track multiple targets simultaneously. That
wouldn't bode well, he said. "The more capability it has to
intercept more than one target, the more likely it is to be
abused."
While the current Carnivore is purely monogamous, it casts a
wider net than commonly thought, according to an analysis of the
FBI documents by anti-computer crime site SecurityFocus.com.
Carnivore can "be programmed to watch for all the Internet
activities of a particular person," said Kevin Poulson, editorial
director at SecurityFocus and a former hacker. The system can
even reconstruct Web pages viewed by a suspect. "All that's been
talked about is its ability to monitor e-mail."
In light of this, said EPIC's Banisar: "It makes you wonder what
else they could possibly want."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Globalisation Heightening Gender Inequalities
10-Oct-2000
By Mithre J. Sandrasagra
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 10 (IPS) -
Third world delegates are expressing
fears that globalisation is leading to increased inequalities
between men and women.
''Despite new initiatives and commitments, the sad reality is that
the situation of the world's women is progressively deteriorating
due to Globalisation,'' Ramachandra Reddy of India told a meeting
of the Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee of the General
Assembly this week.
A number of speakers at the ongoing consultations of the General
Assembly have drawn attention to the link between development and
the rights of women. Reddy pointed out that, ''societies with the
greatest gender equality had grown the fastest, and it must be
recognised that gender equality is critical to the development
process''.
''The link between gender equality and development means that
marginalisation of women must be stopped, along with the continued
feminisation of poverty,'' Reddy added.
Globalisation, a process whereby owners of capital are enabled to
move their capital around the globe more quickly and easily, has
resulted in the removal state controls on trade and investment,
the disappearance of tariff barriers and the spread of new information
and communications technologies.
Andres Franco of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Rio Group of
Latin American and Caribbean nations, said ''that the opportunities
created by the process of globalisation have opened clear avenues
for development, but in some cases its benefits have not been
equitably distributed, thereby impeding efforts to promote the
advancement of women, particularly those living in poverty.''
Reda Bebars of Egypt, stressing that the advancement of women would
not be achieved by passing legislation, said that social development
on the national scale must be strengthened and a climate conducive
to development must be created if the goals set in Beijing are to
be realised.
Problems of inclusion stem from the fact that women are very
differently positioned in relation to the markets in different
parts of the world. In certain places, where women are socially
excluded from leaving their homes and going to market, the challenge
is to find ways for women to participate.
In other places the challenge is to create markets which are more
friendly to women's participation.
Ilham Ibrahim Mohamed Ahmed of Sudan condemned the debt burden
carried by developing countries, economic sanctions, arbitrary
measures and denial of access to new technological developments as
obstacles to the growth of women's rights.
Women remain very much in the minority among Internet users and
women still face huge imbalances in the ownership, control and
regulation of new information technologies.
''The gains of globalisation have not been equitably distributed
and the gap between rich and poor countries is widening,'' said
Zhang Lei of the People's Republic of China.
The gains of globalisation, thus far, have for the most part been
concentrated in the hands of better-off women with higher levels
of education and with greater ownership of resources and access to
capital.
''Work in China and Vietnam shows that globalisation has brought
new opportunities to young women with familiarity with English in
new service sector jobs, but has made a vast number of over-35-year-olds
redundant, either because they are in declining industries, or have
outdated skills,'' Swasti Mitter of the UN's Women Watch Online
Working Group on Women's Economic Inequality said.
Lei emphasised that most of the world's poor were women and that
poverty had become a major impediment to their development.
International commitments such as the Beijing Platform for Action
and the Copenhagen Programme of Action addressed some of the problems
of globalisation, however, it was pointed out that solutions proposed
for women in these documents were largely microeconomic, with
particular focus on enabling poor women to obtain access to credit
presumably to begin small businesses.
However, many drawbacks have been identified to the use of micro-
credit as an enabling tool. One study in Bangladesh found that
among female borrowers, a majority reported an increase in verbal
and physical aggression from male relatives after taking out loans.
Other studies in Bangladesh have drawn attention to the fact that
women run the risk of losing control of the loans to male relatives
because they are culturally excluded from participating in markets
outside their homes to buy inputs and sell outputs, according to
the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM).
According to UNIFEM's latest biennial report, over the past two
decades the process of globalisation has contributed to widening
inequality within and among countries, and has been punctuated by
economic and social collapse in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, and
countries in transition (in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union) and by financial crises in Asia and Latin America.
''If a wider range of people are to gain, globalisation must be
reshaped so that it is more people-centred instead of profit-centred
and more accountable to women,'' the UNIFEM report stresses.
''Growth cannot be assumed to automatically 'trickle down' to the
poor. It can in fact trickle up to create greater inequalities,''
Noeleen Heyzer, Executive Director of UNIFEM emphasised.
In January 2000, a total of 116 UN members had submitted national
action plans to fulfil government commitments to the Beijing Platform
for Action. The majority focused on education and training, women
in power and decision-making, women and health, and violence against
women. However, few plans established comprehensive, time-bound
targets for monitoring such progress and most made no reference to
sources of financing for the actions agreed.
''Indicators show that 13 countries - of which Albania, Burundi,
Iraq, Liberia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Somalia and Tanzania are a few -
are in the same shape or worse off today than they were in 1990,
and for almost 40 countries the data is insufficient to say anything,
which probably reflects an even worse situation for women,''
according to Social Watch, an NGO watchdog system aimed at monitoring
the commitments made by governments at the World Summit for Social
Development in Copenhagen and the Beijing World Conference on Women.
''Legislation existing on paper is only one side of the story,
since rights must be put into practice - millions of women still
face a daily struggle for their human dignity,'' Eva Latham of the
Netherlands lamented.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lobbying, Advertising and Political Donations Surpass All Previous Records
Investigation Reveals $113 Million Price Tag for
Special Interest Campaign to Overcome Strong Public
Opposition and Grant China PNTR
WASHINGTON D.C. -- Corporate interests spent more than
$113 million in an unprecedented campaign to persuade
Congress to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR) to China despite Harris polling showing 79%
public opposition from the U.S. public, according to a
study released today by Public Citizen's Global Trade
Watch.
The study, "Purchasing Power: the Corporate-White House
Alliance to Pass the China Trade Bill Over the Will of
the American People," documents how key business
players in the China PNTR effort spent $113.1 million
on lobbying, political donations and advertising. Past
corporate cash-fueled lobbying crusades dim in
comparison. For instance, proponents of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) spent $22.8
million on campaign contributions and $8 million on
advertising.
"Globalization and U.S.-China relations are both
incredibly important issues, yet instead of a policy
debate, Many in Congress tuned out and cashed in," said
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade
Watch. "Congress was marinated in corporate cash,
swarmed by corporate lobbyists, stupefied by endless
paid PR and advertising repeating the PNTR Big Lie
message, and seduced by 'astro-turf' fake grassroots
campaigns."
The study examined records of expenditures made public
recently in lobbying disclosure forms and Federal
Election Commission data. It found that corporations
spent many mutiples fighting for PNTR than for NAFTA or
against the president's health care plan -- two of the
decade's largest corporate priorities.
"The corrosive impact this torrent of money has on the
democratic process warps policy debates on the merits
into deals by the dollar," Public Citizen President
Joan Claybrook said. "This is a case study for the
desperate need for comprehensive campaign finance
reform. Corporate cash just purchased a bad policy that
will hurt us all."
As opponents of PNTR had warned, Congress' headlong
rush into PNTR has eliminated U.S. policy leverage with
the Chinese government. Indeed, the planned PNTR bill
signing was delayed to avoid embarrassing press
inquiries about recent difficulties during China's WTO
accession talks in Geneva. Among the issues drowned out
by the corporate cash deluge was the fact that many
details of China WTO's accession issues were never
agreed upon. The study's findings include:
A dozen pro-PNTR corporate interests spent $31.2
million lobbying Congress during the first half of
2000. Newly released lobby disclosure reports show that
a handful of prominent PNTR boosters, such as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, Motorola
and Boeing, spent heavily on PNTR lobbying. For
instance, more than half of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce's 45 registered lobbyists worked on PNTR in
the first half of 2000. In addition, nearly every
significant K Street lobbying shop was hired by the
corporations and trade associations aiming their
sizeable in-house capacity on PNTR. At least $13.75
million was spent on pro-PNTR advertising. The Business
Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent at
least $12 million on television, radio and print ads.
Motorola alone spent $1 million on advertising.
Companies and trade associations such as Boeing,
ExxonMobil, Microsoft, the Agriculture Trade Coalition
and Lucent spent at least another $750,000 on print and
radio ads. The China business lobby made $68.2 million
in PAC, individual and soft money contributions to
members of Congress and the political parties between
January 1999 and June 2000. Corporations in the pro-
PNTR Business Roundtable donated heavily during the
current election cycle to candidates, party PACs and
even the party conventions, outspending labor unions by
2 to 1, according to data from the Center for
Responsive Politics. The volume of cash rose as the
vote neared. In May, members of the Business Roundtable
outspent labor 11 to 1, giving $805,000 in soft money
to the major parties.
Corporate interests joined the White House in engaging
in highly questionable tactics. According to news
reports, corporate lobbyists and CEOs threatened to cut
off campaign cash to lawmakers who opposed PNTR and
lavished soft money on the two main parties (and
millions on their conventions) to fuel active pro-PNTR
leadership. Rep. Merrill Cook (R-Utah) reported being
offered $200,000 to change his "no" PNTR vote to "yes."
Corporations created fronts to funnel more cash to
Congress. For instance, a corporate-funded PAC called
the New Democratic Network handed out $250,000 to
Democrats supporting the pro-corporate managed trade
agenda. Companies such as Motorola, Boeing, AOL and
Citigroup actively plied undecided or wavering members
by organizing or promising special PNTR fund-raisers
for pro-PNTR voters. Even the General Accounting Office
concluded that the White House's coordination with
corporate interests violated federal law forbidding the
use of tax dollars for certain lobbying activities.
Seemingly objective foreign policy experts pushed a
PNTR agenda that benefited their corporate clients. The
administration and the corporate lobby recruited
foreign policy experts to speak in favor of PNTR at
White House press events. Experts such as Henry
Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell and Alexander
Haig endorsed PNTR before the captive White House press
corps without disclosing their extensive ties to
companies that would benefit from PNTR. Kissinger and
Scowcroft have worked for companies like Disney,
American International Group and Chubb to help gain
access to the Chinese market and to U.S. officials. The
China business lobby paid former members of Congress
and Clinton administration officials as a revolving
door to lobby. At least six former House members
lobbied for PNTR, including former Reps. Michael
Kopetski (D-Ore.), David McCurdy (D-Okla.), Vic Fazio
(D-Calif.), Vin Weber (R-Minn.), Ray McGrath (R-N.Y.)
and Rep. (and former Governor) Carol Campbell (R-S.C.).
Former Clinton officials lobbying for the measure
included former U.S. Trade Representative Mickey
Kantor. Former GOP National Committee Chairman Haley
Barbour also lobbied on PNTR. White House privatized
congressional vote-buying to corporations, avoiding its
bad NAFTA reputation on fulfilling pork barrel deals.
The Administration cut deals, made meaningless policy
compromises, and promised to fund pet projects to
provide post-corporate-purchase cover for about a dozen
House Members. However, relative to role and number of
deals required to pass NAFTA, government payments for
PNTR votes were reduced, with corporate giving making
up the difference.
"While corporate money can purchase power over the
short term, in the longer term the actual outcomes of
these bad trade policies, person-to-person education
about the results and local political accountability
cannot be overcome," said Wallach. "As with the fallout
after NAFTA, following PNTR, a new set of
Representatives will learn about the perils of pursuing
corporate managed trade policy the hard way."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamonds are Forever
by Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Center for Defense Information
We all know the successful commercial slogan, "A diamond is forever." But
do we really think about what that means? Diamonds are symbols of love,
but in today's world, they've also become symbols of war.
The trade in diamonds has funded the decade's most brutal conflicts. Today,
rebel groups fight not over political ideologies but over control of
diamond mines and other economic resources. A Reuters report identifies
the new role of diamonds in today's conflicts. "As the people of Sierra
Leone, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have found to their
cost, diamonds from rebel-controlled mines are the perfect currency to
discreetly buy arms, bribe officials and keep soldiers fed and fighting.
Stones smaller than a fingernail can be easily hidden and sold for
thousands of dollars with no questions asked."
The Washington Times describes this new phenomenon in an article discussing
the significance of diamonds for rebel armies. "Diamonds have long conjured
the most romantic notions. . . . In parts of conflict-ridden Africa,
however, diamonds inspire little sentimentality. African warlords have
taken control of some of the most valuable diamond mines on the continent,
using the proceeds to buy guns and machetes. Their involvement in the
international diamond trade has given birth to a new gemstone: the blood
diamond."
The impact of diamonds on the perpetuation of conflict is indisputable. A
New York Times article on Angola reports that the war there has cost the
lives of about 500,000 people while displacing about four million others.
"The glittering stones have become agents of slave labor, murder,
dismemberment, mass homelessness and wholesale economic collapse."
The country where conflict diamonds, or blood diamonds, have wreaked the
most havoc is Sierra Leone. The Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor
reports that "in Sierra Leone, the Revolutionary United Front, a rebel
outfit seeking to conquer diamond fields in the eastern part of their
country, routinely chops off the limbs of citizens to force evacuations of
the countryside surrounding the mines. The rebels barter diamonds for
weapons and fund their movement with the illicit diamond trade."
War-affected governments have no illusions about the impact of the diamond
trade on the ability of rebel groups to wage war. During United Nations
deliberations on a resolution to ban diamonds from Sierra Leone, its
ambassador, Ibrahim Kamara, said: "We have always maintained that the
conflict in Sierra Leone is not about ideology, tribal or regional
difference. It has nothing to do with the so-called problem of
marginalized youths or. . . an uprising by rural poor against the urban
elite. The root of the conflict is and remains diamonds, diamonds and
diamonds."
While the trade in diamonds represents a significant source of revenue,
countries at war exploit a variety of natural resources to fund their war
efforts. A June, 2000 World Bank report found that "diamonds and other
commodities had overtaken politics as the biggest cause of civil war
globally."
The use of diamonds to fuel wars has become intolerable for governments,
industry, and consumers around the world. The World Diamond Congress has
addressed the subject, industries have announced stricter examination of
the source of their diamonds, and consumers have led protests against the
sale of diamonds with unidentified origins. Non-governmental organizations
have also begun a campaign to mobilize public opinion, influence
governments, and push industry to further responsible efforts
(see <www.phrusa.org>).
The U.S. Congress has made efforts to limit the use of diamonds to fund
conflicts. In September Representative Tony Hall (D-OH), in conjunction
with Representatives Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA),
introduced HR 5147, the Consumer Access to a Responsible Accounting for
Trade, known as the CARAT Act. The Act will prohibit imports of diamonds
mined in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Angola,
Guinea, Togo, or Ukraine, with the exception of diamonds mined in
accordance with specified UN Resolutions. The Act also calls for diamonds
sold in the United States to be accompanied with certificates of origin,
for the appointment of a Special Representative for Conflict Diamonds, and
for the Executive Branch to work with other governments and organizations
to develop a system for controlling the trade in conflict diamonds.
Such legislation may reduce the ease with which diamonds are used to fund
wars. But in this country, the gap between the diamonds you buy in a
store and the situation in a faraway country is not often understood or
recognized by American consumers. In testimony before the House Trade
Committee, Representative Hall said: "American consumers -- who buy
two-thirds of all the world's diamonds -- have a very different
understanding of diamonds than Sierra Leonean, Angolan, or Congolese
people...Diamond gemstones' sole worth is for their value as symbols of
love and commitment. Whether Congress likes it or not, American consumers
simply will not be a party to this blood trade once ads like Benetton's,
perhaps showing diamond bracelets on Sierra Leone amputees, start to run."
The CARAT Act attempts to make businesses accountable for their actions.
Until now, diamond companies have acted with impunity, buying and selling
diamonds wherever and from whomever possible. As Representative Hall put
it: "As long as any criminal can capture diamond mines that generate that
kind of money, we will be stuck in this vicious cycle of wars. A system
that encourages responsible business people to prevent wars, and makes it
harder for everyone to deal in smuggled diamonds, will go a long way to
break this cycle...The diamond industry's belated response to this problem
is promising, but incomplete. To encourage its progress, my bill gives an
incentive to inventors who may be able to put diamonds on the same footing
as other products -- so that consumers can know where they were mined and
make their own decisions about what to buy. The CARAT Act includes ample
waivers to ensure legitimate businesses aren't hurt, but it sends a strong
message to the smugglers and thugs who count on governments and industry
to look the other way. Those days are over, it says."
The CARAT Act, while not a solution to the problem of conflict diamonds,
is an important first step. If consumers, government, and business work
together to screen diamond origins and scrutinize merchants, the profits
from these diamonds will be curtailed. Rebel groups will still wage war,
but their means to do so may be diminished.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linked stories:
********************
Gun Injuries, Deaths Decline
<http://www.jointogether.org/jtodirect.jtml?U=83952&O=264747>
A new U.S. Department of Justice report found that injuries
and deaths caused by firearms are on the decline.
********************
Gun Accidents, Suicides Increase Among Kids
<http://www.jointogether.org/jtodirect.jtml?U=83952&O=264753>
Recently released national data shows that there is a 21%
increase among certain ages; Common Sense safety tips can
save lives.
********************
European Biotech Biz
Booming
<http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,39498,00.html?tw=wn20001017>
Stocks are up 260 percent in 2000 as most IPOs have had a warm
reception. Interest in the human genome project has created a market
that is running ahead of its U.S. counterpart.
********************
Court: Net Speech Isn't All Free
<http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39485,00.html?tw=wn20001017>
Internet service providers must divulge the identities of people who
post defamatory messages on the Internet. So says an appeals court in
Miami, leaving free-speech crusaders shocked, angry and worried.
********************
"Scared Straight" for the business set
<http://www.salon.com/business/feature/2000/10/11/prison/?CP=SAL&DN=650>
MBA students take a mandatory trip to prison for a lesson on ethics
from corporate criminals.
********************
======================================================
"Anarchy doesn't mean out of control. It means out of 'their' control."
-Jim Dodge
======================================================
"Communications without intelligence is noise;
intelligence without communications is irrelevant."
-Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC
======================================================
"It is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society."
-J. Krishnamurti
______________________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe or for a sample copy or a list of back issues,
send appropriate email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
______________________________________________________________
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
