SpeakOut is Truthout's treasure chest for bloggy, quirky, personally reflective, or especially activism-focused pieces. SpeakOut articles represent the perspectives of their authors, and not those of Truthout.
Judith Newman is, together with Allen Hornblum and Gregory Dober, author of Against Their Will: The Secret History of Medical Experimentation on Children in Cold War America. She discusses the background for and the extent of non-consentual experimentation on human beings, in particular underprivileged children, in the United States through the twentieth century.
Dr. Judith Newman has been a faculty member at Penn State's Abington College for 36 years and has been the recipient of several outstanding teaching awards during that time. Dr. Newman teaches a wide array of life-span developmental courses, from Infancy and Early Childhood to Adult Development and Aging. She also teaches an Ethics course for students entering the mental health field.
In 1944-45 Archimedes Patti, was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Intelligence liaison with Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh. An all out war was on against the Japanese and according to Patti, and the intelligence that the Ho Chi Minh provided to the United States was not only top notch, but the Viet Minh had military prowess, and, unlike other "resistance" movement" the Viet Minh, asked for nothing in return. When the war ended Ho Chi Minh, composed a declaration of independence, based in part on the U.S, Declaration of Independence, Patti was there and helped with the wording. Had the United States allowed for the independence of Vietnamese from French Colonial rule, the war would have never happened.
The American pledge of allegiance professes that the United States will uphold liberty and justice for all. As the imperial actions of the United States show, this is clearly not the case. Noam Chomsky has been covering this perspective for years, but the late veteran journalist Helen Thomas, part Lebanese, is also fierce in her criticism. She infamously said Israel should get out of Palestine. In an interview with Democracy Now! she told Amy Goodman that President Bush was “arming Israel against the Palestinians in every way in Gaza” and that she can't understand “how the US can provide F-16s, gunships, Apache gunships, phosphorus, possibly phosphorus, and cluster bombs and so forth to kill helpless people, children who are starving to death. They control the checkpoints. They control the arrivals and departures, supplies and people. And the Americans...remained silent to that suffering. He [President Bush] has blocked by a veto at the UN any stoppage of the warfare, and he continues to supply Israel.” In a later interview with The Real News Network, she noted that this horrid policy had continued, noting that “the Palestinians are dubbed as terrorists and all the Muslims are terrorists. I mean, this is so unfair.” From here it is important to understand how US taxpayer money is funding the occupation of Palestine, and what can be done to stop it.
Rainforest Action Network (RAN) and Indonesian advocacy group, Sawit Watch, find continued evidence of abusive recruitment and labor practices and child labor on palm oil plantations in Indonesia. The groups' findings center on one of the world's most significant palm oil producers, Kuala Lumpur Kepong (KLK), which is a major supplier to U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill. This comes amidst a growing trend of investigations documenting controversial labor practices throughout Indonesia's palm oil plantation industry.
In addition to RAN and Sawit Watch's findings, Cargill's palm oil supplier KLK was also recently the focus of a nine-month field investigation conducted by the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University published on July 18 at Businessweek.com. The investigation, which took place on a dozen different plantations across Sumatra and Borneo, found extensive evidence of workers, many of whom were children, being defrauded, abused, and held captive by KLK's labor management subcontractor.
In a country that has always denied its actual origins, it is not surprising that conversations – including soul-searching – about race in this country, generally rely on a black-white binary. The Trayvon Martin–George Zimmerman case perfectly illustrates the nation's inability to see beyond black and white... despite the fact that we live on Indian land.
It's akin to how some describe history: It's what we choose to remember and what we choose to forget.
By acknowledging that we live on Turtle Island or Pacha Mama, the automatic impulse is to avoid that inconvenient fact; to acknowledge that reality would lead to questions of genocide and land theft, and worse, we might actually have to speak to live indigenous peoples, but we don't want to go there, right?
We've managed to outgrow or to come within sight of outgrowing cannibalism, slavery, blood feuds, duels, capital punishment, child labor, tar and feathering, the stocks and pillory, wives as chattel, the punishment of homosexuality, and listening to Rush Limbaugh. To various degrees, these practices -- and many others -- have been eliminated or reduced and stigmatized.
While the stupidest practice ever created -- the mass killing known as war -- remains, we've seen most of the world ban poison gas, land mines, cluster bombs, biological weapons, depleted uranium, napalm, white phosphorous, and other disgusting weaponry. But the worst weapon of all remains, and the treaty requiring its reduction and elimination is completely ignored.
It is the most important question a journalist can ask.
The “who, what, when and where” set the stage, but any actor will tell you that the motivation—the “why”—is what truly brings a character to life and makes them comprehensible. The motivation is, in fact, the whole point of the story.
In the case of the Boston Bombing, the editors at Rolling Stone have asked “why” and set off a fascinating and all-too telling response.
The visceral reaction to the much-discussed and widely-criticized cover featuring the visage of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev strikes right at the heart of a largely unanswered question central to the War on Terror.
The seventh of July 2013 was the eighth anniversary of the terrorist attack in London. The attacks led the British government to launch initiatives to identify why and how one becomes radicalized and develop measures to counter the terrorism threat. The initiatives involved funding of think tanks, coopting Muslim organizations, as well as terrorism legislation. However, the efforts of the government and its partners haven't had much effect on individuals becoming radicalized, as the murder of Lee Rigby and the rise of far-right extremist group the English Defense League (EDL) over the past few years indicate.
In this short article, I will use the Woolwich attack to address the issue of how one becomes "radicalized," or to put in it more concrete terms: A process by which one becomes involved with Islamist groups. Additionally, I contend that the British government needs to redirect its focus on a politics of inclusion rather than exclusion based on a more nuanced understanding of the demographically and socio-politically, as well as culturally changing concerns of its population.
Reporting today for the New York Times Charlie Savage describes how Chief Justice Roberts appointments to the FISA court have played a role in creating what critics call the secret “parallel Supreme Court“.
In making assignments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive branch backgrounds that critics say make the court more likely to defer to government arguments that domestic spying programs are necessary.
Ten of the court’s 11 judges — all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts — were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; six once worked for the federal government. Since the chief justice began making assignments in 2005, 86 percent of his choices have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent have been former executive branch officials.
‘These assholes. They always get away.’ These were some of George Zimmerman’s last words before he decided-against the advice of a police dispatcher- to follow Trayvon Martin because he looked like, ‘he was upto no good.’
Zimmerman met Martin with a loaded gun. Martin was confronted by Zimmerman, who failed to identify himself as a member of the neighbourhood watch, with nothing more than his mobile phone, a packet of Skittles and a can of iced tea. A confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin ensued culminating in Zimmerman firing two shots, one which ended up piercing Martin’s lung and ended up lodged in his heart. Another senseless death. Another mother and father left childless. Again, no one held accountable.