Smoking & Beef Soon to be Illegal for Men of Breeding Age

"Male reproductive health is in trouble," say two new studies, so urgent guidelines are needed for men of breeding age, just like for pre-pregnant wimmins. In case you'd forgotten:

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

Potential causes for the problems with male reproductive health include carcinogens (like from cigarettes), chemicals (like dioxins), hormones (like from American beef, or milk), and endocrine disruptors (such as found in many plastics). So all men capable of inseminating have a pretty long list of substances to avoid: smoking, beef, dairy products, most personal care products, bottled water, etc.

Details from Grist: Separate studies show chemicals, cigarettes may affect male birth rate :

The percentage of boys born in the U.S. and Japan each year has gradually declined over the last three decades, a new study says -- and pollutants are a possible cause. "Male reproductive health is in trouble," says lead researcher Devra Lee Davis of the University of Pittsburgh, noting that both adult fertility and fetal chances seem to be affected. The study, published in the online journal Environmental Health Perspectives, calls the trend "a serious matter" that could be caused by exposure to chemicals like dioxin and mercury; it also points to factors including stress, obesity, and fertility treatments. The true cause, says Davis, is "something we need to find out and act upon." Because a woman without a man -- well, she'd probably be fine, but still. Meanwhile, a British study says smokers are twice as likely to conceive girls, suggesting that nicotine may affect sperm. Yes, smoke gets in your Y's -- but picking up puffing in an effort to determine your child's gender is not recommended.

More info here and here

Afghanistan: Canadian is the New Soviet

As I previously mentioned, there are many parallels between what NATO is doing in Afghanistan and what the Soviets did.

From the enjoyable Afghanistanica comes this post on The Other Side of the Soviet Invasion:

[...] the strategy in the north on the part of the Soviet Union was to deliver aid and development projects as a reward for cooperation (or merely not violently resisting).

And also point out that:

[..] there was not universal resistance to the Soviets (I am not claiming that there there was no resistance to the Soviets in the north) and that the Soviets actually did give development an attempt. You can take the example of the Soviet attempt at "winning hearts and minds" and note either the striking similarity to or the stark difference with the present NATO/ISAF effort in Afghanistan.

Nothing in history is exactly the same, but there are definitely echoes to be found.

Via Global Voices

Huge Peaceful Demonstrations in Najaf: Press & White House Dismissive

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis demonstrated against the occupation yesterday. The demonstrations were peaceful and unmistakably anti-Occupation and anti-American. I guess that's why the White House and the American press needed to minimize it. It's inconsistent with the propaganda that Iraqis are savages who understand nothing but violence, and who need the occupation forces to protect them from killing each other.

The CS Monitor reports:

Monday's marchers included some Kurds in traditional dress as well as Sunni clerics, many of whom were bused by Sadr's movement from the city of Basra in the south. "Let's put out the fire of discord and chop off the snake's head," chanted some in reference to Iraq's ongoing sectarian strife.

There were wildly different estimates on the numbers at the Najaf rally. The U.S. military shrugged the protests off, claiming only "5,000 to 7,000" participants. Other news agencies reports vary from estimates of "tens of thousands" to "hundreds of thousands".

Whatever the precise numbers, the truth is this is nothing new. There has been non-violent resistance in Iraq from the beginning, although you'd never know that from the lack of coverage of these resistance movements.

From eIraq:

The White House responded to the massive demonstrations with a typically dismissive sound bite. "Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Jondroe's comment begs a little context: Opinions were indeed expressed in yesterday's demonstrations. But freedom? It is difficult to hear Iraqis described as free. Saddam Hussein is dead, sure. His regime is scattered, sure. But does the subtraction of dictatorship equal freedom? What about the addition of house raids, death squads, checkpoints, detentions, constant violence and curfews?

The Economics of Motherhood and Shopping at Wal-Mart (in Comic Form)

What do we want? Full employment, living wages, sustainable local economies, recognition that parenting is a job, affordable child care... or maybe just a laugh


By Carol Sim



Happy Easter, Passover, Springtime, Long Weekend

Two girls
Under Siege, by Mahmoud Darwish a prolific contemporary Palestinian poet. Excerpt:

Here on the slopes of hills, facing the dusk and the cannon of time
Close to the gardens of broken shadows,
We do what prisoners do,
And what the jobless do:
We cultivate hope.

Psalm Three

On the day when my words
were earth...
I was a friend to stalks of wheat.

On the day when my words
were wrath
I was a friend to chains.

On the day when my words
were stones
I was a friend to streams.

On the day when my words
were a rebellion
I was a friend to earthquakes.

On the day when my words
were bitter apples
I was a friend to the optimist.

But when my words became
honey...
flies covered
my lips!...
Translated by Ben Bennani

Read more of his work:

Murdered Houses, excerpt: "In one minute the lifetime of a house is ended. When a house is killed, it is a serial killing, even if the house is empty: a mass grave of all the things once used to give a home to Meaning..."

The Girl / The Scream, excerpt: "...the girl becomes the eternal scream of a breaking news event made obsolete by the planes return / to bomb a house with two windows and a door"

5 more poems here

Darfur and Iraq: The Politics of Naming

The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency by Mahmood Mamdani

The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference does it make?

Hmm... could it be that the West names conflicts differently depending on who is the perpetrator? If we are the perpetrators, it is definitely Insurgency/Counterinsurgency not genocide. What about the participation of Arabs? Caveman voice: "Ug. Us Good. Them Bad."

As compared to the near blackout about Iraqi suffering in the American media:

Newspaper writing on Darfur has sketched a pornography of violence. It seems fascinated by and fixated on the gory details, describing the worst of the atrocities in gruesome detail and chronicling the rise in the number of them. The implication is that the motivation of the perpetrators lies in biology ('race') and, if not that, certainly in 'culture'. This voyeuristic approach accompanies a moralistic discourse whose effect is both to obscure the politics of the violence and position the reader as a virtuous, not just a concerned observer.

The scariest thing is the call for military intervention in Darfur.

What would happen if we thought of Darfur as we do of Iraq, as a place with a history and politics - a messy politics of insurgency and counter-insurgency? Why should an intervention in Darfur not turn out to be a trigger that escalates rather than reduces the level of violence as intervention in Iraq has done? Why might it not create the actual possibility of genocide, not just rhetorically but in reality? Morally, there is no doubt about the horrific nature of the violence against civilians in Darfur. The ambiguity lies in the politics of the violence, whose sources include both a state-connected counter-insurgency and an organised insurgency, very much like the violence in Iraq.

It is as if military intervention would somehow purge American guilt over not intervening in Rwanda. But:

What the humanitarian intervention lobby fails to see is that the US did intervene in Rwanda, through a proxy... Instead of using its resources and influence to bring about a political solution to the civil war, and then strengthen it, the US signalled to one of the parties that it could pursue victory with impunity. This unilateralism was part of what led to the disaster, and that is the real lesson of Rwanda.

Terrible crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide arise and are worsened in the context of war. War is the problem, or at least the catalyst. It is not the answer. "Strengthening those on both sides who stand for a political settlement to the civil war is the only realistic approach. Solidarity, not intervention, is what will bring peace to Darfur."

Read the Article or listen to an interview with Mahmood Mamdani

Also see Iraq is a Humanitarian Disaster, Too

Radical Aboriginal Canadians are Terrorists?

Let me get this straight. Let's say I walk into your house, kill most of your family, take your children away, destroy your means of livelihood, and force you to go live on the sidewalk. When I then take a stand and ask for, say, my garage back, I'm the problem? Not just a problem... a terrorist?

Let's see if this definition resonates. "Terrorists", noun, plural: people on the underside of the social, economic, and political power structure who stand up for themselves. Those who, marginalized on the land they peopled first, take a stand and demand their rights instead of continuing to allow themselves to be further beaten down. Also known as "Insurgents" or "Military Opponents".

At least that's how the term is to be understood in the Canadian army's counterinsurgency manual, which states:

The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims... Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence. (G& M)

Read the excellent response by Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine. Excerpt:

Any reference to First Nations people as possible insurgents or terrorists is a direct attack on us - it demonizes us, it threatens our safety and security and attempts to criminalize our legitimate right to live our lives like all other Canadians do. Just being referenced in such a document compromises our freedom to travel across borders, have unimpeded telephone and internet communications, raise money, and protest against injustices to our people.

I mean, we all know it is which side of the power structure you are on which determines whether your fight is "terrorism" or "defense" or "freedom fighters" or "insurgents". But usually they try to hide that fact.

Please Keep our Streets Clean: Over 818 People Have to Sleep on Them

Seen around Toronto:

"Please Keep our Streets Clean: Over 818 People Have to Sleep on Them"

"Homeless Sleeping, QUIET"


"Approximately 5052 Homeless Living in Toronto as of April 2006"
Turns out these signs are the work of Mark Daye, a 4th year graphic design student at OCAD, who says:

Instead of rebranding a product, or service for my 4th year thesis project I chose to represent a local population that usually gets overlooked. I re-coded official signage and affixed 30 of them to poles in the downtown core with messages pertaining to an obvious but ignored urban sub culture. The goal was not only to catch people off guard by creating signs that acknowledge the homeless population on a seemingly official level, but to get people to think about codes of behaviour, conformity, acceptance and to maybe spare some consideration for the homeless who live mostly ignored in the city, blending into the background just like the signs.

"2 Homeless People Die Every Week in Toronto"

Via 3 excellent Toronto blogs: Torontoist, BlogTO, and Spacing Wire

UPDATE (APRIL 4): Reactionary Signs