bicyclemark

Mauritania and Greenpeace, Round 2

An unexpected series of emails came my way today from several concerned citizens around the world, as well as Greenpeace Netherlands.

The topic of these emails was a reaction to my podcast with Pauline last week, regarding some of her work in West Africa over the last year.? In that program I brought up the topic of Mauritania, as I remember she had been there to look into the fishing industry and a controversy surrounding the selling of rights to fishing their waters to EU based companies, (including a Dutch company that uses bottom dredging, though I did not ask specifically about that technique).? One of the major sides in this struggle, as Pauline mentioned, is Greenpeace, who are acting to stop such fishing in Mauritania and throughout the world, due to its extremely destructive impact on the world’s ocean.

During the interview Pauline discusses things that most journalists in the mainstream will not tell you. The background to what she was thinking as she made her way around Mauritania, and how her observations influenced her opinion about what she was seeing.? Although I wish mainstream media would do more of that, instead of pretending to be so neutral and perfect, I recognize that alot of people and institutions out there, expect their journalists to behave as the mythical impartial news reporter.? Again, it is why I think podcasts can be of greater value if we really want to understand how and why the world is as it is; that vital understanding that no information is perfect, but by being a critical and engaged audience, we can not only be informed, we can understand that there are many sides worth keeping in mind, to an issue or disagreement.

So Pauline explained the side of those who see the practice of selling fishing rights to outside companies, despite the environmental risks, as worth it.? It should come at no surprise that regardless of where you stand on such questions, plenty of people on the ground in poor nations like Mauritania, will want to take the deal in the name of having jobs and boosting an economy.? YES, even to their extreme detriment in the long run. That doesn’t make it right, it is simply a fact that I felt Pauline communicated quite clearly in our interview.

In today’s emails, many people expressed their outrage that anyone would suggest that bottom dredging is ok and good for Mauritania.? They spoke critically and angrily at Pauline’s writing in the Dutch newspaper, and used my interview as some kind of evidence supporting their critique.? Greenpeace Netherlands have now asked to appear on my podcast to clarify there side in this. Obviously I’m glad to have them on, and eager to hear more about the situation in Mauritania. It is an issue, not to mention an important organization, that I’ll be proud to have on my program. But one thing I can say right now, none of this changes the respect I have for Pauline and the value I give to her work.

Expect that interview in the coming week

Til Soon Lisbon

Flying back to the Netherlands on the middle of the night flight.? Regular production will resume momentarily.

Manufacturing Their Cold War

For almost 2 decades, the military alliance known as NATO has been expanding to include most of Eastern Europe.? Originally founded to oppose the Soviet Union and it’s allies, NATO leaders have insisted for the last few years that it is no longer to oppose Russia, but to fight terrorism and increase security.? Meanwhile many of the countries which border Russia to the west or were once part of the Soviet Union, have become members.? Everyone except for a few, including most significantly – Russia.? Still this didn’t stir up much conversation in the West, even if it does make the Russian government very nervous.

Meanwhile there is this very expensive and theoretical project known as missile defense, which this blog has been focusing on ever since it was founded. You remember, the missiles that would be positioned all over the globe in order to protect the United States and so-called allies from Rogue States and terrorist groups who might launch missiles against them.? This system would supposedly knock out the other missiles.? Tests have long proven either failures or inconclusive, but that hasn’t stopped the huge amounts of funding from the US congress.? Meanwhile the among the nation’s who would allow these missiles to be stationed on their soil there are, once again, Eastern European nations that go right up to the Russian border.? And yet again, it is nothing against the Russians, the US government tells us, it is merely a coincidence that missiles are installed in such places.

Now we have this pathetic situation in Georgia, which I’ll leave the explanations to more experienced sources out there. But now the threats grow louder and less concealed, the US says don’t do that and lines up with Georgia, for the first time in a long time painting Russia as the aggressor and enemy. – Immediately the issue of who is in NATO comes up, specifically by the very desperate and politically savvy Georgian president.? And then, coincidentally, the issue of missile defense is on the front page of the major newspapers.

If you are in the weapons manufacturing business, which includes the people who make missile defense, this is all very convenient.? The governments, the media, and the public, are finally falling into step with the type of scenario where you can get EVEN MORE funding for your missiles and maybe cash in as nations very easily slip back into cold war logic, which so many of them have wished to go back to anyway. (the good old days for some)

My more simple point: Pay attention not just to what is happening in Georgia. See the larger picture of who benefits and just what is being set up here.

Portugal Business

I’m tending to some family business and quality time in Portugal.? Ill be right back with a fun podcast featuring my good friend Pauline who came to Amsterdam last week.? Sit tight til then; it’s a good time to catch up with my recent posts.. people always tell me they can’t keep up… now is a good time to do so.

Ask Your EU Doctors About

No this is not a spam post.

While in the United States I usually watch a bit of television and I definitely spend time listening to the radio.? One thing you’ll have no problem encountering on both of these mediums: ads that include the phrase “ASk Your Doctor About…” and then some perscription drug to help some ailment.? Apparently the public should then go to their doctors and tell THEM what drugs they want.

In the European Union this practice has long been banned. No ads with senior citizens strolling on the beach recommending that you ask your doctor about some brilliant new drug.

However, this October the EU will roll out new pharmaceutical policies that are intended to, in their words, “Modernize” the rules for the pharma industry.? One of the provisions they’re putting forward will allow the pharma industry to provide “additional information” to the public via the media.? Which of course would make it possible for some sort of television ad within Europe that presents viewers with what the industry seems additional info, whatever that means in the end.

Various medical organizations throughout Europe as well as Ministries of Health, are sounding the alarms, concerned that this is one step towards the US style onsluaght of ads suggestion you need to ask your doctor about this and that drug in order to happily walk through the forest.? The industry, meanwhile, insists that they would have no interest in that type of information campaign, and would instead want this to free them up for internet based info that people can request, rather than have it pushed on them.? Meanwhile, advocates of the changes insist that there are many other useful policies included in the package, and that there would be some oversight as to what would be deemed suitable additional information.

This change sounds like the first of many on the road towards a US style system where pharmaceutical companies treat people more like customers than patients. Beyond that, makes medicine ever more like a business than a service. Is it too late to stop them? I will try to find out.

Greystone Mental Hospital and Lost Jersey

Mental Hospitals are always an issue of great concern and sometimes fascination (in terms of those that have been closed down under odd circumstances) for me.? In the past on this blog I’ve made reference to an abandoned hospital in my home state of new jersey, Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital. Opened in the late 1800’s and closed in 2000, it suffered from extreme overcrowding for many of its last decades, not to mention the number of escapees, patient abuse, and sexual assault cases that came to light in the 80’s.? I have a faint memory of some of that in the newspaper when I was a kid, probably some cases being settled after the fact.

This topic is fresh in my mind as I recently subscribed to my old public radio station in Newark- WBGO’s Journal podcast. One of the segments, which you can subscribe to seperately, is called Lost Jersey.? The host, in a very TV anchorperson type voice, visits mysterious or forgotten NJ places each week. Giving the history as well as the cause of the eventual demise of these sites. And sure enough, one of their visits was to Greystone, just as several of the old hospital buildings were being torn down.

One thing I’m reminded of, as I look through photos of the eerie boarded up hospital buildings, is that when I was a kid I believe my mom – as a college student in social work, had some type of internship that required her to visit Greystone on occasion.? But I don’t remember her descriptions of the place.

Next week I will join her in Portugal, so I’m thinking Greystone Park and Mental Patient Care in New Jersey might be a good topic for us to explore together. In the meantime, highly recmmended – Lost Jersey podcast.