A dead man farming? That was the unsettling image that came to mind last November, when a Miami television station analyzed records of federal farm subsidies paid to South Florida residents. By cross-referencing payments against death notices, the reporters found that at least 234 people listed as deceased were still getting checks from Washington; some had been dead for as long as eight years. All told, about $9.5 million in farm subsidies went to folks who were pushing up plants, not harvesting them.

And then there are the rich phonies taking handouts. A government audit found that of the 1.8 million so-called farmers who received federal funds between 2003 and 2006, 2,702 of them had adjusted gross incomes of more than $2.5 million. The list included the co-owner of an unnamed sports team who hauled in $200,000 a year, as well as wealthy residents of the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Hong Kong—people who are generally not eligible for U.S. government handouts. In all, these millionaires have enriched themselves to the tune of $49 million in taxpayer money.

Why in the world is Washington sending subsidy checks to millionaires, foreign residents, and corpses? The answer can be found in one of the most maddening federal programs around: farm subsidies. Every year, the government spends more than $13 billion on subsidies to farmers and agribusinesses—much of it in cash payments that keep coming regardless of economic and crop conditions. A worthy program conceived during the Great Depression to help struggling American farmers has become a slush fund for corporations—and it remains one of Washington’s biggest sacred cows.

“Farm subsidies are America’s largest corporate welfare program,” says the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl. “They survive as a case study in special interest politics.”

The agricultural industry, with 1,200 registered lobbyists in Washington, spends about $133 million a year to make sure the money keeps flowing. Defenders of farm supports like to hold up the classic image of a hardworking American farmer in his overalls. But small farmers aren’t getting much more than the crust of this pie. Seventy-five percent of all farm subsidies go to just 10 percent of recipients, according to the watch-dog Environmental Working Group.

“So rather than this idea that we are helping family farms or helping the little guy weather the storm, we are subsidizing some of the wealthiest farms in the country,” says Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. The top recipients of farm subsidies don’t have names like Jones or Smith but rather Riceland Foods, Inc., Harvest States Cooperative, and the South Dakota Building Authority.

Oh, and don’t forget the people who are paid not to farm. In 1996, Congress approved payments for farmers regardless of whether they planted, as long as they didn’t develop their land. The payments were supposed to be temporary help and then phased out. But—surprise, surprise!—they kept on coming. And now anyone who owns a patch of land that was declared a farm back then is entitled to an annual government check. Between 2000 and 2006, the government sent $1.3 billion to people who don’t farm, according to the Washington Post.

How does a crazy program like this survive? As usual in Washington: lobbyists. When Congress passed its last big farm bill, in 2008, calls for slashing subsidies came from left and right. But when Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat from Wisconsin, cosponsored an amendment to actually limit the payments, the response “was a siege on Capitol Hill, with the lobbyists pounding doors and twisting arms.”

In the end, the lobbyists won. Congress passed a five-year, $300 billion plan that increased subsidy payments. Couples with adjusted gross incomes of up to $1.5 million from farming are still able to qualify for help under the new rules.

It’s not just lobbyists who keep this racket going; our lawmakers are guilty too. Take Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, who came to Congress in 1986 vowing to resign if the federal deficit wasn’t brought under control. He kept his promise but seven months later ran again. Now, more than 20 years since he first took office, the deficit has grown by a factor of seven, and Conrad is still on the job, winning big farm subsidies for his state. Although nearly half of North Dakota’s 647,000 residents live in urban areas, over the past decade, it has received an annual average of $715 million in agricultural subsidies—$22,000 a year for every farm in the state. As an author of the 2008 farm bill, Conrad included a new $3.8 billion emergency fund to bail out farmers hit by natural disasters like droughts and floods. Since the bill passed, North Dakotans have received $23 million from the fund; only Texas has gotten more.

Other members of Congress have profited from subsidies directly. Arkansas Democratic senator Blanche Lincoln’s family received more than $700,000 over a ten-year period, and Republican Iowa senator Chuck Grassley, a millionaire deficit hawk, reaped $238,000 in federal dollars from 1995 to 2006.

President Obama has proposed new limits on farm subsidies. Congress has basically ignored him. The president should put his foot down. It’s time for representatives from states gorging on federal bucks to show political courage. The sacrifice should be shared, to be sure. Farm states should join with states that benefit from unneeded Pentagon programs to divvy up the pain of cuts. Otherwise, we’ll never get control of our budget. And we’ll still be sending checks to dead farmers and Hong Kong millionaires.

Do More

Investigate. See who gets farm subsidies at the Environmental Working Group’s state-by-state database farm.ewg.org/farm

Speak up. Contact the House and Senate agriculture committee chairs, Representative Collin Peterson (202-225-2165) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (202-224-4843), and tell them to stop the wasteful spending.

Help out real family farmers. For 25 years, Farm Aid (farmaid.org) has provided funds and services directly to family farmers in crisis.

The most obvious is Unlimited Web Hosting.

Obviously it’s not unlimited otherwise websites like Youtube would not have to spend 2 million a month on their web hosting, or maybe Yahoo can get a hosting account for $6 and get rid of their multi million dollar facility. The scam is that they will kick you off if you actually use too much resource and call it something ambiguous like inodes.

The other downfall is without being able to monitor what each websites limit will be, huge spikes from random websites sharing your server will cause outages, slowdowns, and poor server performance.

The only one that grinds my gears is 100% uptime.

Well once again 100% uptime is impossible in fact no website has done it for more then ten years ever. Even icann.com the registration service that started and holds the internet together does not have a 100% uptime. Google, Yahoo, Facebook and Myspace, none have a 100% uptime. Yet it’s amazing how many small start up web hosts can out do these multi million dollar corporations and the creating company of the internet.

A new way of thinking.

People should consider not using companies that are not honest, it’s setting a bar for a much lower way of doing business which basically boils down who can lie the best or trick people the best.

More and more the things we buy define who we are, saving a dollar to contribute to a company full of lies is is saying something about the consumer. For example clothes are things that are Eco friendly. I hope someday people will consider all purchases with such concern about what they stand for.

This article was written by Charles Yarbrough,

Charles Yarbrough is the president of DWHS Web Hosting. You can read more about him at his blog here: Charles Yarbrough

Ex-Cash4Gold employee Vielka Nephew filed a motion to vacate the default in the company’s lawsuit against her this week, a lawsuit we’re a party to. By getting rid of the default she would then be able to defend herself in the lawsuit and to seek to undo the default injunction which Cash4Gold had obtained against her. One highlight of Nephew’s legal papers is the declaration attached as Exhibit C, in which she says Cash4Gold’s lawyers told her the company would seek jail time for her and Michele Liberis if the statements Liberis posted on the internet about the company — which Cash4Gold alleged to be false and defamatory ? were not removed. Here’s what Vielka declared:

In our conversation, I explained to the lawyer that I was confused about the lawsuit because it was based on comments I had nothing to do with. He suggested that I should speak with Michele Liberis and urge her to remove the comments about Cash4Gold from the internet. I insisted that I was confused by the lawsuit because it had nothing to do with me. He said the best thing for me to do would be to convince Michele Liberis to remove the comments she had posted. He stated his client was willing to seek jail time for me and Michele Liberis if the internet comments were not taken down.

Likely what Cash4Gold’s lawyer referred to was the potential for a contempt of court order for not complying with the directives of the injunction. While possible, it’s unlikely the court would have gone along with it, but how would Nephew, who was not represented by counsel at the time, know that? Another classy move for Cash4Gold.

Squatters are a new trend where people move into a new house and do not pay rent for several months and then simply leave. The best way to protect against this is to do a background check. But if you still get into this pickle then here is how to have them out in 20 days.

The process can take as little as 20 days, if the process is started right away. Here is the general process (each State/County/Province may vary):

1. Serve Tenant a 3 to 5 day “Notice to Pay or Quit”. I also include a stern Eviction Consequences Letter outlining the costs that they may incur as a result.
2. If not remedied, file a “Application for Eviction” in your local county court system. There is a cost to this step but it’s cheaper than continuing to lose rent.
3. Have it served by a Process Server or someone other than the Landlord or someone under the Landlord’s employment.
4. A “Return of Service” is completed and returned by the Summons Server. A court date is set 7 to 10 days later.
5. If the tenant wants to fight the action, they will be required to file an “Answer” or “Appearance” before the court date.
6. On the court date, the Judge will decide the outcome and if you are awarded a “Judgement for Restitution”, the Judge will set an eviction date 3 to 7 days hence.
7. If the tenant has not removed themselves, you can file a “Writ of Restitution” with the local Sheriff’s Office whom will remove the tenant.

BEIJING — A woman in eastern China was allegedly beaten to death by five employees of a Wal-Mart store who accused her of shoplifting, a police report and state media said Tuesday.

Police have arrested two employees from the store in Jiangxi province, while three others are being investigated, Jingdezhen city police said in a report on their website.

According to the report, the woman was beaten outside her home near the Wal-Mart on August 30 and died in a city hospital on Wednesday last week from injuries suffered during the beating.

Police said the five Wal-Mart employees had stopped the woman in the street and demanded to see her receipt, but she refused because she could not verify their identities, it said.

Following an argument, the five Wal-Mart employees began beating her, it said.

The English-language China Daily on Tuesday identified the victim as Yu Xiaochun, 37.

“They started to hit her because she didn’t do what they said,” the paper quoted her husband Chen Baolin as saying.

“I got there and tried to stop them but they kept beating her.”

It was not immediately known if the woman had shoplifted, the paper said.

The beating intensified as she tried to telephone for help using her mobile phone, it added.

In a statement, Wal-Mart said it was “fully cooperating with the relevant authorities and will release further details as it is appropriate”.

“We extend our condolences to the family of the deceased…. The incident and cause of death is the subject of an investigation.”

Fresh Fruit, Bloody Wars

Here we have a company whose president was quoted as saying “it’s important that I don’t get too knowledgable about the past” upon taking control of the company in 1975. The previous president, Eli Black, had just left the company by way of leaping out the window of his 44th floor office in the Pan Am Building in New York rather than face prosecution for giving a bribe to the president of Honduras. The dude didn’t even give two weeks notice.

What’s this “past” he didn’t want to think about? Well, there’s the massacre of striking workers in Colombia in 1928, at the hands of the Colombian army and allegedly under the orders of the company. Seriously, how could they top that?

Well, bringing down the democratically elected leader of a South American country by way of a violent coup is one way.

Back in 1951 when they were still called the United Fruit Company, a president by the name of Jacabo Arbenz took office in Guatemala. Among the things that got him elected, the biggest was an ambitious plan that would distribute uncultivated land to over 100,000 peasants in Guatemala. The main obstacle to this plan was the United Fruit Company, who just happened to own the land.

According to their estimates, the land was valued at right around $525,000. When the Guatemalan government made a low ball offer of exactly that fucking amount, United Fruit responded with a completely logical counter offer of $16,000,000. When Arbenz balked, United Fruit reportedly took the term “breakdown in negotiations” to dizzying new heights by asking the CIA to intervene. And boy did they intervene. God-DAMN did they intervene!

Along with other connections in the Eisenhower administration, then CIA head Allen Dulles had previously served on United Fruit’s board of trustees. With that kind of direct access to the highest levels of the government and with McCarthyism in full swing, we imagine the telephone conversation that resulted in the CIA intervening on behalf of United Fruit went something like this:

CIA: “Hello?”

United Fruit: “BANANAS blah blah blah OUR LAND blah blah PEASANTS blah blah COMMUNISTS!”

CIA: **click**

United Fruit: “Hello? Hello?”

**Hears explosions in background, takes cover**

With the CIA on board to help with their cause, United Fruit launched a massive and highly successful propaganda campaign to paint Arbenz as a communist threat to the United States. Included in the campaign was a film that linked the taking of United Fruit’s land to the Communist Empire, awesomely titled Why The Kremlin Hates Bananas.

Some shit just writes itself. With the general public sufficiently convinced that Guatemala was a threat (good thing we don’t fall for shit like that anymore), the CIA was free to pounce and promptly launched “Operation PBSuccess.” They didn’t call it that because it failed. In short order, the US replaced the freely elected Arbenz with a right wing dictator more willing to answer to the demands of United Fruit and Guatemala’s brief flirtation with democracy and prosperity was over.

But this story does have a happy ending. The civil war that resulted from the CIA initiated coup did finally come to an end.

In 1996.
Iams Pet Food

Nutritious Dog Food, Cruelty

Boy do we Americans love us some misguided outrage. If the majority had their way, Michael Vick would have been bludgeoned to death by one of the Heartbreakers during the Super Bowl halftime show. Because, if there is one thing we don’t tolerate, it’s animal cruelty. At least not from NFL quarterbacks. Animal cruelty from major corporations though? Apparently not a problem.

People for the Ethical Treatmpent of Animals (PETA), known partly for saying batshit crazy things and for having the only public awareness campaign that people have ever masturbated to.

But, in between they sometimes actually do some good. One recent example happened in 2002 when, for nearly ten months, a PETA official went undercover at an Iams testing facility to expose harsh conditions inside the plant. What they found makes Michael Vick’s shenanigans look like some Arena League shit in comparison.

And, in case you suspected (as we did) that the stories were the product of PETA’s vegetable-induced imagination, they brought back a video of the facility that will ruin your day.

Most of the details, about mutilation and such, you really don’t want to hear about. Among the less nightmare-inducing tidbits were cats and dogs gone stir-crazy from constant confinement and an employee overheard talking about a live kitten that was accidentally washed down a drain. For fuck’s sake Iams! For you statistics geeks out there, one procedure performed at the Iams facility that involved (seriously, we’re not saying) resulted in 27 dogs being killed. Just one more record Michael Vick will never break.

When confronted with the findings from PETA, Iams attempted to turn the tables and blamed the undercover PETA official as the one responsible for the various atrocities, including a claim that the PETA official oversaw an incident in which several dogs were surgically debarked to keep them from crying out for attention. Because that’s exactly how PETA gets down. But a review of phone transcripts revealed the exact opposite. The PETA official actually tried to prevent the debarking. Iams officials acknowledged this to be the case also. And then probably beat their dogs out of frustration.

Coca-Cola

Refreshing Soft Drinks, Murder

Corporations don’t get much warmer and fuzzier than Coca-Cola. You think of fearsome NFL linemen tossing bright eyed kids their jerseys, playful polar bears frolicking in the snow, the world learning to sing in perfect harmony. Hell, some internet rumors even claim Coke invented Santa Claus.

The sweet bubbly deliciousness that is Coca Cola has been a beacon of happiness for generations of kids and adults alike, even those who weren’t lucky enough to have their Coke spiked with nose candy. With all of this universal joy spreading, some people may be surprised to find that Coke II isn’t the only atrocity lurking in the Big Red Machine’s closet.

If you work at one of the various Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia, South America … fucking WHY? After all, there is probably less violence to be found working for a cocaine cartel in Colombia, South America. According to some descriptions, Colombia is “a country where union work is like carrying a tombstone on your back.” If you spend too much time thinking about it, you’ll realize that saying makes no damn sense, but just trust that it means working for a union in Colombia is a death sentence.

This is especially true at the Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia. At the Carepa plant, five union leaders were murdered between 1994 – 1996 alone. In case after case, plant managers at bottlers throughout Colombia, afraid that being forced to give their workers that bump from $200 per month to $205 per month would bring their business to its knees, contracted with paramilitary groups to force unions at their plants to disband. In the most publicized case (meaning not really publicized at all, unless you count on the internet, which you shouldn’t), union executive board member Isidro Segundo Gil was shot ten times near the Carepa plant gates by paramilitary thugs purported to have been hired by the plant management.

The details of Gil’s assassination were outlined in a lawsuit filed against Coca-Cola by the International Labor Rights Fund. Of course, that the thugs were acting on the direction of plant management is just an allegation, but the fact that the thugs returned the next day demanding that workers quit the union is at least a little suspicious. There is also the issue of them having resignation forms prepared in advance by plant managers in hand when they made these demands. But still, these are just allegations. You shouldn’t assume anything. Like the old saying goes, “when you assume, you just make an ass out of u and me and evil corporations that condone the slaughtering of their own employees.”

Dole Bananas

Nutritious Fruit, Sterility-Causing Pesticides

Making their second appearance on the list, bananas are the standard bearer when it comes to corporate atrocity. Following in the heinous footsteps of Chiquita, Dole has a long track record of bringing the pain to South American countries unlucky enough to grow their shit. And unlike most other companies on this list, Dole didn’t even try to hide their hell raising ways. Kudos!

When several chemical workers became sterile, tests determined the cause to be a pesticide made at the plant where they worked called DBCP. When tests revealed it caused liver, kidney and lung damage, the Environmental Protection Agency banned its use in the United States. Proving themselves to be a paragon of classiness, Dole made note of the “in the United States” part of the ban and continued to use DBCP overseas. When Dow Chemicals informed Dole of their concerns over the safety of DBCP, Dole did what any company concerned with the well being of its fellow man would do. They advised Dow they would be in breach of their contract if they refused to provide them with DBCP for overseas use and agreed to take any liability for the resulting damage it may cause.

A brave move, agreeing to take the liability. Or at least it would be if they thought for a second that they would ever have to act on it. When Nicaraguan banana workers suffering the ill effects of DBCP exposure sought legal advice on how best to proceed with a lawsuit against Dole, they were told about the legal doctrine of forum non conveniens, a latin term meaning “fuck a third world farm worker.” Ok, it really means “inconvenient forum” and states a case can be dismissed on the grounds that it would be more appropriate to hear it in another locale, like the impossibly corrupt courts of the plaintiff’s home country, for instance.

Rather than taking their case to the Nicaraguan courts, which would be about as effective as taking the case to Judge Judy, the workers pressured the Nicaraguan government to find a different way to see to it that justice was served. The Nicaraguan National Assembly passed Law 364 in January 2001, to help banana workers gain compensation from companies that used DBCP. The law, which establishes a rapid procedure for workers who bring judgments before the courts, was immediately challenged by Dole along with several chemical companies. So far, despite court ordered judgments favoring Nicaraguan banana workers totaling more than $400 million, the workers have yet to see a dime.

One banana worker was quoted as saying “I ask the companies…to have a little bit of conscience with us.” We’d like to thank that worker for providing us with the funniest line of this article so far.

Nestle Quik

Delicious Chocolate Milk, Child Slaves

For any youngster that cringes at the thought of having to choke down a glass of plain milk with their dinner, Nestle Quik is a little box of magic. One tablespoon of the powdery goodness that is Nestle Quik can transform that glass of white nasty into a delectable cup of chocolately awesome. Add to this the fact that every box is emblazoned with an adorable cartoon rabbit, and what you have is a certified childhood dream maker.

At least this much is true for most kids; lazy, shiftless bastards that they are. Some kids, on the other hand, have to work for their Nestle Quik. Without going into the grizzly details that we’re sure you aren’t coming to a comedy website looking for, we’ll just say this. The majority of the world’s cocoa supply comes from Africa’s Ivory Coast. There are probably a lot of things that are illegal in the Ivory Coast, child labor, trafficking or (oh dear) slavery are not any of them. But hey, if it’s alright with the bunny, how bad can it be?

After years of flying under the atrocity radar, word of the unspeakably harsh conditions on Ivory Coast cocoa plantations finally came out in 2001. In the face of an influx of negative publicity, Nestle valiantly leapt into inaction. After issuing a few public statements claiming they had no way of knowing who did what where and when, it took a rider attached to an agricultural bill to get Nestle to even acknowledge the problem. The new legislation, passed in July, 2001, would have created a federal system to certify and label chocolate products as “slave free,” a label Nestle would qualify for if it weren’t for all the enslaved children making their shit.

Even if they did qualify, on the list of words you don’t want printed on the label of your product, “slave” comes in at a solid #3, right behind “Hitler” and “shit.” To avoid having to abide by the new legislation, Nestle agreed to a voluntary protocol to end forced labor on cocoa farms by 2005. Being that the major chocolate companies would be overseeing this new program, it wasn’t too surprising that nothing ever came of it.

When 2005 came and went with little to no change, Nestle was ready with one of the stupidest excuses imaginable. According to them, an escalating civil war in the Ivory Coast prevented them from sending anyone in to monitor the situation. Amazingly though, their team of buyers, who must consist of nothing but crack military commandos, have yet to have a problem getting in and out completely unscathed.

To add even less credibility to their claim that making delicious treats without at least some slave help wasn’t possible, several chocolate companies are now selling “Fair Trade” chocolate which is monitored to insure no slave labor is used in its production, though some sophisticated consumers say that chocolate isn’t as good, since it does not contain the unique flavor of the bitter tears of children.

We don’t want to pile on Nestle, though. If we wanted to do that, we would bring up the third-world babies that died from Nestle formula, or the company demanding millions from famine-stricken Ethiopia over a 1975 business transaction or … fuck it, we’re getting depressed.

This is our longest post yet and by far the worst effect a corrupt cooperation has had on the US. This article covers how GM hid electric cars and technology as far back as the 30’s and shows how GM and Good year bought out Los Angeles mass transit and railroads systems to monopolize cars and tires.

There’s an excellent book out titled “Internal Combustion” by the same author — Ernest Black — who wrote about IBM’s complicity in the holocaust (selling tabulating equipment to the nazis.)

In 1947 GM and its executives and many subsidiaries, including Mack Truck, were prosecuted successfully by the US DoJ for conspiracy. They appealed all the way to the USSC, but the case was well-tried and none of the appeals were successful. Still, the public’s attention span being short as it is, this soon disappeared from the headlines and everyone forgot about it until 1973, when the oil shocks from the Arabl embargos began to hit. GM was once again called to account for its systematic destruction of mass-transit in the US. Unfortunately, the congressional investigators going after GM this time charged it with trying to completely destroy mass-transit — a claim GM set about to dispute through a massive PR campaign. They were successful, and once again the public became ignorant
of GM’s crimes.

Good bye, GM. And good riddance. (Long, LONG overdue.)

Did General Motors destroy the LA mass transit system?
January 10, 1986

Dear Cecil:

I’m a big fan of the old Pacific Electric, the sprawling electric railroad known as the “Big Red Cars” that once covered much of southern California. Strangely, when I mention the old PE, many times someone within earshot says something to the effect of, “You know, back when they built the freeways, GM and the oil companies got together and forced them to tear up the tracks.” Cecil, is there any truth to this rumor? If not, why do so many natives believe it?

— Tom R., Los Angeles

— Brought to you by Wiki44 —

Make Solar Panels in 1 Day

Learn how to build inexpensive solar panels and power generators for your own back yard. Save up to 90% on your power bill!

http://www.wiki44.com

Cecil replies:

If you think trashing the LA trolleys was the extent of GM’s alleged crimes, Tom, you ain’t heard nothin’ yet. In 1974 one Bradford Snell, a staff attorney for the U.S. Senate antitrust subcommittee, advanced the startling proposition that GM had (1) sabotaged energy-efficient electric transit systems in 45 cities around the country, including LA, in order to sell more fuel-guzzling buses and autos; (2) forced the railroads to replace nonpolluting electric locomotives with GM-built diesels by threatening to withhold lucrative auto shipments; and, most astonishing of all, (3) treasonously built armaments for the Nazis during World War II through Opel, its German subsidiary. Not surprisingly, Snell’s charges were widely publicized.

Snell lavished particular attention on the case of the Pacific Electric. Though it’s difficult to believe today, Los Angeles once boasted the largest system of “interurbans” (heavy-duty inter-city trolleys) in the U.S., carrying some 80 million passengers a year in the late 1930s. According to Snell, all this went out the window starting in 1939, when GM got together with Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), Firestone, and other auto-related firms to set up a holding company that bought up trolley lines, dismantled them, and replaced them with buses. “The noisy, foul-smelling buses turned earlier patrons of the high-speed rail system away from public transit and, in effect, sold millions of private automobiles,” Snell said. “Largely as a result, Los Angeles today is an ecological wasteland.”

In a stinging counterattack, GM argued that Snell’s accusations were off the wall from start to finish. The company said it relinquished day-to-day control of Opel in 1939 following the German invasion of Poland, and severed all relations with the firm when Germany declared war on the U.S. in 1941. It denied trying to strong-arm the railroads, pointing out that an earlier government investigation into the matter had produced nothing. Finally, it said its investments in various transit holding companies were small, that it exercised no managerial control, that many of the PE lines the California holding company bought had already been converted to buses, and that in any case the conversion to buses was part of a nationwide trend that was well under way before GM had made any transit investments at all.

Now, you may or may not believe GM’s professions of innocence concerning the holding company. But most authorities agree that trolleys bit the dust in LA and elsewhere not because of a conspiracy but because they were slow and inconvenient compared to autos, and in the long run just couldn’t compete. Los Angeles is typical in this respect. It has neither the high population density nor the concentrated downtown necessary to support rail transit. The PE, which was owned by the Southern Pacific railroad, made a profit in only 8 of the 42 years it was in business under its own name. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that many PE lines in LA proper operated on city streets, and as more cars crowded those streets, service got progressively slower. (The average speed on the run to Santa Monica was only 13 MPH.)

Buses were looked on as the transit industry’s salvation because they were cheaper to operate and maintain than trolleys, with no tracks or wires. In fact, the PE had begun to convert to buses in 1917, and had changed over 35 percent of its system by 1939. A state commission in the late 30s urged that busification continue, and by the early 1950s most of the tracks were gone. The last line gave up the ghost in 1961. It’s too bad–some think the PE could have been the nucleus of a decent, if heavily subsidized, modern rail system–but blaming GM is like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for war.

— Cecil Adams

TIRE DUST

The automobile did not come to dominate American transportation by chance or by public choice. It happened as part of a plan by auto makers to buy up and destroy mass transit companies. General Motors led the way. As recently as the 1920s, many American cities and towns were connected by a network of electric railroads and interurban trolleys. Within cities, electric street railways, trolleys, and elevated trains, moved large numbers of people easily and cheaply, with minimal congestion and pollution. But steel-wheeled electric/rail mass transit systems did not serve the needs of the automobile manufacturers and their allies in the steel, rubber, glass, concrete, and oil industries.

Beginning in the 1920s, General Motors began investing in mass transit systems. According to historian Marty Jezer (and Congressional hearings held in 1974), between 1920 and 1955, General Motors bought up more than 100 electric mass transit systems in 45 cities, allowed them to deteriorate, and then replaced them with rubber-tired, diesel-powered buses. [1] Buses are more expensive, less efficient, and much dirtier than electric/rail systems. (And of course automobiles are even less efficient than buses, by far.) In 1949, General Motors, Firestone Rubber, and Standard Oil of California were convicted by a federal jury of criminally conspiring to replace electric mass transit with GM-manufactured diesel buses; in a noteworthy illustration of justice for corporations, the court fined GM $5000 and forced H.C. Crossman, the GM executive responsible for carrying out GM’s policy, to pay $1.00.

Cities where GM managed to eliminate electric/rail systems, and replace them with buses and private cars, included New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles.

Many people think of Los Angeles as the original automobile city. However, before GM converted the city to buses and private automobiles, Los Angeles was served by the largest electric/rail mass transit system in the nation. The Pacific Electric Railway ran more than 1000 trains per day over 760 miles of rail lines to such outlying stations as Redlands, Corona, Santa Monica, Redondo Beach and Balboa, carrying light freight as well as passengers. Its last line, to Long Beach, was abandoned in 1961 –the same year the ingredients of smog were first identified in L.A.’s toxic air.

During this same period, GM worked to convert electric-powered commuter railroads to diesel-powered locomotives, which were far more expensive, more complex, and less reliable than electric locomotives, thus requiring more maintenance, and contributing significantly to the demise of the nation’s railroad system. For example, the New York, New Haven, and Hartford line showed a profit during 50 years of operation until 1956, the year it began converting to diesel locomotives; by 1961 it was declared bankrupt and a report by the Interstate Commerce Commission censured GM for contributing to its demise.

We all know some of the consequences of converting the American transportation system from electric/rail to rubber-tired vehicles. The threat of global warming from combustion of fossil-fuels (oil and gasoline) is one part of the problem. Lung cancer from diesel exhaust is another. [2] But recently, another aspect of our transportation system has appeared in scientific and medical literature: serious pollution from rubber tire fragments (tire dust) released by tire wear.

When a rubber tire, bearing the weight of a vehicle, rolls across an asphalt or cement surface, tiny fragments of rubber break off from the tire and become airborne. In the 1970s and early 1980s, scientists working for the rubber tire industry and for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that these tire fragments were too large to enter the human lung and so presented no threat to human health.

However, new research published this year by allergy specialists has reached a different conclusion: these new studies show that about 60% of tire fragments (tire dust) are so small that they can enter the deep portions of the human lung where the latex rubber in the tire dust may cause allergic reactions ranging in severity from rhinitis (runny nose), conjunctivitis (tearful eyes), to hives (urticaria), bronchial asthma, and occasionally even a life-threatening condition called anaphylactic shock. [3] Asthma, and asthma deaths, have increased dramatically during the past 20 years, especially among children, and specialists have been searching in vain for causes. (See RHWN #374.)

Allergy to latex rubber has become more common in recent years, especially among health-care workers who are exposed more or less continuously to latex gloves, tubes, sheets, and other latex-containing products. [4] An estimated 17 million Americans have an allergic reaction to latex. Examination of latex allergy has shown it to be a true allergy; in technical jargon, it is mediated by IgE antibody to proteins that are present in the natural rubber produced from the tropical rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis).

Allergic reactions to tire dust may be increasing for several reasons. The number of tires has increased steadily during the last 20 years; the proportion of latex in tires has been increasing; and tire construction has changed from bias ply to radial. Tire dust from radials is finer and thus more respirable, meaning it enters the deepest part of the human lung more easily.

The human nose and throat filter out airborne particles larger than 10 micrometers in diameter, but about 60% of tire dust is smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter and can thus enter the lungs where it can cause allergic reactions in some people.

In 1974, tire industry scientists estimated that 600,000 metric tonnes (1.3 billion pounds) of tire dust were released by tire wear in the U.S., or about 6.5 pounds (3 kilograms) of dust released from each tire each year. In 1995, there were an estimated 280 million tires in use in the U.S.; [5]if each tire releases 6.5 pounds of dust per year, tire dust released in 1995 would total 1.8 billion pounds. A billion is a thousand million. In Los Angeles alone, at least 5 tons (10,000 pounds) of tire dust are released into the air each day.

Radial tires create a finer, more respirable dust than do bias ply-constructed tires, and the percentage of tires that are radial grew from 2% in 1970 to 95% in 1990, so tire dust released in the 1990s probably enters the lungs more readily than tire dust did in previous decades. Conceivably, this might explain part of the recent increases in asthma in the U.S.

In 1994, careful measurement of air near roadways with moderate traffic revealed the presence of 3800 to 6900 individual tire fragments in each cubic meter of air, more than 58.5% of them in the fully-respirable size range. When these fragments were examined chemically, and by mass spectroscopy, they were shown to contain latex. Furthermore, they were shown to produce allergic reactions, comparable in every way to the allergic reactions caused by dust from a pulverized latex glove. [3]

How might these problems be resolved? Allergic reaction to latex was first described in 1979; after AIDS became a major medical problem, more and more medical workers started wearing latex gloves and latex allergies came to light. Some 7% to 10% of all health care workers now exhibit an allergic reaction to latex.

Recently, latex from a new source, the guayule plant (Parthenium argentatum), which grows well in the southwestern U.S., has been shown to not cause latex allergy in exposed people. [6] Latex from the guayule plant could become a growth industry for American farmers; presently, about seven million tons of latex are produced each year from the tropical rubber tree, Hevea, worldwide.

In the case of rubber tires, the problem is more complex than mere latex allergy, although this may well turn out to be a serious public health problem by itself. The high dollar cost of truck freight, private automobile commuting, and maintenance of our highway infrastructure must be counted as major sacrifices to our rubber-tired transportation system. Furthermore, fine particle air pollution now kills an estimated 60,000 Americans in cities each year. [7] And global warming is a serious threat to many nations from many viewpoints. (See REHW #429, #430.)

However, from the viewpoint of our most important national treasure –our self-governing democracy –the systematic sabotage of the nation’s electric/rail mass transit systems by automobile corporations points up a most serious problem: the ability of “private” corporations to effect sweeping changes in our public life and culture, without public accountability or even debate. If we ever hope to achieve a sustainable environment, and re-establish a fair economy and a working democracy, this is a key problem we will have to acknowledge and address.
–Peter Montague
===============
[1] Marty Jezer, THE DARK AGES; LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1945-1960 (Boston: South End Press, 1982), pgs. 138-146.

[2] See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, HEALTH ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT FOR DIESEL EMISSIONS [External Review Draft; 2 volumes: EPA/600/8-90/057Ba and EPA/600/8-90/057Bb] (Research Triangle, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December, 1994). And see RHWN #120.

[3] P. Brock Williams and others, “Latex allergen in respirable particulate air pollution,” JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY Vol. 95, No. 1, Part 1 (January 1995), pgs. 88-96. And see: M. Michael Glovsky and others, “Can Latex Allergy be Triggered by Air Pollution?” Abstract presented at Experimental Biology ‘95 in Atlanta, Georgia during April, 1995. Dr. Glovsky’s address: Asthma Center, Huntington Memorial Hospital, Pasadena, CA 91105. Phone: (818) 397-3383; fax: (818) 795-0982. Glovsky’s work is discussed briefly in J. Raloff, “Latex allergies from right out of thin air?” SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 147, No. 16 (April 22, 1995), pg. 244. See also: L.M. Hildemann and others, “Chemical Composition of Emissions from Urban Sources of Fine Organic Aerosol,” ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Vol. 25, No. 4 (1991), pgs. 744-759.

[4] Doris Jaeger and others, “Latex-Specific proteins causing immediate-type cutaneous, nasal, bronchial, and systemic reactions,” JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY Vol. 88, No. 3 (March 1992), pgs. 759-768. And: Gordon L. Sussman and Donald H. Beezhold, “Allergy to Latex Rubber,” ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE Vol. 122, No. 1 (January 1, 1995), pgs. 43-46. And: Denise-Anne Moneret-Vautrin and others, “Prospective study of risk factors in natural rubber latex hypersensitivity,” JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY Vol. 82, No. 5 (November 1993), pgs. 668-677.

[5] Tire use in 1995 is a projection based on trends from 1970-1990 shown in: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 1990 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990), Table 1027; and Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992), Table 1000.

[6] Richard Lipkin, “No-itch latex,” SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 147, No. 16 (April 22, 1995), pg. 254.

[7] C. Arden Pope III and others, “Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults,” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Vol. 151, No. 3 (March 1995), pgs. 669-674. See also RHWN #373.

Descriptor terms: automobiles; transportation systems; general motors; mass transit; railroads; trolleys; electric street railways; firestone rubber; gm; standard oil of california; new york; philadelphia; baltimore; st. louis; oakland; salt lake city; los angeles; pacific electric railway; diesel; buses; global warming; lung cancer; asthma; allergies; latex allergy; rubber; guayule; air pollution; radial tires; fine particles; bias ply tires;

Just in case their racism, sexism, and general awfulness hasn’t been enough to turn you away from Abercrombie & Fitch after all these years, here’s another glimpse of the inner workings of the horrible store.

When I previously (and gleefully) wrote about the economic troubles that Abercrombie was having a few months back, I mentioned that my personal hatred for the store comes from the fact that one of the women I was in the intensive inpatient unit with during my treatment for anorexia was heavily recruited by the store just days before her hospitalization (she was incredibly underweight) because she had “the look” they wanted. Turns out that this horrific “look policy” doesn’t just revolve around being stick-thin; according to Riam Dean, she was forced to work in the stockroom, as opposed to on the floor, at Abercrombie’s London flagship store because her prosthetic arm didn’t fit the company’s attractiveness standards. You stay classy, Abercrombie!

When Riam applied to the store, they took a photograph of her and gave her a handbook that listed the company’s expectations, as far as physical appearance goes. According to the Daily Mail, the handbook “stipulates that staff must represent a ‘natural, classic American style’ and instructs them on everything from how to wear their hair (clean and natural) to how long they should wear their nails (a quarter of an inch past the end of the finger).” Apparently, Riam’s prosthetic arm wasn’t “natural” or “classic” enough for the store- they made her buy a cardigan to wear in order to hide her arms while working.

The cardigan, however, wasn’t enough to satisfy the Abercrombie team. As Riam recalls:

“A worker from what they call the “visual team”, people who are employed to go round making sure the shop and its staff look up to scratch, came up to me and demanded I take the cardigan off. I told her, yet again, that I had been given special permission to wear it. A few minutes later my manager came over to me and said: “I can’t have you on the shop floor as you are breaking the Look Policy. Go to the stockroom immediately and I’ll get someone to replace you. I pride myself on being quite a confident girl but I had never experienced prejudice like that before and it made me feel utterly worthless. Afterwards I telephoned the company’s head office where a member of staff asked whether I was willing to work in the stockroom until the winter uniform arrived. That was the final straw. I just couldn’t go back.”

She is now suing the company, which, by the way, already paid 2.2 million dollars to employees who felt that that the company was unfairly forcing them to buy Abercrombie’s clothes in 2003. Oh, and did I mention they paid a 40 million dollar settlement in 2004, after being accused of discriminatory employment practices? Because they did! This is a company that continues to be called out for their sexist, racist, discriminatory practices, and by issuing half-ass apologies and paying off their accusers, they expect us to forget the nastiness at the core of this operation. Sadly, all of this only makes Riam’s story as unsurprising as it is upsetting.