An indefinite wait

This article caught my attention because it focuses on a relatively unknown--outside of the Middle East-- side of the Palestinian plight; their status and destitution outside of the occupied territories and Gaza strip.

As the author points out, "there is a greater proportion of designated "hardship cases"- a status given to particularly poor or vulnerable refugees - in the Palestinian population of Lebanon than anywhere else in the region, including the Gaza Strip."

The article alludes to a larger issue, the detrimental psychological effect of their situation: the loss of hope and will among those refugees.

Ironically, the people interviewed for this article squat in a hospital complex, a place for a transitory stay, not the prolonged periods their stays have become.

Human Rights Before Politcs? A Rare Occurance.

Maybe I hadn't read the right articles in the past, focusing only on those espousing pro-Palestinian views. Today, however, it didn't matter which I chose, be it the pan-Arabic AlSharq Alawsat, Haaretz, Israel's oldest newspaper, or the local New York Times and Los Angeles Times. They all resonated with the same message: human rights before politics. Oh, and, further noncompliance from Israel will result in more negative sentiment from the international community.

After beginning with the NYT article, I was prompted to search for other viewpoints, or rather, for alternative-leaning newspapers, to see if there was truly a shift in tone with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or whether I was hoping against hope. What I found surprised me. And it was definitely a good surprise.

All the articles noted Israel's leveraging of its role in the attempted re-ignition of the peace process to keep from cooperating with UNHC report requests. I'm not used to reading about Israel being called out on its war crimes, only about Hamas and their rockets. Which I don't condone in the least, but as I said, I'm used to seeing the finger pointed at only one of the guilty sides.

An interesting accompanying article to the main entry in Haaretz attempted to trace back the roots of the conflict--not the well-known casualty numbers and highly publicized "concessions" on each side's part. It focuses specifically on the mentality behind the Israeli standpoint.

It's a sad, ironic, and recurring pattern throughout history that the death of thousands is a requisite for peace.

The word is breaking out!

I was pretty impressed to read in this article that the choke hold on Saudi media would be slackened, if only for the online stuff--if only until the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information finds other ways to censor it.

As an Arab, specifically a Saudi, it's pleasing to see progress like this, when just across the Red Sea, the more liberal Egyptian government recently banned a newspaper after reporting that three prominent actors had been caught in a gay prostitution network.

It's also nice to see the awareness of the online publishers that with this new found freedom come great responsibilities, i.e., source verification and truthful (fact-based) reporting. It's reassuring to know that in the realm of citizen reporting, the differences between East and West are not so stark.

The Kremlin's Stinkin' Gas

Once again, we see that it's all about the money. Well, and about what money can do.

Gazprom, the Kremlin's major gas exporter, is a vital organ in the Russian economy. A lesser known fact, as this article points out, is how the state uses it to exercise its political clout.

It isn't hard to turn a nob and stop gas exports to neighboring eastern European countries. But it is hard being those eastern European countries during a worldwide financial meltdown, under the mercy of a power-hungry state. The Ukrainian economy suffered a crippling blow last summer, when Russia cut off gas exports to the already struggling country. However, pressured by Western European governments--whose gas imports come to them via the same pipeline--, the gas began to flow again after 3 weeks.

The scary part for eastern Europe? To bypass them, Gazprom is laying pipelines under the Baltic sea, that will carry gas to western Europe. And who knows what will happen to the eastern republics once the west has its unobstructed flow of gas, and no protesting voices.

The beef with ground beef

Firstly, this article reveals the terrifying fact that we consume tons of meat that is not unlikely to be tainted. Secondly, it reiterates what many deemed cynics have been saying for a long time, that what everything comes down to is money.

Here are some excerpts that sent chills through my body:

"Many big slaughterhouses will sell only to grinders who agree not to test their shipments for E.coli"

"The department moved to require some bacterial testing of ground beef, but the industry argued that the cost would unfairly burden small producers."

At the cost of people's health? Wow.

Scarier even, is that the U.S.D.A. seems to lack the authoritative power to impose strict --or any for that matter-- safety regulations. "I have to look at the entire industry, not just what's best for public health" said an assistant administrator with the U.S.D.A.'s Food Safety and Inspection Service. The department has even gone so far as to accept research that is financed by some of the largest beef 'manufacturers' in the country at face value.

I'm definitely not coming within 10 feet of a hamburger patty any time soon.

An aspect of the article I particularly like is the detailed run through of the production process; from the moment the cattle arrive at the slaughterhouses, until the grinding of the meat (if we can even call it that). The industry is even called out on the obscurity of their labeling and their misleading people to think they're consuming real beef -- the muscle tissue that is.

I appreciated the effort put into this investigative report, and was impressed at how the author really got to the bottom of it, despite the many deterrences he faced-- tight lipped industry people, inaccessible confidential papers, and the invariable interview turndowns.

This is a scary reality, and until now and relatively unknown one. (Eerily, it seems not to have been a matter of chance that it didn't come to light sooner). I'm glad that it's now out here. I hope it scares the industry into cleaning up their act, literally.

Transparency in the blogosphere

It was only a matter of time. Too long have 'authentic' reviews been churned out, all the while being steered this way or that by the large companies in the shadows.

With citizens' best interests at its core, requiring all bloggers to disclose the nature of their relationship with the companies of the products they review is an honorable pursuit. A daunting one too.

Transparency is an essential element of reporting, if one seeks to obtain, and maintain, people's trust. Be it reporting on world affairs, or the impact of new products on day-to-day life. The internet is a source of abundant and easily accessible information. Unfortunately, a lot of it is inaccurate, serving purposes other than those ostensibly stated. It's relatively easy to look up which companies own certain broadcasting networks and newspapers (information I recently looked up), making us a little skeptical of so-called unbiased reviews they produce. That's OK though, because the connections aren't hidden from us; we have the knowledge to take the necessary precautions. More elusive however, is to find out which blogs are influenced--if at all-- by these companies.

This is why I liked the article on the F.T.C's decision to revise the rules about endorsements and testimonials in advertising. We have to constantly adapt to the rapidly emerging new technologies, and the pitfalls that come along with them. The internet is a great resource, and it would be a shame if it got to a point where we distrusted every bit of information, or blog entry we came across. This is a good step in the right direction.

Pol-arizing-anski

I like how the author utilizes this story to highlight the differences in how things are done transatlantically, especially when dealing with high-profile citizens. "The arrest painted the usual picture of moralistic America versus libertarian France."

Should certain citizens be allowed some leeway if they've contributed enough to society? Should their 'genius' serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card? An example of the absurdity being the appeal to the Polish President. Really?

More interesting to me was the reaction of the filmmaker/victim's mother noted at the end of the article. Her daughter was recently killed by a man who was let off early for the very reason of being a celebrity, and she criticized the government vehemently for it then. Now, however, she seems to have no qualms about signing the petition to have Polanski released. Personal interest? Hypocrisy?

So the nagging question arises: when people endorse such things, make such grand, polarizing statements (to me, taking a side on this issue is making a statement) is it because they truly believe in them, or are they doing so as insurance, just in case ...? Ah, human nature at its best!

Reimagining the knuckle dragger

I loved this article. Usually, I'm put off reading anything related to evolution because I get bogged down in all the Latin. Instead of infusing every sentence with tongue-tying technical terms, the author paints us an elaborate picture, offering us a rare, comprehensible scientific piece. (Compare it with this article from the NYT. Same facts, more credibility even, what with all the quotes from distinguished scientists, still pretty dry though)

The author also does a great job of shedding light on the painstaking effort that's required to unearth --literally and metaphorically-- such a discovery: Six years to reconstruct a pelvis. Wow. (In my mind, paleoanthropology is what happens in Jurassic Park, which didn't seem very hard).

This version of the article (the online version) is also a great learning tool; embedded in it are interactive graphics and slide shows, making it easier to delve into this monkey-business. Pardon the pun.