Safe Soap and Cosmetics

The evidence of pharmaceutical and personal care products degradation of our water resources continues to grow. From levels of synethic musk being found in breast milk to the potential links to cancer and developmental delays from flame retardants to the inadequacy of laboratory testing to predict the impact on fish and wildlife, chemicals are impacting health in unanticipated ways.

Thanks to Mother Earth News for compiling a list of chemical-free cosmetics and personal care resources. Being environmentally responsible should not have to mean losing one's vanity!

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

The Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep database

The FDA's Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program

Corporate Greed Takes Root at the US Postal Service

Quoted from an email from Robert McChesney (Freepress.net)

"The news media are covering the tragic murders in Virginia this morning, and as they do an extraordinarily significant story is slipping through the cracks.

On very rare occasions I send a message to everyone in my email address book on an issue that I find of staggering importance and urgency. (My address book includes pretty much everyone who emails me in one form or another, and I apologize if you get this message more than once.) This is one of those times.

There is a major crisis in our media taking place right now; it is getting almost no attention and unless we act very soon the consequences for our society could well be disastrous. And it will only take place because it is being done without any public awareness or participation; it goes directly against the very foundations of freedom of the press in the entirety of American history.

The U.S. Post Office is in the process of implementing a radical reformulation of its rates for magazines, such that smaller periodicals will be hit with a much much larger increase than the largest magazines.

Because the Post Office is a monopoly, and because magazines must use it, the postal rates always have been skewed to make it cheaper for smaller publications to get launched and to survive. The whole idea has been to use the postal rates to keep publishing as competitive and wide open as possible. This bedrock principle was put in place by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. They considered it mandatory to create the press system, the Fourth Estate necessary for self-government.

It was postal policy that converted the free press clause in the First Amendment from an abstract principle into a living breathing reality for Americans. And it has served that role throughout our history.

What the Post Office is now proposing goes directly against 215 years of postal policy. The Post Office is in the process of implementing a radical reformulation of its mailing rates for magazines. Under the plan, smaller periodicals will be hit with a much larger increase than the big magazines, as much as 30 percent. Some of the largest circulation magazines will face hikes of less than 10 percent.

The new rates, which go into effect on July 15, were developed with no public involvement or congressional oversight, and the increased costs could damage hundreds, even thousands, of smaller publications, possibly putting many out of business. This includes nearly every political journal in the nation. These are the magazines that often provide the most original journalism and analysis. These are the magazines that provide much of the content on Common Dreams. We desperately need them.

What the Post Office is planning to do now, in the dark of night, is implement a rate structure that gives the best prices to the biggest publishers, hence letting them lock in their market position and lessen the threat of any new competition. The new rates could make it almost impossible to launch a new magazine, unless it is spawned by a huge conglomerate.

Not surprisingly, the new scheme was drafted by Time Warner, the largest magazine publisher in the nation. All evidence available suggests the bureaucrats responsible have never considered the implications of their draconian reforms for small and independent publishers, or for citizens who depend upon a free press.

The corruption and sleaziness of this process is difficult to exaggerate. As one lawyer who works for a large magazine publisher admits, “It takes a publishing company several hundred thousand dollars to even participate in these rate cases. Some large corporations spend millions to influence these rates.” Little guys, and the general public who depend upon these magazines, are not at the table when the deal is being made.

The genius of the postal rate structure over the past 215 years was that it did not favor a particular viewpoint; it simply made it easier for smaller magazines to be launched and to survive. That is why the publications opposing the secretive Post Office rate hikes cross the political spectrum. This is not a left-wing issue or a right-wing issue, it is a democracy issue. And it is about having competitive media markets that benefit all Americans. This reform will have disastrous effects for small and mid-sized publications, be they on politics, music, sports or gardening.

This process was conducted with such little publicity and pitched only at the dominant players that we only learned about it a few weeks ago and it is very late in the game. But there is something you can do. Please go to http://www.stoppostalratehikes.com and sign the letter to the Postal Board protesting the new rate system and demanding a congressional hearing before any radical changes are made. The deadline for comments is April 23.

I know many of you are connected to publications that go through the mail, or libraries and bookstores that pay for subscriptions to magazines and periodicals. If you fall in these categories, it is imperative you get everyone connected to your magazine or operation to go to http://www.stoppostalratehikes.com.

We do not have a moment to lose. If everyone who reads this email responds at http://www.stoppostalratehikes.com, and then sends it along to their friends urging them to do the same, we can win. If there is one thing we have learned at Free Press over the past few years, it is that if enough people raise hell, we can force politicians to do the right thing. This is a time for serious hell-raising. And to my friends from outside the United States, I apologize for cluttering your inbox. If you read this far, we can use your moral support.

From the bottom of my heart, thanks.

Robert W. McChesney
(End quote)

Honest Dialogue about Race, Diversity, and Privilege

Robert Jensen, an associate professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, will will speak tonight on “The Reality of Race, Gender, and Class Privilege: Beyond the Politics of Diversity” from 6:30 to 9 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center on Homestead Road. According to the Chapel Hill News, this is to be a "honest dialogue about race, diversity and privilege." How unfortunate that it has received so little publicity.

A couple of references on Dr. Jensen's work on racism:
White Privilege Shapes the U.S.
Why White People are Afraid

Environmental Justice

There has been a lot of talk about environmental racism and justice as part of the landfill/transfer station discussions in Orange County. At yesterday's SURGE conference, I attended the tail end of a session with the Environmental Justice Network and learned that they have been invited into Orange County to address both the landfill concerns and the Cane Creek are sludge battle with Alamance County and OWASA.

According to the EJN, environmental justice

• Demands that public policy decisions be based on mutual respect and justice for all people, free from any form of discrimination or bias.
• Calls for universal protection from dangerous practices that threaten the fundamental right to clear air, land, water, and food.
• Demands that those responsible for the production of dangerous substances be responsible for safely protecting the environment.
• Insists that community members participate as equal partners at every level of decision making that might affect their health
• Recognizes the right of all workers to a safe and healthy environmental without being forced to choose between an unsafe job and unemployment.

Using these principles, the original siting of the landfill was clearly an environmental injustice. And the process for selecting a site for the transfer station violated the principle of participatory decision making. As with so many other controversial issues in this community, such as Carrboro's annexation and Chapel Hill's Lot 5, our elected officials continue to execute their official functions as if we were living in the early 20th century, when a more paternal role of government was the norm. But this is an educated and activist community. Our local governments need help in learning to seek out the contributions of citizens with multiple perspectives. If Rogers Road residents had been brought into the decision making process or if the county had pursued a 21st century town meeting prior to making their decision, we might be able to move forward. Instead, I fear that we will live the consequences of the faulty process for siting the transfer station for many years, just as Carrboro will continue to pay the price of the faulty annexation process. Process matters.