Live Science just came out with a list from the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List identifying “Ten Species You Can Kiss Goodbye.” The following species have been labeled as “critically endangered,” which means that each is expected to go extinct in the next ten years.

10. California Condor

9. Sumatran Orangutan

8. Ganges Shark

7. Mountain Gorilla

6. Philippine Crocodile

5. Black-footed Ferret (In Arizona)

4. Siberian Tiger

3. Red Wolf

2. Western Gray Whale

1. Sumatran Rhinoceros

If you go to the site, there are pictures and descriptions of each of these animals. Loss of species is, of course, nothing new.

Scientists estimate that the current rate at which species are becoming extinct is between 100 and 1,000 times greater than the normal “background” extinction rate - and say this is all due to human activity.

Check out this site too.

In my previous entry, I said “Of the 100 biggest economies in the world, most are corporations, not countries.” Then I provided this link. As it turns out, that list is from 2000. I found the updated list (2007) and was shocked by how different it is. Check out how much has happened in the last 7 years.

Of the 100 biggest economies in the world, most are corporations, not countries. We also know that the richest corporations are oil companies. Chevron, for example, just reported a record 6 billion in profits. With this in mind, we shouldn’t be surprised that the corporate-owned-media is perhaps less critical of these corporations than they should. It’s dramatically more disturbing to see that, more and more, oil companies are actually sponsoring the news we receive. While perusing CBS today, I saw this ad for Exxon.

Then we see the so-called “progressive” Atlantic Monthly selling out to big oil with this banner ad alongside Andrew Sullivan’s column. Even public broadcasting is not outside the influence of corporate interests. Here is the sponsor for PBS’s Jim Lehrer’s News Hour.

That our media is dominated by advertising is nothing new. 100% broadcast revenues come from advertising; about 50% of magazine revenues come from ads; 80% of newspaper revenue comes from ads. And now the internet. Ads are everywhere and totally obnoxious. While in the 80’s, studies show that the average person was exposed to 1,500 commercial impressions a day. Today–with the internet, product placement, and advertising in places like school, sports, and many other unlikely places, that number has risen close to 4,000. They’re even talking about putting billboards in space now. Can you imagine gazing up at a beautiful Flagstaff starry night, and seeing a Nike logo?

So what we’ve done and what has become detrimental, both to the credibility and reliability of our media, is we’ve turned all of our systems of media, of journalism, as vehicles to sell us more and more commodities. Oil companies have no place in our media. Chevron claims, “Corporate Responsibility: The Power, the Power of Human Energy. Finding Newer Cleaner Ways to Power the World.” Reading this, one could easily forget they even sell oil. What they are selling, besides oil (which is, in part, actually causing all the problems it claims to be solving), they are selling an image. Are we really going to rely on Chevron, Shell, Exxon, and BP to “find newer cleaner ways to power our world.” They destroy communities and they sell oil. It doesn’t matter to whom, and it doesn’t matter the cost. And now our news is sponsored by these global terrorists?

I got this from Auckland’s Burning, who is taking a break from blogging right now.

Most of the interview is about his ongoing effort to impeach Cheney. 

JUAN GONZALEZ: “Congressman, I’d like to ask you, on another matter, a vote this week in Congress over the Peru free trade bill. Many Democrats supported the administration position on this. You’ve been outspoken in your opposition to many of these free trade agreements. Your perspective on this vote?”

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: “It’s a disaster for the people of Peru. It’s a disaster for farmers whose land is being poisoned by gold mining and the cyanide that’s used in that process. And American workers have absolutely no protection about jobs being moved out of this country. It’s basically a modeling of NAFTA sent to Peru. This is really a continuation of the stripping of rights of peoples of both nations. And a reason why NAFTA has to be canceled — and I’ve said that I would do that as President — that we must get out of the WTO — I said that I would withdraw from the WTO — and to have trade that is wholly and solely based on workers’ rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. And it’s time that we recognize that this whole trade model has been about nothing but a race to the bottom for workers. It’s time we stood up for workers, no matter if they’re in Peru or anywhere else in the world, but certainly in the United States. We should have some concern about what the effect of these trade agreements are on American workers.”

USA. Artist: Janet Essley. Photo: Paul Woolery. 

Help guarantee that your tax dollars do not support abusive labor practices.

Tonight, City Hall, 7:30pm.

Come to this city council meeting, where organizers Ryan and Keith will be speaking on the subject of banning clothing from Flagstaff that is made in sweat shops. I’m planning on going.

sweatfree.org

Contact: sweatfreeflagstaff@gmail.com

UPDATE: So when I peddled my ass on over to City Hall tonight, the lights were all off and the doors were all locked. I saw some of you there, equally perplexed. I’m not sure what the score is either… If I find out, info will be in the comments.

Sydney, Australia

Potential troublemakers have been blacklisted. Police were given extraordinary powers to stop and search people in the street. High school students were warned that their parents would be told if they skipped school to protest.

Officials in Australia — which prides itself on a long history of liberal democracy and respect for human rights — have gone to unusual lengths to make sure world leaders at a summit in Sydney this week are not bothered by unruly protests.

I liked this quote myself:

“The reason why we have this security clampdown in Sydney, the reason why people have been inconvenienced, is because people in the past have practiced and … are threatening violence,” Howard said this week.

To place the emphasis of violence on the protesters is to undermine the widespread violence necessary for APEC to exist and function. But to be a little more explicit with this violence, the police want a court order to change the route of the march to avoid protesters.

“If they are going to be idiots and want to take the police on, then they are going to face the consequences.”

So protestors are promised violence if they merely want to be noticed by those attending. Bush, Hu Jintao, Putin, and others can go about business and not for a second do they have to believe there is any diversity of opinion.