Info_Find: Corporate fingers in the Supreme Court pie?

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Citizens United v. Federal Elections Committee. This ruling overturned prior precedent and dismantled restrictions on corporate and union political spending. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, this resulted in outside groups spending more than $296 million on the 2010 Congressional midterms--a 330% increase over 2006--with more than $135 million of that coming from undisclosed donors.

Even more disturbing, CommonCause.org recently discovered that Justices Thomas and Scalia may have attended functions given by Koch Industries (who I wrote about in a previous post) while they were hearing the case. Koch Industries organizes retreats for wealthy, influential conservatives, at which they determine strategies and platforms for upcoming elections. Attendees of these events include heads of major corporations across many industries, all of whom have a vested interest in arguing for broader rights for corporations.

Justices Thomas and Scalia's presence at such events could be argued to be severely prejudicial. Common Cause has stated that they should have recused themselves from the case, and is calling for an investigation into the ruling by the Justice Department.

So why does this matter? We are moving toward (and are arguably in) an election system in which the side with more money wins. This represents socioeconomic disenfranchisement. The broader and stronger the rights of corporations become, the greater the risk to the rights and protections of anyone who opposes them.

You can read a full accounting of Justices Thomas and Scalia's actions and sign a petition to Attorney General Eric Holder for a Justice Department investigation here.

Info_Find: The USDA's conflicting goals

PBS.org posted this interesting, 8-minute video piece entitled, "Mixed Signals: Why is the USDA promoting nutrition and pushing cheese?"

The piece explores the conflicting goals of the USDA: to promote healthy eating habits and reduce obesity versus boosting sales of USA-made products, such as beef, pork, and cheese. Many of the popular ad campaigns ("Beef...it's what's for dinner." "Got milk?" and "Pork. The other white meat.") were endorsed by the USDA.

More troubling are reports that fast food restaurants have received endorsements, such as the USDA's encouragement of McDonalds to bring back the McRib sandwich, and a Domino's super-cheesy pizza that supplies over half a day's saturated fat in just one serving.

The PBS piece reveals the USDA's part in fueling the obesity epidemic by placing sales over public health.

Long hiatus...

I apologize for the long hiatus from posting. Finals for school and holidays took up some time, and then I lost a week and a half to the flu. I chose not to get a flu shot this year, since I've found that I get sick just as frequently, with or without the shot.

I wanted to pass along this 2009 article from the Huffington Post on staying healthy during flu season.

It also has an interesting fact: The federal government has agreed to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits stemming from side effects from the vaccine, otherwise the companies would not produce the vaccines.

Site_Find: Who benefits from your charitable giving?

The writers over at Prosebeforehos.com are doing a series of articles that reveal where a few popular charities really divert their money.

The first article deals with the Salvation Army--an Evangelical organization that funds lobbyists with a anti-gay agendas. The Salvation Army website goes so far as to suggest that gays should not have sex, stating: "Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life."

There's so much more information in the article, and I look forward to seeing which other charities fall under the category of "Charities to Reconsider." The authors point to CharityNavigator.org as a source of information on intelligent giving--it's a great way to find out who you're really supporting with your donations!

CH_2: Never use another plastic bag

"Never" is a big word, an absolute term. I try not to use it, because it invariably makes me a liar. Unfortunately, "never" is true when applied to the biodegradability of most plastics, including plastic bags. According to the people at Green Genius, virtually every piece of plastic ever made is still in existence. That's a mind-boggling amount of waste.

Recently, I was listening to a radio interview in which an environmentalist stated that if you ever visit a metropolitan landfill, you will never use another plastic bag. They are blowing everywhere, stacking up, and they're not going to disappear any time soon.

Green Genius tallies Americans using 3 billion pounds of plastic bags every year, most of which end up in landfills. 3 billion pounds of plastic bags would cover the island of Manhattan to a depth of 16 feet.

The new set of questions I've been asking as a consumer includes: "What can I do to help solve the problem?"

In this case, I changed the way I approach and use plastic bags. For grocery trips, I bought two large, canvas "elephant" bags at Whole Foods for an affordable $3.99 each. (For about $20, a family of four could make their grocery shopping a plastic-bag-free experience.) I keep at least one bag in the car at all times for unplanned stops.

In terms of home plastic bag use, Green Genius makes a line of biodegradable trash bags that are comparable in price to nonbiodegradable bags. They also sell biodegradable zipper sandwich bags, freezer bags, and food storage bags. Their products are available at Whole Foods, and in New England, Shaw's has decided to stock their products.

There are even biodegradable bags for pet waste cleanup. I found cornstarch-based bags by Pooch Pick-up at Centinela Pet and Feed, but after some research, it seems like these bags by J-Trend are the best bet in terms of price and true biodegradability.

The bottom line is that there are plenty of affordable, easy options to reduce plastic bag use. If you need any further convincing on why this is important, do a google image search on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, then check out this infographic.

If you're interested in further action, you can contact your local city council and ask them to ban single-use plastic bags. Here in Southern California, a ban was recently enacted (but does not include Los Angeles) and will take effect in 2011.

As a fun last word on a serious subject, here's a music video to promote banning single-use plastic bags. Go forth and use less plastic!

Site_Find: CatalogChoice.org

CatalogChoice.org is on online non-profit offering an opt-out service for people receiving catalogs and junk mail. Their mission is "to help people reduce unwanted mail, save natural resources, reduce clutter, and take control of their mailbox." Launched in 2007, CatalogChoice.org is a free service which serves over a million members and thousands of companies.

They are funded by multiple grants from private foundations, such as the Overbrook Foundation and the Merck Family Fund. In addition to helping consumers, they also offer services for companies to help them be effective and respectful direct marketers, while reducing environmental impact.

By creating an account, I was able to cancel all of the catalogs I receive. The site also made it easy to block junk mailings from Chase and other credit card companies.

Best of all, their site keeps track of waste saved by their efforts, as well as your personal contribution. Just by blocking my Chase junk mail, I saved 1 tree, 36 pounds of solid waste, and 6 gallons of water. Think what we could do if we eliminated all junk mail!

Prod_Find: Sustainable Converse Alternative

Lately, I've been changing the questions I ask when I'm buying products like clothing and shoes. Instead of which color to get, I'm thinking about where the item was made, who made it, and how were they treated. I'm also thinking about what the product is made of, and what resources went into the material's production.

When I needed to replace my worn out Converse sneakers, I read the label and found that they were made in China, where labor practices are notoriously poor. After some searching online, I found a sustainable Converse alternative, made by a UK company called Ethletic, and distributed by Autonomie Project, a purveyor of organic, sweatshop-free, vegan products.

The sneakers are made with fair-trade certified organic cotton, and the soles are made of FSC-certified all-natural and sustainable latex. Their site notes that this means that "the rubber was tapped from a tree in a well-managed and growing forest, rather than being made from chemicals, like other rubber products." The rubber growers and the shoe-stitchers both receive a fair-trade premium.

As far as cost, the sneakers are $54.00. Typical Converse sneakers run from $40 to $60. The price for this pair might be a few dollars higher than the Converse pair I was considering, but I'm willing to pay the extra money. I wore my last pair of Converse for three years, so the extra bucks on this end to ensure fair labor and sustainability will be more than amortized over time.

Autonomie Project also sells plain cotton tees in women's and men's styles for $16--a great deal on staple of my wardrobe--plus printed tees and baby clothes. They have a terrific blog that serves as a resource for fair trade news and consumer tips.