Gay Bashing

>

It is incredible. My boyfriend and I were walking down the streets of the Short North minding our own business, trying to figure out what to do with our selves on a pleasant Friday evening. We were both wearing clothes that would not be considered “normal” for guys, that is, not a loose pair of khaki shorts with an even more ill fitting dress shirt, although neither of our outfits was outrageous.

Nonetheless, as we were making our way to High along Spring, a group of frat guys walked by. I felt physically threatened because there were so many of them, and Spring was absolutely deserted besides us. I braced myself as they walked by. No physical beating occurred, but they yelled “QUEERS” at us once they had walked past us. They didn’t even have the decency to say it to our faces.

As if that were not discouraging enough, as we made our way from Spring down toward Jeni’s Ice Cream on High, a group of macho dudes in a car shouted “FAGS” at us. We both felt angry, and a bit confused.

First, I must say that many gay people are accustomed to this sort of barbaric behavior. I have been called many vicious synonyms of “fag” and “queer” too many times to count. I expect it often times when I am in the Arena District, or in the University District, where classless and uncultivated types tend to abound. But, this is the Short North we are talking about! This is OUR territory. Everyone knows that the Short North is the de facto “Gay” district. As such, we should be able to flaunt around as freely as we desire, in only a rainbow thong if we so choose, without fear of being haggled.

Lately, I have been growing much fonder of Columbus. For instance, I discovered the Olentangy multi-use path, which gave me a newfound respect for the city. But Columbus is still the Mid West, a region notorious for its lack of tolerance, dignity, intelligence, and culture. In New York, where I have had the opportunity to spend a good deal of time, this would never happen. “FAG” as a pejorative insult would never be heard in the streets of Chelsea, the New York counterpart to the Short North (Although “fag” as in “Hey fag” a la Paris Hilton’s “Hey bitch” is quite prevalent.) It is accepted as gay territory. I should also add that I never felt threatened anywhere in Manhattan as I do here in Columbus. As much as I love this city, it is a product of the state of Ohio, and as such, gays can never truly feel at home.

Global Food Crisis

On Wednesday morning, Raj Patel appeared on Open Line with Fred Andrle. He discussed the global food system that connects producers to consumers. He describes it as a singular system that at once starves the poor and fattens the core countries. This is the central theme of his book Stuffed and Starved.

How exactly does the same system manage to overfeed millions while systemically starving a billion people? Patel describes it as simple economics. These days, all food is supplied by a handful of corporations. The goal of any business is to buy low, sell high. For instance, coffee farmers are paid on average a measly seven cents per pound. Nestle buys those beans directly or through a distributor, processes them into instant coffee, and sells it to Northern consumers for $10 per pound. This is a huge profit margin!

The problem arises when farmers of the global South are unable to buy basic foodstuffs to sustain themselves with these low prices. Commodities like coffee have been plummeting in price for decades. Economists would have these farmers farm a different crop to attain natural advantage, but climates suitable for coffee are not suitable for many other crops.

At the same time, the processing required to exact such huge profits enriches our food with sugars and salts. As we all know, sugars and salts are what make us fat and sick (ie cancer). As Patel points out, Americans love to believe that when they enter a supermarket they have every choice in the world. They can buy all different kinds of fruits, vegetables, meats, cereals, and beverages. But they are really choosing between Coke and Pepsi, Frosted Flakes and Coco Puffs, or Red Delicious and Golden Delicious apples, none of which is really a choice (or delicious for that matter).

Perhaps most distressing is that this system does not adhere to the democratic principals of this country, or those of the international order. Americans never sat down to decide they wanted to eat fattening, sterile foods, nor did the poor farmers of the South vote to be paid less than a living wage.

There are alternatives though. Eating local is a great way to avoid this system. Visit your local farmers market. The fresh food you buy there is sure to be tastier and healthier. Fair trade is also vital to circumventing this system. It ensures a livable wage to producers, and high quality and social justice to consumers.

What do you think? Do you agree with Raj Patel’s opinion, or does the current system seem to work? Should the burden be placed on consumers to pressure corporations and make their own decisions? Do you feel like you have a choice at the grocery? How does the global food system tie into food borne illnesses? Do you think there is a link between the recent outbreak of E. coli and salmonella and the way our food is handled and distributed in the system? Please leave a comment with you ideas!

Links

Stuffed and Starved
Listen to Fred Andrle interview Raj Patel on Open Line

The Political Western Woman and Her Pantsuit

Women

are finally able to claim their place in the political arena. We have the fabulous Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Should Bush and Cheney die, she would be president! Of course Hilary Clinton is a political powerhouse, and was the first woman to run in the Democratic primaries for president. Condoleezza Rice is a genius, and our current woman secretary of state, being preceded by Madeleine Albright. On the international scene, Angela Merkel, the first woman chancellor of Germany, was named Forbes most powerful woman. Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, and Margaret Thatcher have all served as the heads of very powerful states. While many of these women have turned out to be more “masculine” in politics than their male counterparts to “make up” for being a woman, this is quite a positive development. Nonetheless, our Western female politicians are caught in a dreadful fashion rut. Unlike Gandhi, who was always seen in beautiful feminine Indian dresses, our female leaders are one note in their boring pant suits.

“But dresses are too feminine for Western politicians,” is the response I get whenever I mention something so sacrilegious in the United States. Well what’s wrong with feminine? Dresses can be powerful, and they are much more interesting than the power suits men wear.

Don’t get me wrong, there are fashionable pantsuits for women. Unfortunately Mrs. Clinton has yet to find one… she apparently only has eyes for Easter egg pastels! Nancy Pelosi is always dressed very stylishly. But would it be that unprofessional to wear a dress?

The real issue here seems to be a much more subtle form of sexism that still exists in our society. It is not OK to be feminine when posted to a position of power. Women have to be dressed like men, but not look so butch as to be a lesbian.

This must change! Women in power should be free to wear a professional dress that makes them feel and look fabulous. We have great examples from Southern Asia in the late Gandhi. We just need to Westernize it to make it relevant here, a task that has never proven difficult for this country.

Change is the theme of the current election. People are fed up with the way this country is run. A strong woman in a good-looking dress could be the catalyst for a long line of changes that need to be made. Call it superficial, but the symbolic power of a woman breaking free from the sexist norm could be the beginning of the next great social revolution!

The Case for a Higher Gas Tax

I recently began working at WOSU on Open Line, screening callers and maintaining the webpage. It is a lot of fun! Today, we had an open forum where people just call in to talk about what's on their mind. Many callers were very concerned with the rising price of gas. With demand for crude oil skyrocketing due to growing demand from the developing world, not to mention shameless speculation on Wall Street , the price of gas is not likely to plateau any time soon. Within this context, raising taxes on gas seems out of the question for most people. Perhaps the most convincing argument against raising taxes on gas in the US is the lack of alternatives, namely, people have to drive to get around. Taxes, the story goes, are only going to hurt the poor. I would like to respond to that claim.

Many of you know that in most parts of the world, especially Europe, gas is selling for well over $8 per gallon. Why the difference from the US? European governments figure that aside from the cost of gas, driving incurs many other costs. There are steep costs associated with motor vehicle accidents, congestion, infrastructure construction and maintenance, pollution, etc. They heavily tax gasoline to ensure that the people who are causing these externalities and using the roadways are the ones who are paying for it. It turns out that $8 per gallon is the true cost of driving in Europe. In the US, where taxes on gasoline are very low, the government is subsidizing gasoline. This has been part of larger policy failure that has led us to our current conundrum, where we are fuel dependent. The problem arises when the cost of gasoline rises, and the government's subsidy is no longer apparent. Americans are penny pinching, and do not want to pay more for gas. They reminisce of the days when gas was only $2 per gallon.

But Americans need to wake up. Those days are over, and life is going to be getting much more difficult. We have spent the last fifty years creating a car centric society that is desperately dependent on cheap oil. The economy is in danger of collapse because we can no longer cheaply transport goods. A steep tax on gasoline, as part of a broader policy initiative to ween us off oil, is not only smart but necessary. That policy should also include encouraging high density city living and expanding public transportation facilities.

What about the poor? Firstly, a majority of America's poor live in urban areas, namely urban centers. Many of them have no choice but to use public transportation anyway. They will not feel directly the hike in gas prices. Second, no one should be getting a free ride in regards to driving. If someone cannot afford the true cost of driving, which would take into account accidents, pollution, infrastructure, and the like, they should not be driving. That may put some people, like the rural and working poor in difficult situations, but ultimately, they will have to move closer to work or to some place that has access to public transport, which is the desired effect.

The most important advantage of the gas tax is that it will force people to stop wasting gas. You are going to think twice about driving a block to see your friend when gas is $8 per gallon. You may decide to bike to work, which would make you healthy and happy. In the end, the gas tax may just be the cure to many of America's most urgent maladies and chagrins.

Hipsters

I thought a few of you would find this amusing. If you ever wondered what a hipster was, this site has it covered with 56 definitions. I especially liked #1:

"Listens to bands that you have never heard of. Has hairstyle that can only be described as "complicated." (Most likely achieved by a minimum of one week not washing it.) Probably tattooed. Maybe gay. Definitely cooler than you. Reads Black Book, Nylon, and the Styles section of the New York Times. Drinks Pabst Blue Ribbon. Often. Complains. Always denies being a hipster. Hates the word. Probably living off parents money - and spends a great deal of it to look like they don't have any. Has friends and/or self cut hair. Dyes it frequently (black, white-blonde, etc. and until scalp bleeds). Has a closet full of clothing but usually wears same three things OVER AND OVER (most likely very tight black pants, scarf, and ironic tee-shirt). Chips off nail polish artfully after $50 manicure. Sleeps with everyone and talks about it at great volume in crowded coffee shops. Addicted to coffee, cigarettes (Parliaments, Kamel Reds, Lucky Strikes, etc.), and possibly cocaine. Claims to be in a band. Rehearsals consist of choosing outfits for next show and drinking PBR. Always on the list. Majors or majored in art, writing, or queer studies. Name-drops. May go by "Penny Lane," "Eleanor Rigby," etc. when drunk. On PBR. Which is usually.


I am not a fucking hipster! (sweeps bangs to side dramatically and takes a swig of PBR)

by 'Penny Rigby' "

Doesn't it all make sense now? Read more at urban dictionary. 

Disclaimer: I have immense respect for hipsters' originality and general coolness. The only reason I am poking fun is I am just not hip enough to be a hipster... :(

Notes on Notes: Vespucci on Native Americans

I am writing an essay for a world history class, using primary sources like Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci's diaries to substantiate my claims. I took some notes on Vespucci's diary of first encounters with Native American, and found them to be interesting and entertaining. Don't mind the lack of accurate punctuation and unpolished ideas... they're notes!! Do note the utter lack of respect and disgust in Vespucci's writings (through my notes...)

"Naked men and women- no different than the way were born, beautiful proportions, red skin like lion, but would be white if dressed like Europeans, no hair except on head but very rough and disheveled , look like Tartars, agile like animals- run and swim fast and a lot of endurance, well made weapons but weak with no iron- use animal teeth instead, sure shots, cruel wars, no leader, no order in war, no dominion expanding, war to avenge death of ancestors, live in freedom- obey no one, no justice, never in-fighting, simple soft talk, but cunning, barbarous lifestyle, don’t eat at regular times; eat off ground, cleanly habits, urinate openly-shameful, no matrimony, fuck e/o like crazy man and woman have many children, cause abortion if angry poor infants, recover quickly from birth, cannibalistic all the time, barbarous ceremonies to welcome them [Europeans]- songs dance and food, [Europeans] offered wives, unable to keep from fucking them, war like, Europeans try to make friends, but unable to- animals, [should be] made slaves, afraid of guns, [Europeans ]killed many, others refugee, [Europeans] burned village, wounded many, no European was killed God is great."

-Tyler's notes that will be used to make one kick-ass paper!

American Security Firm Kills Again!

The Iraqi government is beginning to investigate ANOTHER set of shootings by a security firm this week. As much unwarranted murdering as they have committed, it seems their appetite for turning Iraqis into lead containers is never satiated. This is what happens when corporations are put in charge of security. Good job America, for once again screwing over the Iraqi people. We should all feel very proud of our great liberation effort. Read the story on MSNBC.

Britney, News, Sex, Repression

Wow wow wow wow wow!! Britney, Britney, Britney. I don't really need to say much, as everyone has said it already, but I can't help but indulge myself... WTF?!! It was only a few years ago you were making out with Madonna on stage, in anticipation of the release of your new album. You were on top of the world, in a really hot, slutty getup. And now what? You still have the slutty getup, but an extra 50 lbs. and a really lacklustre comeback performance to boot. OK, you had two kids, and you' ve been through a lot lately. You still look damn fine. But honey, you need to get into the music. Where was all that hip shaking I was used to seeing you do a la "I'm A Slave For You"? This was your moment, and I hate to say that you probably could have shit on stage and had a better performance.

Alas, thus is the life of a former teen star who has more money than can wrap her pretty little mind around. OK. There, I said it. I got it out of me, enough said. What was even more entertaining to me was Sarah Silverman's monologue post performance, where she really ripped Brit apart-- she did a great impression of her kids, which, as anyone who watched it can attest, was dead on. While in questionable taste, I found it quite amusing. Many were pissed off about some racially sensitive comments, but come on... lighten up. It's for the sake of comedy, and all everyone needed after "you know what" (BRITNEY's laughable performance) was a good chuckle. Well done Ms. Silverman, well done. Jewish humor is always a delight.

When I hear about Britney or Lindsay or Paris or Nicole I always get a little pissed off, and a little secret pleasure. Especially when it's bad news for them. First of all, why the is this shit on CNN, when people are being killed and repressed the world over? How can we devote hours upon hours to all of this nonsense which has no value to society in anyway, shape, or form, aside from the mere entertainment value.

Nonetheless, I must admit that I enjoy hearing about their misfortunes. Mainly because I don't think they deserve anything they have-- they are spoiled brats, whose biggest concerns are the color of their next coiffe, or what party they are can make big. I would love to see nothing more than them to wind up poor and alone, with no attention and no pride. That's maybe a bit much. And, I must say that I do not wish such a fate on Britney, because I really want to see her ass shaking like it used to onstage. But FUCK!!! How much cocaine can these little bitches get up their noses before they die?? They are snorting machines.

Anyway, I take back that mean mean comment about them dying from poverty, and replace it with the following: Attention to news that is pertinent to the human condition would be nice from all the news outlets, instead of worthless news produced to sell that we are subjected to (We can thank Fox News for selling news that their demographic (backwards rural hoodlums)agree with, instead of what's actually going on.) I guess until we enforce a more rigid definition of what is valuable news, we will have to continue hearing about the woes of these drama queens. In the meantime, I suggest to those who care to switch to BBC, because it is subject to harsh British standards of journalism, or indy news (CurrentTV is amazing!)

While we are bombarded by popular media that commercializes sexuality, internal cultural forces, such as religion, make us ashamed of our sexuality. So says director John Cameron Mitchell (most famously for Shortbus, an amazaing film featuring live sex scenes that is known to many as "that movie.") He observes that repression of sexuality can lead to many undesirable effects for society, and advocates a more mature and sophisticated understanding of sexuality, in all of its complicated animalistic glory. I applaud this view, and much enjoyed the scene from the film where a hot guy shoots a load into his own mouth. ;)

While Americans have a hard time dealing with sexuality, perhaps nowhere is there more sexual repression than the Muslim world, where it is enforced by Sharia. The Afghan burka, a head-to-toe covering women were mandated to wear during the Taliban's regime, is the symbol to the Western world of this repression. I just watched CNN's Lifting the Veil with Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, a superb Pakistani journalist. It studies the progress that women are acheiving in a place where they were virtual property. It was extremely frustrating to watch, as men walked past women, taunting them as if they were beasts. This goes on to this day.

Conditions have only slightly improved for women there. Cultural forces prevent most women from removing the burka, or even attending school, both of which are gaurunteed under Afghanistan's constitution. Thus, when widowed, with no right to property or work, the women have no choice but to beg on the streets for food.

Life with a husband seems not much better in many circumstances. An epidemic of burning oneself has spread across the country's women like fire itself, as kerosene fuel is cheap and abundant in this impoverished country. The women drench themselves in the liquid, and set themselves in flames, with the intention of killing themselves. A poor choice, because they often survive the initial trauma with horrific third degree burns, then die days or weeks later from infection, which can be even more painful.

Why do they do it?? Obaid asked many of them this very question, as they lie on there death bed. The answer: they had to escape from the pain of being systematically treated like shit by society and their husbands and mother in laws (these two are the ones who make the major decisions regarding her life.) And, to protest such awful treatment, they burn themselves. It sends a message. Imagine the horrible pain they endure from the burns that cover their body... well, their life is infinitely more painful. And, the incidence of these cases has risen since the independence of Afghanistan from the Taliban.

The US and coalition forces heralded the liberation as a victory for women, and President Bush, being the wonderful humanitarian he is, spoke of the end of their repression thanks to the American cunning. Alas, conditions are no better for these women now. What's sick about the whole thing is, the women wear the burkas so that the men don't get excited and lose control. Society deals with the inability of men to control themselves by stripping women of all dignity and rights. Women are beginning to enter schools, without the restrictive burka, but that is as much progress that can be accounted for on a wide scale. As Obaid points out, the only thing these women have now is hope. For more, check out the program.

Some Muslim women say that a veil (a burka is a little more extreme than a simple veil) to cover themselves is in a way liberating, despite what Westerners say. It releases one from the obligation to pretty up. Society can't judge you for not being drop dead gorgeous, because they can't see your hair beneath the veil. While these women are entitled to this opinion, and I agree that we might be too harsh on women in terms of beauty and presentation, I would shoot myself if I had to wear such a thing. I like taking the time to get ready every morning, and make myself damn hot to go take over the world. And on that note, I am off to go get some beauty sleep so I can be sexy for tomorrow.

New York Summer

I had a fabulous summer in New York these past few months. I got to spend time with my hot bf, whom I miss very much now, as he has left me back here in Columbus. And I have to have my tonsils out tomorrow! I am second guessing myself now, but cryptic tonsilitis is not a pleasant thing, especially to the nose. So, I digress...

Being in the "center of the universe" for some time has given me some new perspective. To start, I saw a well made documentary on Cite Soleil, a slum in Port Au Prince, Haiti, a place the UN has called the world's most dangerous place. It follows 2Pac (not the beloved US rapper) and his brother Bily, as the hired help of President Aristide. Their job is to intimidate political dissent in Cite Soleil and the greater Port Au Prince area.

The film highlights the frightening reverence for African-American thug culture that the desperate miserables of Haiti entertain. Haiti is illustrated as a democracy turned upside down by dictators trying to get some hold on law and order.This struggle to maintain power and authority is incarnated in the gang the brothers lead. Intimidation with AK-47s and other large weapons is a must to gain respect.Guns and violence, untreated disease and injury, and malnutrion and dirty water are all characteristic of the poorest country in the Western hemisphere.

It makes one wonder how this happened. Perhaps it has been in the shadow of a world that could not embrace a black republic, as the West has consitently placed costly embargoes on the country, crippling civil society. The brothers run into trouble as Aristide flees from a rebel overthrow, and Franco-American troops arrive to reinforce the groups new-found sovereignty. See The Ghosts of Cite Soleil.

Living in New York showed me a thing or two about rent... and that is, it is expensive to live there! In Manhattan, the median rental price for just a studio is $2,200/month! While such astronomical prices keep the riff raff (like me) out of ritzy neighborhoods, it can be stiffling to the vibrancy of urban diversity. Across the pond, London is home to equal affluence that can afford such prices, as well as the rest of the city that cannot.

Enter co-op living. Imagine living on the Thames, on some of the most expensive real estate in the world. The building you live in is a beautiful post-war brick structure, and you have your unit, which is plenty big enough for you and your family, decorated sublimely. Imagine then that you establish your own rent, based upon your pay. You would effectively be imagining cooperative living in London.

A non-governmental bought up the land from the government at subsidized prices in the 60's. They constructed multi-use buildings, that is, residential/commercial in the same building, and have created a sustainable neighborhood where you don't have to be a doctor, lawyer, or CEO to live in.Instead, you must be of moderate income to rent out these units. A very clever idea indeed.

Controversy does not shy fromt this arrangement, though, as the organization wants to open a high rise luxury condominium building, where tenants will be charged market price. While this would promote mixing of classes, is this ethical in light of the fact the organization got the land at subsidized prices? Regardless, I know I would certainly appreciate such an organzation in Manhattan. There are few other ways in which the lower middle class can have access to the city center.

Speaking of the city center, the other day in Union Square I saw an anti war demonstration. It was quite refreshing, being from the Midwest, to see such animosity toward the Bush regime. Nonetheless, I wondered about the current ethnic tensions in Iraq. I don't know how responsible it would be for the US to pull out recklessly after effectively destroying any semblance of a civil society that existed before. Without "peace keepers" (I don't know if the term is appropriate for US forces), will the ethnic groups turn Iraq into the next Rwanda? Or did we just peel the band aid (Hussein's regime) off an increasingly more hostile situation, wherein the Sunni minority was priveleged. In any case, Washington obviously didn't have this thought out, nor did/do they care.

It seems more and more, as more and more evidence has not surfaced as to the existence of WMDs and the poor excuse for a government we installed is falling apart, as if the only reason we went into Iraq in the first place was money! As most people are realizing, the biggest winners in Iraq have been American corporations, who have reaped HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars from oil and US taxpayers. And not just any corporations! The ones old Bush and friends used to head. That is to say, Haliburton and its umbrella entities.

How are these corporations getting paid directly by the government? They are awarded contracts, without any market competition, and without any effective auditing to ensure where the money is going. They provide services, such as feeding the troops, building and securing airports and other infrastructure, transporting goods and services, and a plethora of other odd jobs. Of course, neither the troops or Iraqis are benefitting from these services. Why? Because these contractors don't give a shit about the quality of their work. Troops are served rotting food and nonpotable water, while Iraqis are given hospitals in which the plumbing is so half assed that piss and shit literally drip from the ceiling and down the walls.

And what does this administration do about these mother fuckers effectively wasting our tax dollars (and by wasting, I mean securing it in Swiss bank accounts)? NOTHING! They refuse to prosecute anyone. Why? Because they used to run these companies!!!!!! WTF!! Anyway, enough of my rambling. If you want more on your wasted money, see Matt Taibbi's "The Great Iraq Swindle" in the latest Rolling Stones (issue 1034, Sept. 6, 2007).

As long as Republicans keep the guise of strong faith and values (that is anit abortion and anti gay marriage) they can probably go on robbing this country out of its livlihood and lives for a long time come. As far as faith goes, author Christopher Hitchens says "To choose dogma and faith over doubt and experiment is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid" in his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.This is one of many gems he put so poetically in his plea for secularism. I must say I agree with his Freudian views on religion. After all, this juvenile drink is certainly much more palatable to an unrefined tongue, as religion is to an unrefined mind. In his case for a more secular society, he cites that religion poses as antipode to reason/science, that religion does not provide anyone with any sense of morality that humans don't naturally have, that religion can be viewed as a form of child abuse (think male/female circumsision), that religion acts as an excuse for politicians to do as they will under the guise of faith, and that America's founding father's were in many ways anti-traditional religion. It is good reading for anyone no matter their faith or convictions.

On that note, I must be on my way back home to rest before my surgery. I'll have faith that I survive this horrible trauma my body's about to sustain. Wish me luck!

Sarko Troubles

I think that the whole world should be shaking in their boots now that Sarkozy is to be the next French president. He is, by all means, the same to France as George W. is to the States, and we have all seen where this kind of Christian conservatism has gotten the world.

It really couldn't be much worse, as the US's social fabric continues to decay due to lack of funding for basic social programs, including education and research (excluding military spending.) We watch in horror as secular social programs fall apart in the while their Christian counterparts are receiving heavy funding. These counterparts are in many ways, especially ideaologically, insufficient and inefficient.

Sarkozy must have taken a tutorial from Bush on how to win an election as the similarities are remarkable. Sarko succeeded, as minister of the interior, in creating a climate of fear wherein the French felt threatened. His hard line stance against deliquence, which is a PC way of saying against the Arabs and blacks of France, enticed the public into what they figured was saving their own lives. He also wedded his religion into his politics, often appearing with priests on camera.

I wait in disgust for France's intricate and bountiful social security net to be destroyed by privitization. What is already a messy immigrant situation will be ten times worse when brute force is the only method used to resolve it. Integration programs should be instituted so that those that are on the periphery of French society can find jobs and afford to buy their own homes. While some liberalization in regards to markets could prove useful to employment rates, France should never lose its humane socialism that has marked the last half century. If it does, we can add another disenfranchized population to the growing list of victims of capitalist greed...