Twitch - Entropy's blog

IT'S A COP THING!


--- On Wed, 7/7/10, Michael Novick <antiracistaction_la@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Michael Novick <antiracistaction_

la@yahoo.com>
Subject: LAPD is raiding the Black Riders Liberation Party in Watts
To: "Joaquin Cienfuegos" <morph3030@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Ron Gochez" <mexicanoatucla@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 11:00 PM

I just got a call that the Black Riders Liberation Party headquarters in Watts is being raided by multiple squad cars of the LAPD, and all the comrades are being lined up. Police are claiming that they are executing a probation search to make sure that General T.A.C.O. (Taking All Capitalists Out) aka Wolverine Shakur is complying with his probation. TACO was the target of a politically motivated frame-up on which he served prison time in a plea bargain to gain the release of other comrades (the Black Rider 3) and is subject to onerous probation conditions, including an electronic ankle bracelet (slave shackle) that monitors his location at all times. This attack is no doubt a result of the Black Riders' strong showing at court yesterday in support of justice for Oscar Grant and his family. They need legal support and eyes on the LAPD.

Update, 10:55 -- TACO was taken into custody, a probation officer confiscated their laptop, a helicopter is circling, and many Riders are still cuffed outside. I called James Simmons, and I believe he is heading over with Thandi Chimurenga.[Note: This is from yesterday, but I'm sure they will try to detain them as long as they can to kepp them from participating; I'll update as I learn more on the Black Riders. Twitch]

7-year old Detroit child murdered in cop raid

The Pigs Must Pay: The Brutal Police Execution of 7-year Old Aiyana Jones

  Reposted from the Poor Righteous Party of the Black Nation

Our lil sister Aiyana JonesPigs in Detroit, Michigan, brutally murdered a 7-year-old girl in a police raid early Sunday (May 16th).
The young sister, Aiyana Jones was shot and killed by by the murderous Gestapo executing a search warrant as part of its routine military sweep through the New Afrikan community.
A so-called “warrant” was executed about 12:40 a.m. Sunday at a home on the city’s east side, according to the pigs.
The pigs, in an assault team, amassed in the working class neighborhood ready for war.
“As is common in these types of situations, the officers deployed a distractionary device commonly known as a flash bang,” the pigs said in the statement according to CNN. “The purpose of the device is to temporarily disorient occupants of the house to make it easier for officers to safely gain control of anyone inside and secure the premise.”
In other words, a military grade device was deployed, the same that’s in use by the Zionists against the oppressed people of Gaza. Upon entering the home, the officers encountered a 46-year-old New Afrikan  female inside the front room, the pigs said. “Exactly what happened next is a matter still under investigation, but it appears the officer and the woman had some level of physical contact.

“At about this time, the officer’s weapon discharged one round which, tragically, struck 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones in the neck/head area.” the pigs said in a statement to the bourgois press.
Our young sister was immediately transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
 
Aiyana’s father, Charles Jones, told CNN affiliate WDIV, “She was sleeping and they came in the door shooting and throwing flash grenades … burned my baby up and shot her, killed her.”
Brother Charles Jones added the officers had the wrong house.
At press time, the Black Community all over the nation is outraged. Fearing the retribution from the Black Community, in a statement the pigs said they wished to “express to the family of Aiyana Jones the profound sorrow that we feel within the Detroit Police Department and throughout this community. We know that no words can do anything to take away the pain you are feeling at this time.”
No, words will not do anything. There were no words for our sister  lil Aiyana Jones. There were no words for the thousands of victims of police terror all over the country . No words for the millions of victim of US police  terror abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan.  No pigs, we want justice. The sad murder of our young sister Aiyana Jones is one more reason the entire New Afrikan community must organize themselves for self-defense and revolution.  We will never be free from murderous pigs kicking down our  doors at night and murdering our babies in their sleep  until we, the workers and real producers of this society’s wealth, control our communities completely and ended for once the wicked imperialist system that is based on black oppression and misery. Peacecomrade.org will follow this story as things develop. Stay tuned.
Share

NEW CUBAN-5 REVELATIONS OF POSSIBLE JURY-TAMPERING EFFORTS BY DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Washington Paid Journalists to Spin News against the Cuban Five

http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2010/0603Washington_CubanFive.htm

HAVANA, Cuba, Jun 3 (acn) Washington paid nearly $74,400 to journalists in Miami as part of a smear campaign against five Cuban antiterrorists that remain unjustly imprisoned in the United States since 1998.

The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five ­as Gerardo Hernandez, Rene Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero, Ramon Labañino and Fernando Gonzalez are internationally known­ announced in a press conference on Wednesday that
the new evidence was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request made 18 months ago.

“Fourteen names came back of journalists who it turns out were receiving covertly monies from the US government,” said Gloria La Riva, the coordinator of the committee.

Prensa Latina news agency reports that among those accepting bribes is reporter Pablo Alfonso, who received $58,600 for 16 articles published by El Nuevo Herald newspaper.

“This shows that the US Government was an accomplice to manipulating the jury by bribing journalists that violated the principles of impartiality and accuracy,” said Heidi Boghosian, from the US National Lawyers Guild.

She affirmed that constitutional rights were also violated in the process against the Cuban Five including the Sixth Amendment, which protects the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

La Riva stated that they began a campaign calling on US Attorney General Eric Holder to immediately move to remedy the situation and added that the only remedy can be the freeing of the Cuban Five and allowing them to go home.

She noted that the mission of the Cuban Five ­who were monitoring anti-Cuba extremist groups that were planning and carrying out terrorist attacks against the island­ was to save lives. “Yet they sit in prison while known terrorists and terror groups walk free in Miami,” she pointed out.

*********************************************
Another Look at an Old Case?

http://thehavananote.com/2010/05/another_look_at_an_old_case_1.html

I’ve just been apprised of new developments with regard to the Cuban Five. Here is the gist:

According to a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Government violated the Smith-Mundt Act, by funding activities to influence public opinion with regard to the Cuban Five, thus influencing the jury pool and calling into question their convictions. It has long been known that the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) paid supposedly independent journalists to write stories about Cuba and the Cuban Five in the Miami press during the period when the government arrested and prosecuted the Cuban Five. If the U.S. government was secretly paying supposedly independent journalists to place stories supportive of the government's prosecution of the Cuban Five, it is highly plausible that they would have affected the jury pool as well as the sitting jury in the case of the Cuban Five. This raises very serious concerns.

I’m familiar with how Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld used various contractors to fabricate stories for the Iraqi press during the early days of the second Iraq War. Likewise, I know about how in the run-up to that war, stories about Iraq’s WMD were placed in foreign newspapers and then­strangely enough­found their way back, via the Internet, to U.S. audiences. This, too, is a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act which constructs a legal firewall between such activities, i.e., the U.S. Government can officially propagandize foreign audiences but not the American public. My familiarity with these instances of government activity leads me to believe that what the BBG is alleged to have done, may indeed be the case.

The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five is currently the plaintiff in the committee v Broadcasting Board of Governors, Civil Action No. 09-01713 before the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The principal claim is that the U.S. public has a right to know about matters involving improper domestic propaganda as well as whether the government compromised the fundamental right to a fair trial of the Cuban Five. A petition for habeas corpus on behalf of one of the Five­Geraldo Hernández, sentenced to two life sentences plus 15 years in prison­is due on 14 June 2010; thus, the need for swift justice if these charges are accurate.

The New York Times, among other outlets reported on the story of reporters taking money from the US Government back in 2006, but the Committee is seeking to determine the identities of other journalists who participated in the program through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The BBG, backed by the USG, is trying to kill any further attempts at exposure.

One of the journalists, Enrique Encinosa, is the man who in an interview in Miami Beach in 2005 regarding the murder of an Italian citizen in a series of hotel bombings in Havana supposedly masterminded by Luis Posada Carriles, had this to say: “I personally think it’s an acceptable method. It’s a way of damaging the tourist economy. The message that one tries to get across is that Cuba is not a healthy place for tourists. So, if Cuba is not a healthy place for tourists because there’s a few windows being blown out of hotels, that’s fine.”

Posted by Lawrence Wilkerson on May 30, 2010 1:51 PM | Permalink



Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org

HURRICANE SEASON 2010

Note: This just what I was thinking about earlier this morning, and then I got this news item from my friend "Storm Waters"; a meteorologist:

...begins June 1.

A private weather forecasting company, Weather Services International, has
increased the number of hurricanes they expect this year. WSI says today
they expect 18 named storms, 10 hurricanes, and 5 intense hurricanes of
Category 3 or greater. That's well above the long-term average which is 10
named storms and 6 hurricanes.

Another interesting factor from WSI's seasonal hurricane forecast is the
landfall forecast. WSI says the coastal region from the Outer Banks of
North Carolina to Maine is twice as likely as normal to experience a
hurricane this year. That part of the country has on average a relatively
low chance in any given year. so, according to WSI’s forecast, the
Northeast region in 2010 has a landfall probability which rivals that of
the Southeast and Gulf Coast.

WSI is owned by The Weather Channel's parent company.

Earlier this year, a seasonal forecast from Colorado State University,
predicted a more active season as well. They predicted 15 named storms, 8
hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes. Again, that calls for a more active
hurricane season than normal.

Look out world it ain't over yet...or is it?!

60 TO 70% CHANCE IS NOT A TOP KILL!! MAYBE WILLIAM SHATNER CAN HELP TO KILL WHAT'S NEVER BEEN KILLED BEFORE?

Gulf awaits word on latest bid to plug oil leak

By BEN NUCKOLS and GREG BLUESTEIN Associated Press Writers

ROBERT, La. (AP) - If oil stops flowing to the surface in the Gulf of Mexico, BP officials will know that their latest effort to plug a blown-out undersea well off the Louisiana coast was successful.

BP PLC was pumping heavy mud into the leaking well, and executives said Wednesday night that there had been no problems so far. Still, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward said engineers would not know until at least Thursday afternoon whether the latest remedy was having some success.

"The absence of any news is good news," said Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who is overseeing the operation. He added: "It's a wait and see game here right now, so far nothing unfavorable."

If the risky procedure, known as a top kill, stops the flow, BP would then inject cement into the well to seal it. The top kill has worked above ground but has never before been tried 5,000 feet beneath the sea. BP pegged its chance of success at 60 to 70 percent.

"We're doing everything we can to bring it to closure, and actually we're executing this top kill job as efficiently and effectively as we can," BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said.

Fishermen, hotel and restaurant owners, politicians and residents along the coast are fed up with BP's failures to stop the oil that is coating Louisiana's marshes and the wildlife that relies on them. The anger has turned toward President Barack Obama and his administration. Polls show the public is souring on their handling of the catastrophe.

Sarah Rigaud, owner of Sarah's Restaurant in Grand Isle is tired and nervous. The oil has to be stopped, she said.

"The tourists won't come," Rigaud said Wednesday, serving lunch to a half-full restaurant of mostly oil workers and local politicians who are worrying themselves.

"It makes me very nervous. I have anxiety attacks," she said. "Every day I pray that something happens, that it will be stopped and everybody can get back to normal."

The gusher, which has spewed 7 million gallons of crude by the most conservative tallies, began after an offshore drilling rig exploded April 20, killing 11 workers. Dozens of witness statements obtained by The Associated Press show a combination of equipment failure and a deference to the chain of command aboard the rig impeded the system that should have stopped the gusher before it became an environmental disaster.

Additional leaks springing from the top kill solution were a grave risk, said Anil Kulkarni, a mechanical engineering professor at Penn State.

"One scenario is that it may make things worse," Kulkarni said. "If it ruptures all over, then it would be even more difficult to close it."

Suttles said BP had not detected any new leaks as of Wednesday night.

He said within the next day, if oil stops flowing to the surface, then engineers will know the drilling fluid being pumped in was starting to work. Engineers were monitoring the well's pressure readings constantly to determine how much oil was escaping.

If not, the company had several backup plans, including sealing the well's blowout preventer with a smaller cap. An earlier attempt to cap the blowout preventer failed. BP could also try a "junk shot" - shooting golf balls and other debris into the blowout preventer to clog it up - during the top kill process.

Last week, the company inserted a mile-long tube to siphon some of the oil into a tanker. The tube sucked up 924,000 gallons of oil, but engineers had to dismantle it during the top kill.

A permanent solution would be to drill a second well to stop the leak, but that was expected to take a couple months.

Some 100 miles of Louisiana coastline had been hit by the oil, the Coast Guard said.

When will they stop the oil and can they? They were questions on the lips of residents in Grand Isle at the bottom tip of Louisiana.

"Certainly there's hope. But the reality for us is that whether they cap it or not, we're still going to have an ecological and economic disaster down here, one that we don't know whether or not we'll be in a position to recover," Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand said.

In Pass a Loutre, the odor wafting above the oily water was that of an auto shop.

"There's no wildlife in Pass a Loutre. It's all dead," Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser said.

Louisiana-raised Democratic strategist James Carville has been critical of the administration response and hoped Obama's visit Friday would change that.

"I think you're going to see some real action," once the president sees the oiled coast, Carville said.

---

G-20 - CONFRONTATION BY PROTESTORS BUILDING IN TORONTO

Canada: Anarchists plan ‘militant’ protests to ‘humiliate the security apparatus’ at G20 It will be militant. It will be confrontational. And some things may be smashed. In a rallying call that has its made its way onto numerous anti-capitalist websites, a group of Ontario anarchists is dropping clues of its plans to disrupt the G20 summit. Anarchists plan ‘militant’ protests to ‘humiliate the security apparatus’ at G20

It will be militant. It will be confrontational. And some things may be smashed. In a rallying call that has its made its way onto numerous anti-capitalist websites, a group of Ontario anarchists is dropping clues of its plans to disrupt the G20 summit. The Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance (SOAR) plans to take part in the June 26 People First march — a popular public rally at London’s G20 summit in 2009 — before continuing down to the security fence to “confront the police state.”
“This action will be militant and confrontational, seeking to humiliate the security apparatus and make Toronto’s elites regret letting the dang G20 in here,” said the message, which first made rounds early last week.
The message promotes several protest events, including a roaming street party, and implores its members to support a variety of tactics.
“Respect for diversity of tactics also means not smashing things while we’re part of the labour child-friendly march, and remembering that although we might think certain tactics are pointless/annoying, we should not needlessly antagonize those people,” the posting reads.
It is unclear how large the group’s membership is. A message to a SOAR organizer wasn’t returned.
The G20’s Integrated Security Unit is keeping an eye on developing protests plans and officers have been in touch with several groups organizing different demonstrations, said ISU spokeswoman Meaghan Gray.
“We’re hoping that all protest action is peaceful and respectful, but we’re prepared for any eventuality,” said Gray.
While SOAR’s rhetoric brings to mind the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City or Seattle (1999) where demonstrations erupted in violence, Syed Hussan of the Toronto Community Mobilization Network says its wrong to assume the summer’s protests will be the same.
“That image, that was 10 years ago,” he said, adding some protesters may have more aggressive tactics than others, but any violence would come at the hands of police.
“The police are the ones with the Tasers. The police are the ones with the sonar cannons. It’s not us,” he said.
The Mobilization Network is connecting groups from across the continent to help coordinate protests of differing interests.

POKE FUN at the BONEHEADS in TOPEKA, KANSAS, JUNE 4TH, 2010


FIRE which is one of the largest anti-immigrant coordinations and the Patriot coalition are holding a joint conference in Topeka Kansas on June 4th, according to the website:
"On June 4th, 2010, The Patriot Coalition and FIRE Coalition will be holding our Midwest National Security Conference at the Old Kansas Supreme Court Chambers in Topeka, KS. This event will be hosted by Coalition Partner November Patriots!"
http://www.firecoalition.com/article/index.asp?type=announce&id=127

 

7-year old Detroit child murdered in cop raid

 



http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/16/michigan.police.child/index.html?hpt=T2

Police in Detroit, Michigan, on Sunday expressed “profound sorrow” at the fatal shooting of a 7-year-old girl in a police raid.
Aiyana Jones was shot and killed by police executing a search warrant as part of a homicide investigation, Assistant Chief Ralph Godbee said in a statement.
“This is any parent’s worst nightmare,” Godbee said. “It also is any police officer’s worst nightmare. And today, it is all too real.”
The warrant was executed about 12:40 a.m. ET Sunday at a home on the city’s east side, Godbee said. Authorities believed the suspect in the Friday shooting death of 17-year-old high school student Jarean Blake was hiding out at the home. Blake was gunned down in front of a store as his girlfriend watched, Godbee said.
Preliminary information indicates that members of the Detroit Police Special Response Team approached the house and announced themselves as police, Godbee said, citing the officers and at least one independent witness.
“As is common in these types of situations, the officers deployed a distractionary device commonly known as a flash bang,” he said in the statement. “The purpose of the device is to temporarily disorient occupants of the house to make it easier for officers to safely gain control of anyone inside and secure the premise.”
Upon entering the home, the officer encountered a 46-year-old female inside the front room, Godbee said. “Exactly what happened next is a matter still under investigation, but it appears the officer and the woman had some level of physical contact.
“At about this time, the officer’s weapon discharged one round which, tragically, struck 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones in the neck/head area.”

The girl was immediately transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Godbee said he and other officers went to the hospital while others stayed at the home to execute the warrant.
Aiyana’s father, Charles Jones, told CNN affiliate WDIV, “She was sleeping and they came in the door shooting and throwing flash grenades … burned my baby up and shot her, killed her.”
Jones claimed the officers had the wrong house, but Godbee said in the statement the 34-year-old suspect in Blake’s death was found and arrested at the home. In addition, a vehicle and a moped matching the descriptions of those involved in Blake’s shooting were also found, he said.
The suspect’s name was not released.
Godbee said he wished to “express to the family of Aiyana Jones the profound sorrow that we feel within the Detroit Police Department and throughout this community. We know that no words can do anything to take away the pain you are feeling at this time.”
Police obtained the “high-risk search warrant” based on intelligence, and it was approved by the prosecutor and a magistrate, Godbee said. “Because of the ruthless and violent nature of the suspect in this case, it was determined that it would be in the best interest of public safety to execute the search warrant as soon as possible and detain the suspect … while we sought a murder warrant,” he said.
The police statement said Chief Warren Evans is out of town and could not be present “to personally address this tragedy,” but “his thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of Aiyana Jones.”
The officer’s weapon was secured, and an investigation is under way, Godbee said, emphasizing the information gained so far is preliminary.
“This is a tragedy of unspeakable magnitude to Aiyana’s parents, family and all those who loved her,” Godbee said. “… It is a tragedy we also feel very deeply throughout the ranks of the Detroit Police Department.
“We cannot undo what occurred this morning,” he said. “All we can do is pledge an open and full investigation and to support Aiyana’s family in whatever way they may be willing to accept from us at this time. I understand that they may not be open to such a gesture at this time, but we do stand ready to do anything we can to support them.”
Protect your babies, or AmeriKKKa will take them away.
 
 
 

AGRO DAIRY RUNNIN' SCARED WITH SOY COMPETITION!!

Sherry F.  Colb "Not Milk?":  Dairy Petitions the FDA to Block Labels Like "Soy Milk" on Non-Dairy Products By SHERRY F. COLB
Wednesday, May 12, 2010

At the end of April, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to stop producers of non-dairy food from using terms such as "milk," "cheese," "ice-cream," "sour cream," and "yogurt" on their product labels. The NMPF characterizes such labeling as a misappropriation of "traditional dairy terms" and contends that "[f]ood labels should clearly and accurately identify the true nature of the food to the consumer. These companies should not be permitted to represent their products as something they are not."

The FDA has issued regulations that support the NMPF's view of words like "milk" and "cheese" and that define such products as essentially dairy in nature. Furthermore, according to the NMPF petition, the FDA has sent warning letters to producers of dairy-free products accusing them of misbranding food by labeling it with words identified with animal ingredients.

The FDA, in other words, appears to agree with the NMPF's contention that producers of dairy-free products mislead the public by using such words as "milk" and "cheese" in labeling.

In this column, I will examine the underlying contention that dairy-free milks including Wildwood Soymilk, Almond Breeze Almondmilk or Whole Foods Ricemilk, nondairy cheeses such as Daiya vegan shreds and Follow Your Heart Cream Cheese, and non-dairy ice-creams like So Delicious and Purely Decadent are engaged in misleading the public about the nature of their products.

Accuracy in Labeling: Lacteal Secretions

In its petition to the FDA, the NMPF emphasizes the importance of accuracy in labeling. The petition states that "[t]hese products [the ones that use "dairy terminology" in various incarnations] should be relabeled to more accurately describe the nature of the food . . ." A consumer interested in purchasing cows' milk, cheese, sour cream, or yogurt, in other words, should be able to understand, when she reads the label and the ingredients on a food product, precisely what she is – and what she is not – purchasing. Words that falsely connote dairy products thus risk confusing the consumer, according to the NMPF.

Whatever one thinks about dairy products, we should all share the NMPF's expressed desire that consumers (of dairy and other packaged items) fully and accurately understand the nature of the products that they consume. Most people are busy with their lives and cannot afford to spend time divining the origin of the ingredients in their food. Accuracy in labeling protects and justifies the trust of consumers, who may not have occasion to think much about what it is that they are purchasing and consuming when they visit the local grocery.

Though one will not likely encounter this precise definition on a container of dairy milk, the NMPF's petition explains that "the term 'milk' refers to the lacteal secretion from a mammal." The federal regulation defining "milk" states more narrowly that "[m]ilk is the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows." (Colostrum is the very early lacteal secretion that mammals produce for their newborn young; it has a different texture and appearance from milk).

Cows' milk, in other words, is the breast milk that a mother cow produces in her body when she gives birth to a baby calf. This is a familiar process, as human females – also mammals – produce milk when they give birth to baby humans. Unlike human babies who nurse with their mothers until their mothers are ready to wean them, however, the baby calf on a dairy farm is forcibly removed from his mother's side while he is still young enough to continue nursing, so that dairy farmers can allow the human population to drink and eat the mother's lacteal secretions. (Humans appear to be the only mammals who continue to drink breast milk into adulthood and who routinely feed, at any time in their lives, on the breast milk of a different animal.)

Consumers might rightly wonder what happens to the baby calf after he is taken from his mother. If he is a boy (and roughly half of a cow's babies are boys), he will be sold and slaughtered as veal. If she is a girl, then she will either become veal, like her brothers, or she will be raised to give birth to babies who are taken away from her, so that she too may be forced to provide "lacteal secretions" to satisfy the human population's demand for dairy products such as lacteal milk, lacteal cheese, lacteal yogurt, lacteal ice-cream, and lacteal sour-cream.

Once a farmer can no longer milk mother and daughter for the quantity of dairy that the populace demands, he considers these females "spent" and sends them to slaughter as well.

The wife of a former dairy farmer describes the cows' and their calves' experience as follows:

"I learned that dairy cows have to be bred every year in order to continue to produce milk, and how their calves are taken from them shortly after birth—they're lucky if they get colostrum from their mom, which is the first milk that is important for their survival. While some of the calves are kept as replacement heifers, most of them are sent to slaughter or the veal operations, which is a very short life, and not a happy life…. The verbalizations made by mother and baby as they bond are just one small aspect of their emotional lives that we humans tear apart. The mother calls for her baby for many days after they're separated. How can such a thing ever be called 'humane?'"

Dairy consumers ought to know these things when they purchase dairy milk and its derivatives, yet there is nothing on the labels that would give them a hint of it. This may be why some people who consider themselves "ethical vegetarians" still consume dairy products. It would be useful to have dairy items labeled to reflect the fate of their bovine producers.

Accuracy in Labeling: Nutritional Quality

When producers of dairy-free goods label their products with traditionally dairy titles, they – according to the NMPF – do so "in an effort to capitalize on the high degree of popularity and appreciation of nutritional quality that dairy products enjoy among consumers." This claim raises an important question: What, exactly, is the nutritional quality of dairy products?

One fact that the NMPF emphasizes in contrasting the quality of dairy products with that of their non-dairy analogues is protein. Dairy has more protein. "Specifically," explains the NMPF, "13 of the 15 soy beverages [listed in the petition] contained less protein than an equal amount of milk, and all of the 12 other non-dairy beverages contained less protein than milk." This disparity is worth examining, in the light of information we have about protein in dairy foods.

Cornell Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry T. Colin Campbell has spent decades studying the impact of animal protein in general, and of dairy protein in particular, on health. Having grown up on a family dairy farm, Professor Campbell ultimately authored The China Study, which The New York Times said "can be considered the Grand Prix of Epidemiology".

Campbell had this to say on his web site about casein, the principle protein in dairy: "[C]asein is very likely the most relevant chemical carcinogen we consume."

The China Study outlines the role of animal protein generally and of the main dairy protein, casein, in particular in cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Though dairy products may in fact contain more protein than their dairy-free analogues, then, this does not necessarily render lacteal secretion milk nutritionally superior to non-dairy substitutes. Indeed, Professor Campbell observes from his decades of epidemiological and experimental research that "[i]n effect, there are many reactions acting in a coordinated and mutually consistent way to cause disease when a diet high in animal protein is consumed."

The NMPF also expresses concerns about mineral deficiencies in those who avoid milk: "Recent research indicates that the diets of a significant proportion of the American population are lacking in essential nutrients, like calcium and potassium (which are present in high levels in dairy foods, with lower amounts in many non-dairy beverages), with less than 30% and 3% of the population consuming the recommended levels of these minerals, respectively."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), however, had this to say about potassium consumption in its 2005 Dietary Guidelines: "Fruits and vegetables, which are rich in potassium with its bicarbonate precursors, favorably affect acid-base metabolism, which may reduce risk of kidney stones and bone loss. Potassium-rich fruits and vegetables include leafy green vegetables, fruit from vines, and root vegetables.  Meat, milk, and cereal products also contain potassium, but may not have the same effect on acid-base metabolism."

According to one source, any one of the following foods actually has more potassium than a cup of 2% luteal-secretion-milk: 1 small banana, 1/2 cup cooked pinto beans, 1 cup tomato juice, 1 baked sweet potato with skin, ½ medium avocado, ½ medium potato with skin, 1 cup cubed cantaloupe or diced honeydew, or 1 tablespoon molasses.

The calcium picture is even more interesting. In The China Study, Professor Campbell wrote the following:

"Americans consume more cow's milk and its products per person than most populations in the world. So Americans should have wonderfully strong bones, right? Unfortunately not. A recent study showed that American women aged fifty and older have one of the highest rates of hip fractures in the world. The only countries with higher rates are in Europe and in the south Pacific (Australia and New Zealand) where they consume even more milk than the United States."

Why would that be, given that dairy milk really does have the high levels of calcium that the NMPF attributes to it? Campbell explains:

"[A]nimal protein, unlike plant protein, increases the acid load in the body. An increased acid load means that our blood and tissues become more acidic. The body does not like this acidic environment and begins to fight it. In order to neutralize the acid, the body uses calcium, which acts as a very effective base. This calcium, however, must come from somewhere. It ends up being pulled from the bones, and the calcium loss weakens them, putting them at greater risk for fracture."

Dairy milk, as the NMPF suggests, contains a large amount of protein, and the protein is – obviously – animal protein. This may account for the link that Campbell discusses between dairy consumption and diseases like osteoporosis that reflect a bone-calcium deficiency. Some calcium-rich plant-based foods are collard greens, almonds, tofu, chickpeas, tahini (sesame seeds), dried figs, and black-strap molasses.

Accordingly, one need not rely on "milk" of any sort to get calcium. In his book, Eat To Live, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, a widely-published medical doctor and nutrition specialist, explains that "[g]reen vegetables, beans, tofu, sesame seeds, and even oranges contain lots of usable calcium, without the problems associated with dairy."

Why Label Dairy-Free Products with the Words "Milk" or "Cheese"?

All of this information may leave us quite puzzled about why dairy-free industries would even want to use words like "milk," "cheese," "yogurt" or "sour cream" to label their products. The reality is that many consumers of dairy-free products specifically wish to avoid dairy.

Unlike a jeweler who might use the word "diamond" in a title to attract wannabe-diamond-owners to its less-expensive diamond imitations, non-dairy food producers – those who market to people who choose soy milk, Daiya cheddar strips, vegan cream cheese, and coconut-based ice-cream – plainly do not want to confuse their customers into believing that these items have dairy in them. Such confusion would hurt business as much as, for example, the impression that a food is non-Kosher would harm the business of a company that is specifically marketing Kosher products to the observant Jewish community.

What, then, is motivating companies to use traditionally dairy-related words in titling their alternative foods? I cannot speak on behalf of all producers or consumers, but I do have a hypothesis. Consumers who have decided, for ethical, environmental, or health (or for all of the above) reasons to stop eating dairy, most likely grew up eating and drinking cow-derived products. As creatures of habit, many people prefer to continue eating the same sorts of foods that they are used to eating. It is quite possibly this desire – reflecting a comfort in familiar experiences, rather than an attraction to the "nutritious and healthful image" of dairy products – that accounts for the use of the terms "milk," or "cheese," or other such language in the labeling of dairy-free foods.

Someone who is accustomed to pouring milk into her coffee or cereal will, once she becomes a vegan, probably want to continue pouring something that has a flavor and texture similar to that of milk into her coffee and cereal. Knowing about "soy milk," "almond milk," "hazelnut milk," and "rice milk" makes her transition simple: she tries the various options and selects the ones she likes best. The label "soy beverage" (as the NMPF recommends as a substitute for "soy milk"), by contrast, would do nothing to let her and other vegan consumers know that the soy product she is buying serves a similar function to that of the dairy milk they consumed in the past.

The same is true for such products as vegan cream cheese, which I can spread on a bagel or use to bake delicious rugelach, or vegan shredded cheddar by Daiya, which I can melt into fantastic quesadillas or grilled cheese or sprinkle onto my favorite vegan macaroni and cheese).

It is the possibility and ease of this transition that may, in fact, be worrying the dairy industry. As the NMPF petition says, "[t]hrough their packaging, labeling, and location in the refrigerated section, these products directly compete with and are marketed as substitutes for fluid milk and other traditional dairy products."

Exactly. And that is as it should be. People who decide to take dairy out of their lives ought to be able, when looking at a product, to identify easily (a) whether it does or does not contain dairy; and (b) for what, if any, animal-based ingredient the dairy-free alternative can serve as a functional replacement. The products of which the NMPF complains do both of those things quite well and are therefore beyond reproach, for those who value truth in advertising.

Sherry F. Colb, a FindLaw columnist, is Professor of Law and Charles Evans Hughes Scholar at Cornell Law School. Her book, When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law, is currently available on Amazon.

WHAT IS "REASONABLE SUSPICION"?

Michael C.  Dorf The New Arizona Immigration Law Raises an Old Question: What is "Reasonable Suspicion"? By MICHAEL C. DORF
Monday, May 3, 2010

Recently, the state of Arizona catapulted immigration issues back onto the national agenda with the passage of a new law mandating that tough measures be taken against undocumented immigrants by state and local law enforcement officers. The law raises a number of important legal and policy issues, such as these: Can a person who is not lawfully present in the United States be found guilty of the further state-law crime of being present anywhere in the state–as authorized by a provision of the Arizona law? Is it wise for a state to adopt an overwhelmingly hostile stance to illegal immigration, thereby providing undocumented immigrants with strong disincentives to cooperate with law enforcement? Last, and most broadly, to what extent do federal statutes and the Constitution permit states to "over-enforce" federal immigration laws, as Arizona has attempted?

One feature of the Arizona law has received special attention. It provides:

[F]or any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373(c).

Critics have argued that, in most cases, "reasonable suspicion" to believe any given person is an undocumented immigrant will merely be the product of the person's ethnicity. How, the critics ask, is a police officer or other government official supposed to distinguish between, on one hand, undocumented immigrants and, on the other hand, U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in the country? Won't they likely use racial profiling to focus on Latinos? After all, a person's immigration status is not easily detectable.

In this column, I shall unpack the "reasonable suspicion" provision of the Arizona law. In doing so, I will question (and then ultimately defend) a basic precept of the constitutional law limiting police investigations: the prohibition on policing by "hunch."

What Is Reasonable Suspicion?

The Arizona legislature did not invent the term "reasonable suspicion." It is a term of art in American constitutional law, traceable to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1968 landmark decision in Terry v. Ohio.

The Fourth Amendment protects a right "against unreasonable searches and seizures." It further provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Taken together, these limits have long been understood to require that before the police subject someone to search or arrest–since an arrest counts as a "seizure" of the person–they must first obtain a warrant from a judge or magistrate that is based upon probable cause that the search will yield evidence of crime, or that the person to be arrested is guilty of a crime. A search or seizure without a warrant that is backed by probable cause is presumptively an "unreasonable" search or seizure.

However, the language of the Fourth Amendment does not literally require warrants, or even probable cause, for every search and seizure. Accordingly, various lines of cases uphold some warrantless searches and seizures, as well as some searches and seizures not backed by probable cause.

Consider a routine example: A police officer walking the beat observes someone acting suspiciously–perhaps walking back and forth in front of a bank furtively placing his hand in his pocket. That person could be fingering a gun as he works up the courage to rob the bank, but he could instead be absentmindedly touching his wallet as he works up the courage to apply for a loan. The officer does not have probable cause to believe the person is engaged in or about to commit a crime, and even if she did, she would not have sufficient time to obtain a warrant to search him from a magistrate or judge. Does this mean that the officer has no power to intervene?

The Supreme Court addressed that question in Terry. In a decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court ruled that a police officer may "stop and frisk" a suspect if the officer observes "articulable facts" that make it "reasonable to assume" that the suspect is armed and dangerous. This standard is less demanding than the "probable cause" that is needed for a full arrest because the nature of the intrusion–a brief stop and a weapons pat-down–is less serious than with an arrest. Although the majority in Terry did not specifically use the term "reasonable suspicion," subsequent cases have made clear that Terry was applying what has come to be called the reasonable suspicion test.

What Counts as Reasonable Suspicion?

Courts have resisted calls to quantify the "reasonable suspicion" standard. However, it appears to be a relatively undemanding test.

Consider, for example, the sorts of factors that law enforcement authorities have successfully invoked in court as part of the so-called "drug courier profile" to meet the reasonable suspicion test. In his 1999 book, No Equal Justice, Georgetown law professor David Cole listed factors that courts had approvingly cited as justifying the conclusion of reasonable suspicion for a stop. Every factor on Cole's list was matched by one or more contrary factors.

Thus, "made eye contact with officer" and "avoided making eye contact with officer" were suspicious. So were "arrived late at night," "arrived early in the morning," and "arrived in afternoon." "Traveled alone" was suspicious, but so was "traveled with a companion." And so on.

Cole uses these and other examples of non-factor factors to argue that when officers purport to employ a drug-courier profile they are often engaging in racial profiling. That may well be right, but there is another possible (or additional) explanation: The problem may not be the factors police articulate for their suspicions, but the requirement that they articulate the basis for their suspicions at all.

Is It Sensible to Require "Articulable" Suspicion?

Although the Terry case is frequently cited as establishing the reasonable suspicion standard, it may be more important for its requirement that a "police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts" that make it reasonable to stop a person. "Anything less," the Terry Court insisted, "would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches . . . ."

On first blush, the requirement of articulable suspicion makes good sense as a means of ensuring effective and equitable policing. Officers who act on "hunches" may simply be giving vent to prejudices or otherwise acting on irrational grounds.

Yet a considerable body of neuroscience and psychology research suggests that for complex multi-factor judgments, actions based on unarticulated hunches actually produce better results than decisions in which people are required to articulate their specific grounds. Popular books like Malcolm Gladwell's Blink and Jonah Lehrer's How We Decide summarize and illustrate this research.

For example, Lehrer recounts the story of how, during the first Gulf War, a Royal Navy radar officer had an uneasy sense that a blip on his screen was an incoming hostile missile, rather than a returning friendly aircraft. The officer could not at the time explain why he "felt" that the blip was a missile, but he nonetheless staked the safety of his comrades in arms on his gut feeling. He was proved right but the explanation of why he was right took considerable post-hoc analysis. Experts eventually determined that because of their altitude differences, a missile would have entered the screen at a slightly different interval than a returning airplane. The officer's unconscious mind–what Lehrer calls the "emotional brain"–worked that out, even though his conscious mind could not explain the basis for his hunch, either in real time or thereafter.

Lehrer uses this and many other examples to show why hunches are often more accurate than conscious decisions that are based on articulable factors. Indeed, a number of studies show that asking people to articulate factors for decisions that are based on emotional reactions will lead to worse decisions. And because the often split-second decision whether to stop a person on suspicion of crime typically involves numerous factors that cannot readily be quantified, it probably falls into the category of questions that the emotional brain does a better job addressing than the rational brain does. Thus, in requiring police officers to articulate their grounds for stopping a person, the Terry rule may actually lead the police to make less accurate predictions of criminal conduct.

It does not necessarily follow, however, that the Terry Court was wrong to require police to be able to articulate the basis for their suspicion before conducting a stop-and-frisk. Even if a conscientious officer's hunch is a better predictor of criminal conduct than the facts he can articulate, hunches can misfire. They can also be infected with racial prejudice, a problem that was just barely below the surface in the Supreme Court's Terry decision. The requirement of articulable suspicion imposes a somewhat artificial and even harmful constraint on policing, but it does so as the price for ensuring fairness.

Should Government Officials Be Permitted to Act on Hunches About Immigration Status?

The new Arizona law does not directly implicate Terry. It only requires Arizona state and local officials to investigate a person's immigration status in the course of a lawful encounter. Such an encounter might be initiated by the suspected undocumented immigrant herself, rather than the official. For example, a clerk in a municipal hospital might develop suspicions based on what a person writes on an insurance form.

More often, however, suspicion about immigration status will arise in the mind of a police officer after he has lawfully stopped a suspect. The Fourth Amendment as construed in Terry already requires that the police officer have an articulable reasonable suspicion of crime to make the initial stop. The new Arizona law adds an additional twist: If, after the initial stop, the officer develops a further reasonable suspicion that the detainee is an undocumented immigrant, the officer then must take steps to ascertain the detainee's immigration status.

Should an officer's hunch be relevant to that further inquiry? The short answer is no. Hunches are only as good as the base of experience on which they rest. A person who has had numerous opportunities to sort undocumented immigrants from persons lawfully present in the United States–such as a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent–might develop an intuitive ability or "sixth sense" for detecting the former. But even then we would legitimately worry that skin color and accent would often play a large part in triggering the ICE agent's hunch. Moreover, Arizona state and local officials who lack training and experience sorting out undocumented immigrants would likely lean even more heavily on such illicit factors.

To be sure, there will be some circumstances that objectively give rise to reasonable suspicion, even without considering race or ethnicity. Writing in the New York Times last week, one of the law's authors gave the example of a police officer stopping a speeding minivan on "a known alien-smuggling corridor" and discovering twelve "passengers crammed inside," all lacking identification. Surely that would give rise to reasonable suspicion of immigration violations, he says. Indeed, that extreme case would satisfy the more demanding requirements of probable cause. But the Arizona law applies in numerous other contexts as well.

The critics of the new Arizona law are right. The core problem with the obligation to investigate that it places on state and local officials is that, in most settings, there are very few if any outwardly visible signs of immigration status that could give rise to reasonable suspicion. That will be true regardless of whether the officials act on expressly-articulated grounds or on the basis of a hunch informed by unarticulated grounds. Thus, whatever one thinks of how "reasonable suspicion" has been defined in the federal Fourth Amendment context, its use in the Arizona law is problematic.

Michael C. Dorf is the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University. The second edition of his book, Constitutional Law Stories, is now available. He blogs at dorfonlaw.org.

Syndicate content