IN 1939, Nestle started bringing cases of their baby formula to third world countries all over the world. They encouraged mothers to stop breast feeding and to use their baby food instead. After the mothers were given baby formula, they lost all of their natural breast milk. So when Nestle pulled their free products and forced the mothers to buy, they couldn't stop buying the formula becasue they had no other way to feed their children. Babies started dying from starvation and becasue mothers would attempt to save the formula by watering it down. But the water was contaminated and the infants would die from diseases in the water. And in 1988, the World Health Organixation wrote the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, which prohibits anti-breastfeeding marketing to better protect the health and welfare of the country. But Nestle continues to ignore the internation code, even today, and constantly uses unethical means to sell their products, such as sending in false representatives and untrue information. The Nestle Boycott started in 1977 and since then has been organizations dedicated to stopping these kind of problems. Please spread the word about this issue and join the boycott on Nestle's products.
Lion
Yorkie
Crunch
Milkybar
Nestle double cream
Ski YoghurtsMunch Bunch Yoghurts
DrifterToffee Crisp
Caramac
Animal Bar
Walnut Whip
Rolos
Munchies
Toffo
Black Magic
Dairy Box
Matchmakers
Polos
Fruit Pastilles
Creepy Crawlies
Bursting Bugs
Blue RibandBreakaway
Heaven
Buxton Water
Vittel Water
Perrier Water
PowWow Water Dispensers
Buitoni Pasta Products
Carnation Evaporated Milk
Various cakes and cake bars from chocolate brands
Herta chilled meats (eg. Frankfurters)
# Nestlé Cheerios
# Nestlé Honey Nut Cheerios
# Nestlé Oat Cheerios
# Nestlé Shredded Wheat
# Nestlé Shredded Wheat Bitesize
# Nestlé Honey Nut Shredded Wheat
# Nestlé Fruitful Shredded Wheat
# Nestlé Clusters# Nestlé Shreddies
# Nestlé Frosted Shreddies
# Nestlé Coco Shreddies
# Nestlé Honey Shreddies
# Nestlé Golden Nuggets
# Nestlé Cinnamon Grahams
# Nestlé Fitnesse
# Nestlé Fitnesse and Fruit
# Nestlé Fitnesse Honey & Nut
# Nestlé Almond Oats & More
# Nestlé Honey Oats & More
# Nestlé Nesquik Cereal
# Nestlé Force Flakes
# Nestlé Cookie Crisp
# A range of Nestlé Fitnesse Bars
# A range of Nestlé Cereal and Milk Bars
Friday, June 27, 2008
Boycott Heinz
BOYCOT HEINZ AND SHOW THEM OUR VOICES SHOULD BE HEARD AND ARE AS VALID AS 200 HOMOPHOBES!
HP
SauceLea & Perrins
TGI Fridays
Jack Daniel's Sauces and Marinades
Delimex Mexian Foods
Weight Watchers
Farleys
Tiny Tums
Classico
Mr Yoshida's Fine Sauces
Nenerina Products
Polly Products
GulosoOre-Ida
Bagel BitesNancy's
WylersSmart Ones
Boston Market
Green Seas
Catelli
The Heinz mayonnaise advertisement showing two men kissing has been taken off air. Heinz received more than 200 complaints from homophobic and ignorant consumers, and Heinz have succomb to this pressure from a minority of ignorant people. These only highlights that gay equality and rights are still being held back and subdued by this way of thinking. Complaints varied, from consumers not wishing to have conversations with their children explaining same sex relationships, to people simply finding it offensive. If parents did explain the diversity of the world we live in, then future generations would not be ignorant to the world they live in and the people around them. Why is two women kissing ok and two men is not. What if the diet coke break advert had been men ogling another man instead of women ogling a man. Why are children being sheltered from something that is supposedly 'accepted' (not that I like that term) and considered as valid a relationship as any other!
HP
SauceLea & Perrins
TGI Fridays
Jack Daniel's Sauces and Marinades
Delimex Mexian Foods
Weight Watchers
Farleys
Tiny Tums
Classico
Mr Yoshida's Fine Sauces
Nenerina Products
Polly Products
GulosoOre-Ida
Bagel BitesNancy's
WylersSmart Ones
Boston Market
Green Seas
Catelli
The Heinz mayonnaise advertisement showing two men kissing has been taken off air. Heinz received more than 200 complaints from homophobic and ignorant consumers, and Heinz have succomb to this pressure from a minority of ignorant people. These only highlights that gay equality and rights are still being held back and subdued by this way of thinking. Complaints varied, from consumers not wishing to have conversations with their children explaining same sex relationships, to people simply finding it offensive. If parents did explain the diversity of the world we live in, then future generations would not be ignorant to the world they live in and the people around them. Why is two women kissing ok and two men is not. What if the diet coke break advert had been men ogling another man instead of women ogling a man. Why are children being sheltered from something that is supposedly 'accepted' (not that I like that term) and considered as valid a relationship as any other!
GAS WAR - BOYCOTT EXXON AND MOBIL
For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to followsuit in order to compete.But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out at this point.... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people.I am inviting everyone I know into this group. If each of you sends a invite to all your friends, this group will grow exponentially and word of the gas war will really get around.All you have to do is invite your friends in order to make a difference.I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you?WELL... WE DO.Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on and invite your friends to the group. I suggest that we not buy fromEXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.THIS CAN REALLY WORKThis will only work if everybody, reading this will FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS.BELIEVE IT.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Same Sex Marriage
Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians often cry that they want Biblical Marriage. Exactly what is Biblical Marriage:
1. In the Bible daughters were sold to their husbands for alliances
2. In the Biblical times marriage occured at around the ages 13 through 16
3. Biblically a woman has no rights to leave her husband, even if he is abusive.
4. A husband could divorce his wife for any reason.
5. Men could have as many wives as they wanted.
6. Marriages were arrainged and were a business transaction between the fathers.
7. A husband could stone his wife if her hymen wasn't intact, offten a hymen is broke while she is a virgin
Do we really want to return to Biblical Marriages
The institution of marriage has been in a state of change for thousands of years. In the United States., it has been redefined Numerous times:
Only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S.
Prior to and during the 1960's, at least sixteen states prohibited mixed race couples from marrying. Inter-racial marriage became legal throughout the U.S. after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in that year.
But, until recently, same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world.
This final restriction was lifted during 2001-APR, when The Netherlands expanded its definition of marriage to include both opposite-sex and same sex couples. Belgium followed suit during 2003-JAN. Next came Ontario, a province in Canada in 2003-JUN. By 2004-NOV, same-sex marriage had become available in most Canadian provinces. When federal law C-38 was signed into law on 2005-JUL-20, SSM theoretically became available across all of Canada. However Prince Edward Island ignored the civil rights of same-sex couples, and refused to issue marriage licenses to them for almost a month. They capitulated when threatened by a lawsuit. Spain passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry on 2005-JUN-29. South Africa's law came into effect on 2006-NOV-30.
Many political jurisdictions have special legislation that allows gay and lesbian couples to register their committed relationship as a civil union or domestic partnership and gain some benefits. These areas include most of the Scandinavian nations, the UK, Switzerland, and many states in the United States. The enabling legislation varies greatly among the jurisdictions. Many couples receive only some of the advantages that opposite-gender couples automatically acquire when they marry. In the case of the U.S., couples typically receive a few hundred state benefits but not the over one thousand federal benefits.
Many people believe that same-sex marriage -- or its equivalent under another name -- will become available to all loving, committed adult couples throughout North America and western Europe sometime in the next few decades -- whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex spouses.
Others -- typically religious and social conservatives -- feel that same-sex marriage is a major threat to the institution of marriage itself. They often describe themselves as "supporters of traditional marriage" which actually means that they want to prevent same-sex couples and their children to be forever denied the approximately 1,400 benefits and rights of marriage.
What is most interesting is that over 51% of heterosexual marriage fail in divorce and about 25% of Evangelical Christians have been divorced
1. In the Bible daughters were sold to their husbands for alliances
2. In the Biblical times marriage occured at around the ages 13 through 16
3. Biblically a woman has no rights to leave her husband, even if he is abusive.
4. A husband could divorce his wife for any reason.
5. Men could have as many wives as they wanted.
6. Marriages were arrainged and were a business transaction between the fathers.
7. A husband could stone his wife if her hymen wasn't intact, offten a hymen is broke while she is a virgin
Do we really want to return to Biblical Marriages
The institution of marriage has been in a state of change for thousands of years. In the United States., it has been redefined Numerous times:
Only after the civil war that African-Americans were allowed to marry in all areas of the U.S.
Prior to and during the 1960's, at least sixteen states prohibited mixed race couples from marrying. Inter-racial marriage became legal throughout the U.S. after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in that year.
But, until recently, same-sex couples could not marry anywhere in the world.
This final restriction was lifted during 2001-APR, when The Netherlands expanded its definition of marriage to include both opposite-sex and same sex couples. Belgium followed suit during 2003-JAN. Next came Ontario, a province in Canada in 2003-JUN. By 2004-NOV, same-sex marriage had become available in most Canadian provinces. When federal law C-38 was signed into law on 2005-JUL-20, SSM theoretically became available across all of Canada. However Prince Edward Island ignored the civil rights of same-sex couples, and refused to issue marriage licenses to them for almost a month. They capitulated when threatened by a lawsuit. Spain passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry on 2005-JUN-29. South Africa's law came into effect on 2006-NOV-30.
Many political jurisdictions have special legislation that allows gay and lesbian couples to register their committed relationship as a civil union or domestic partnership and gain some benefits. These areas include most of the Scandinavian nations, the UK, Switzerland, and many states in the United States. The enabling legislation varies greatly among the jurisdictions. Many couples receive only some of the advantages that opposite-gender couples automatically acquire when they marry. In the case of the U.S., couples typically receive a few hundred state benefits but not the over one thousand federal benefits.
Many people believe that same-sex marriage -- or its equivalent under another name -- will become available to all loving, committed adult couples throughout North America and western Europe sometime in the next few decades -- whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex spouses.
Others -- typically religious and social conservatives -- feel that same-sex marriage is a major threat to the institution of marriage itself. They often describe themselves as "supporters of traditional marriage" which actually means that they want to prevent same-sex couples and their children to be forever denied the approximately 1,400 benefits and rights of marriage.
What is most interesting is that over 51% of heterosexual marriage fail in divorce and about 25% of Evangelical Christians have been divorced
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage
The recent California Constitutional Right to Marry case calls into question the currently proposed “Limit to Marry” Voter Initiative Constitutional Initiative. If Secretary of State Debra Bowen places it on the ballot, she would be wise to have the Legislative Analysts’ opinion consider the following cited cases and also discuss the issue with Attorney General Jerry Brown to inquire whether or not the proposed initiative can even be legally placed on the ballot. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Assembly member Mark Leno, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, and Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, and one of the main attorneys on the winning side of the marriage case, David Codell would be wise to immediately contact Bowen and Brown to raise the issue of the legality of the proposed initiative so that the voters of California are properly informed that there may be a potential problem in enacting the initiative if it passes this November (assuming it qualifies for the ballot). As noted in McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 333: “The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision.” The proposed initiative appears to now attempt to revise the California Constitution to remove the fundamental right to marry and equal protection that gays and lesbians are now afforded under the California Constitution.With that in mind, the Secretary of State must be aware of the following case: Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1313: Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117, 36 P. 424 (Livermore).)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
