tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-292192522024-03-13T11:41:51.927-06:00the veganarchist's ventdwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.comBlogger201125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-17626281158395435592020-08-11T00:50:00.003-06:002020-08-11T00:52:14.285-06:00Twitter Can Suck My Dick Martin<p> twitter is not the moral faggot of the universe...i am!</p>dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14235230729194515681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-26113484947224790852020-04-28T00:42:00.000-06:002020-04-28T00:42:22.205-06:00boo hoo for fort mcmurrayyou can't rape the earth with impunity, you fort mac fucksticks. so stop whining when you get what you deserve. oh dear, a little water has forced you from your homes? look at all the damage YOU'VE caused y'cunts. same goes for you cargill animal murdering cocksuckers. rot in hell, you dirty pricks!dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14235230729194515681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-60328895907315821742014-11-09T14:38:00.000-07:002014-11-09T14:39:29.694-07:00Books Read (So Far) in 2014<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIx6TIsNBBiKwg4ZvE3R0RmjrvATEDKJKxYgRY1dyN5E3QvatKBwtEaooqY2OhOhj7MJ4g2eUMxL3AiNhxcdtP4jHeGImkzjqQUocbn5OnKpZhEto6aMrSPo9NrIvnmfBFP5kP/s1600/Goodreads+++dwdeclare+s+bookshelf++all++showing+1+60+of+60+++sorted+by++date+read+++cover+view+.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIx6TIsNBBiKwg4ZvE3R0RmjrvATEDKJKxYgRY1dyN5E3QvatKBwtEaooqY2OhOhj7MJ4g2eUMxL3AiNhxcdtP4jHeGImkzjqQUocbn5OnKpZhEto6aMrSPo9NrIvnmfBFP5kP/s1600/Goodreads+++dwdeclare+s+bookshelf++all++showing+1+60+of+60+++sorted+by++date+read+++cover+view+.png" height="640" width="290" /></a></div>
<br />dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14235230729194515681noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-4675717005059320172013-01-22T09:32:00.000-07:002013-01-22T09:33:14.693-07:00Dirty Wars: Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley’s New Film Exposes Hidden Truths of Covert U.S. Warfarefrom <a href="http://democracynow.org/">democracynow.org</a> 01-22-2013<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="225" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2013/1/22/dirty_wars_jeremy_scahill_and_rick" width="400"></iframe>
dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-79496437528675123042012-12-17T13:55:00.004-07:002012-12-17T13:59:28.413-07:00Neil Macdonald: Death and delusion in a nation of assault rifles<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/16/f-rfa-macdonald-guns.html"> from cbc.ca</a> December 17, 2012<br />
<br />
by:<br />
Neil Macdonald<br />
Senior Washington Correspondent <br />
<div class="opinion">
</div>
Yet another "national discussion" about guns is under way here, and
it's so anti-rational, so politically cowardly, so …unbearably stupid
that you have to wonder how a nation that has enlightened the world in
so many other ways could wallow in this kind of delusion.<br />
<br />
Twenty children are dead, and journalists and politicians have
assumed those breathy, semi-hushed tones that have become so much the
norm in covering tragedies.<br />
<br />
Everywhere, there is talk about "the grieving process," with pious
asides thrown in about the need to "go home and hug your children," or
pray.<br />
<br />
As if that is going to accomplish anything.<br />
<br />
The American audience is a giant emotional sponge looking for
distraction from its collective gun craziness, and the media obliges,
broadcasting endless montages of victims, with sombre, hymnal piano
music playing underneath.<br />
<br />
After the state medical examiner had finished talking about multiple
bullet wounds in each young victim, all inflicted by the same Bushmaster
rifle, one reporter asked the man to talk about how much he'd cried —
"personally" — while performing the autopsies.<br />
<br />
To repeat: the 20-year-old shooter used a Bushmaster .223 assault
rifle, a commercial model of the military M-16, and the reporter wanted
to talk about crying.<br />
<br />
The weapon is designed for war, firing ultra-destructive bullets that
travel at 3,000 feet per second. It is designed to destroy human life
as efficiently as possible, causing maximum internal damage.<br />
<br />
As a colleague of mine so bitterly remarked, just perfect for a kindergarten operation.<br />
<br />
The shooter's mother, apparently the first victim in this rampage, is
being described in media reports here as "an avid sporting enthusiast"
who "enjoyed the independence" of shooting.<br />
<br />
She reportedly trained her disturbed son (whom she had once yanked out of the system and home-schooled) at the firing range.<br />
<br />
When he left home for the elementary school on Friday, he chose the
Bushmaster and a few semi-automatic pistols, leaving behind his mother's
slower, conventional rifles, along with her dead body.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Terrifying logic</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
Now,
as the so-called national conversation proceeds, politicians and
pundits talk sternly about the importance of remembering that gun
ownership is a constitutional right, practised responsibly by millions
of Americans.<br />
<br />
In this country, people actually speak about "enjoying" shooting
something like a Bushmaster, as if that were some sort of normal
activity.<br />
<br />
Jason Chaffetz, a Republican congressman from Utah, proclaimed on
Sunday that the real problem underlying these kinds of incidents is the
mental health issue: "I am a concealed carry permit holder. I own a
Glock 23, I've got a shotgun, I'm not the person you need to worry
about."<br />
<br />
Well, sorry, senator, but you are certainly one of them, at least in my (admittedly Canadian) book.<br />
<br />
If I understand properly, you live in an urban area, and carry around
a .40-calibre pistol with up to 17 bullets in the magazine, capable of
firing up to five a second, just like one of the pistols the Connecticut
shooter toted.<br />
<br />
In other words, you pack the means to kill more than a dozen people
in moments if you choose, and we just have to trust you to be sensible
and hold your temper.<br />
<br />
Chaffetz's position is, basically, the core of the pro-gun message in
this country: The destructive power of the weapon is not the issue. It
is all about personal responsibility. And personal freedom.<br />
<br />
The logic is terrifying. You could extend it to hand grenades or
flame-throwers. Some people here do. (Though grenades are actually
illegal here).<br />
<br />
Flame-throwers don’t incinerate people, people incinerate people, to paraphrase a favorite gun-lobby aphorism.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The 'child-killing lobby'</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
For
the moment, politically powerful pro-gun groups — "the child-killing
lobby," as the New Yorker's Adam Gopnik, another Canadian, called them
Friday — and most of their lawmaker allies are silent, save for the
occasional declaration that this is a time to mourn, or to denounce "the
gun control vultures already circling the corpses."<br />
<br />
The National Rifle Association's website contains not a single word about the Connecticut massacre.<br />
<br />
But just watch. Soon enough will come the talk about how the Newtown
school shooting just underlines the need for even more ordinary
Americans to arm themselves in self-defence.<br />
<br />
And the weird, horrible reality here is that there is some truth to that. The NRA has helped ensure it.<br />
There are currently about 300 million guns in this country, and gun
laws are looser every year. The high courts have slapped down states
that have tried to restrict gun use.<br />
<br />
It is now quite normal to see people carrying pistols on their hips
in shops and restaurants. Plenty more carry concealed weapons.<br />
<br />
And many of these are criminals. Police are overwhelmed.<br />
<br />
At the same time, it's a safe bet that if Sarah Dawn McKinley, of
Blanchard, Okla., didn't have a gun last January, she'd be a statistic,
too.<br />
<br />
Alone with her toddler as intruders tried to break in, she called 911. The operator told her to do what she had to do.<br />
<br />
She killed one intruder with her late-husband's shotgun long before police arrived. He was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The new normal</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
There are, of course, other good reasons to own guns, especially in isolated rural areas. There always have been.<br />
<br />
I remember a large dog, obviously rabid with foam on its muzzle, staggering toward our farmhouse in Ontario when I was a child.<br />
<br />
My dad shooed my brothers and me inside, fetched his bolt-action
rifle from the bedroom, slipped in a single round, and shot the beast
dead. (He was a pretty good shot).<br />
<br />
Another time, he walked out with that rifle in the middle of the
night and faced down a car full of menacing, drunken, hoodlums in our
lane.<br />
<br />
Years later, a neighbour on a nearby farm was murdered by the "Ottawa
Valley killer," while watching TV. The nearest police station was an
hour's drive from our rural gravel road.<br />
<br />
But my father never owned a Bushmaster. Or an Uzi. Or a sniper rifle. Or a flame-thrower.<br />
<br />
What's taken hold here in America is lunacy. There have been 16 mass
shootings in the U.S. just this year alone, leaving 88 people dead. It's
the new normal.<br />
<br />
Some of the killers wore body armour and fired weapons that scare Marines.<br />
<br />
President Barack Obama has tearfully called for "meaningful action"
on guns, just as he did after another mass shooting during his last
term, and followed up by doing, well, nothing.<br />
<br />
Perhaps he will try something this time, now that his last election is behind him and the history books beckon.<br />
But what, exactly? His first election sent gun lovers racing to stock
up on ammo and new weapons, for fear Obama would take their guns away.
He had to assure them he wouldn’t.<br />
<br />
Now, one of Obama's congressional allies, New York Senator Chuck
Schumer, is mulling the notion of restricting weapon clips to 10
bullets. "We need a new paradigm," declared Schumer.<br />
<br />
How about this instead: Start by taking weapons of war away from people who aren't soldiers or police.<br />
<br />dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-49144398769170857282012-12-17T09:58:00.001-07:002012-12-17T10:03:59.039-07:00Fuck Guns!from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/">The New York Times </a><br />
December 16, 2012
<br />
<h1>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregion/in-newtown-conn-a-stiff-resistance-to-gun-restrictions.html?smid=tw-share">In Town at Ease With Its Firearms, Tightening Gun Rules Was Resisted</a></span></h1>
<h6 class="byline">
By
<span itemid="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/michael_moss/index.html" itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/michael_moss/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by MICHAEL MOSS"><span itemprop="name">MICHAEL MOSS</span></a></span> and <span itemid="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ray_rivera/index.html" itemprop="author" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ray_rivera/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by RAY RIVERA"><span itemprop="name">RAY RIVERA</span></a></span></h6>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
People in the rural, hilly areas around Newtown, Conn., are used to
gunfire. In one woodsy stretch, southeast of downtown, the Pequot Fish
and Game Club and the Fairfield County Fish and Game Protective
Association, where members can fish in ponds and hunt pheasant, lie
within a mile of each other, and people who live nearby generally call
them good neighbors. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
But in the last couple of years, residents began noticing loud, repeated
gunfire, and even explosions, coming from new places. Near a trailer
park. By a boat launch. Next to well-appointed houses. At 2:20 p.m. on
one Wednesday last spring, multiple shots were reported in a wooded area
on Cold Spring Road near South Main Street, right across the road from
an elementary school. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Yet recent efforts by the police chief and other town leaders to gain
some control over the shooting and the weaponry turned into a tumultuous
civic fight, with traditional hunters and discreet gun owners opposed
by assault weapon enthusiasts, and a modest tolerance for bearing arms
competing with the staunch views of a gun industry trade association,
the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which has made Newtown its
home. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The place that witnessed one of the worst mass killings in United States
history on Friday, leaving 20 schoolchildren and 8 adults dead, is a
bucolic New England town comfortable with its firearms, and not an
obvious arena for the nation’s debate over gun control. But the
legislative battle right here shows how even the slightest attempts to
impose restrictions on guns can run into withering resistance, made all
the more pointed by the escalation in firepower. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
“Something needs to be done,” said Joel T. Faxon, a hunter and a member
of the town’s police commission, who championed the shooting
restrictions. “These are not normal guns, that people need. These are
guns for an arsenal, and you get lunatics like this guy who goes into a
school fully armed and protected to take return fire. We live in a town,
not in a war.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The gunman’s mother, Nancy Lanza, had collected several weapons,
including powerful handguns and a semiautomatic rifle that she and her
son, Adam, were fond of shooting, and it remains unclear where they took
their target practice. Much of the gunfire and the explosions reported
by residents to the police in recent months came from a spot less than
three miles from their house. Police logs identified the spot as one of
the town’s many unlicensed gun ranges, where the familiar noise of
hunting rifles has grown to include automatic gunfire and explosions
that have shaken houses. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
“It was like this continuous, rapid fire,” said Amy Habboush, who was
accustomed to the sound of gunfire but became alarmed last year when she
heard what sounded like machine guns, though she did not complain to
the police. “It was a concern. We knew there was target practice, but we
hadn’t heard that noise before.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Earlier this year, the Newtown police chief, Michael Kehoe, went to the
Town Council for help. The town had a 20-year-old ordinance aimed at
hunters that included a ban on shooting within 500 feet of occupied
dwellings, but the chief complained that the way the law was written had
left him powerless to enforce the rules or otherwise crack down on the
riskiest shooting. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The police department logged more than 50 gunfire complaints this year
through July, double the number for all of 2011, records show. Some of
the complaints raised another issue. Gun enthusiasts here, as elsewhere
in the country, have taken to loading their targets with an explosive
called Tannerite, which detonates when bullets strike it, sending shock
waves afield. A mixture of ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder,
Tannerite is legal in Connecticut, but safety concerns led Maryland this
year to ban it. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Mr. Faxon, the police commission member, who is a lawyer, said he wrote
the new ordinance, which would have imposed additional constraints on
shooting, including limited hours, and a requirement that any target
shooting range, and the firearms that would be used there, be approved
by the chief of police to make sure they were safe. This was no liberal
putsch, Mr. Faxon said; three of the five commission members are
Republicans, and two members are police officers. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
“I’ve hunted for many years, but the police department was getting
complaints of shooting in the morning, in the evening, and of people
shooting at propane gas tanks just to see them explode,” Mr. Faxon said.
</div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The proposal was submitted to the council’s ordinance committee, whose
chairwoman, Mary Ann Jacob, would play a heroic role on Friday. Ms.
Jacob is a librarian aide at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where she is
credited with protecting many lives by throwing two rooms crowded with
children into lockdown as the gunfire erupted. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
“We’re growing,” Ms. Jacob said in an interview on Saturday, describing a
town where hikers and mountain bikers now compete with gun owners for
use of the many trails and wooded areas. “The police chief is not
looking to change behavior or go after a group of people, but rather
he’s trying to give his officers the ability, if an incident occurs, to
react appropriately. Right now, if you’re standing on your property and
my house is 20 feet away, you can shoot.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The first meeting took place on Aug. 2, with about 60 people crowding
into the room. Some spoke in favor of the new rules, the meeting minutes
show. But many voiced their opposition, citing the waiting lists at
established gun ranges. Among the speakers was a representative of the
National Shooting Sports Foundation, who was described as saying he
believed there was a greater danger of swimming accidents. “No
privileges should be taken away from another generation,” he said. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The president and spokesman of the group did not respond to messages
left Sunday. Citing the continuing investigation, the group said on its
Web site it would not be commenting on the massacre, but that “our
hearts go out to the families of the victims of this horrible tragedy in
our community.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
A second committee gathering in September drew such a large crowd that
the meeting was moved into a high school cafeteria, where the opposition
grew fierce. “This is a freedom that should never be taken away,” one
woman said. Added another, “Teach kids to hunt, you will never have to
hunt your kids.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
“No safety concerns exist,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesman said, according to the minutes. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The proposed ordinance was shelved, and Ms. Jacob said the committee was
in the midst of researching a more limited rule, perhaps one restricted
to making the existing ban on firing weapons within 500 feet of an
occupied building more enforceable. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
“Five hundred feet!” Mr. Flaxon said in an interview. “A BB gun can go that far.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
Newtown residents said many of the ranges in the area have long waiting
lists of people eager to join, which has led to the profusion of
informal ranges. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
On High Rock Road, where many gunfire complaints originated, what
appeared to be three or more gun ranges were set back from the road. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The owner of one, Scott Ostrosky, said he and his friends had been
shooting automatic weapons since he bought the 23-acre property more
than 12 years ago. It is safe, he said, because his land is sandwiched
between two other gun ranges, the 123-acre Pequot hunting club and the
500-acre Fairfield club. </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
The explosions his neighbors hear are targets that are legally available
at hunting outlets. “If you’re good old boys like we are, they are
exciting,” he said. He said he was distraught at the school massacre but
said guns should not be made the “scapegoat.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
“Guns are why we’re free in this country, and people lose sight of that
when tragedies like this happen,” he said. “A gun didn’t kill all those
children, a disturbed man killed all those children.” </div>
<div itemprop="articleBody">
<br /></div>
<div class="authorIdentification">
<i>Reporting on the Connecticut shootings was contributed by Alison
Leigh Cowan, Robert Davey, Joseph Goldstein, Kia Gregory, Raymond
Hernandez, Thomas Kaplan, Randy Leonard, Andy Newman, William K.
Rashbaum, Michael Schwirtz, Michael D. Shear, Ravi Somaiya and Vivian
Yee.</i></div>
dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-59898673976860135612012-12-09T11:48:00.003-07:002012-12-09T13:43:41.767-07:00An Oil & Gas Haiku<div style="text-align: center;">
The video below shows oil and gas PR apologists pretending to have the best interests of the people of Fort Chipewyan in mind.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
From the film, White Water, Black Gold (2011)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwEFg-KZr6djgkML8NMPB-s6NQxCSy1sK395bHYtwUbKra0_RXBwN4Rsu190ZfrU2B0iw7u0KT4vA8' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
the following is a haiku written by the 2007 VegNewsletter haiku contest winner, Lucy:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
when you're dying of</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
cancer, fried chicken is not</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
really the answer </div>
dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-22394203990814702302012-10-20T15:13:00.001-06:002014-01-12T19:28:48.408-07:00Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Launch Legal Challange Against Tar Sands<br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
<i> </i> </div>
from <i><a href="http://www.nationofchange.org/alberta-tar-sands-illegal-under-treaty-8-first-nations-charge-1350746002">NationofChange.org</a></i><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Alberta Tar Sands Illegal under Treaty 8, First Nations Charge </span><br />
<br />
<i>by <u><b>Kristen Moe </b></u></i><br />
<i>YES Magazine/News Report </i><br />
<i>Published: Saturday 20 October 2012</i><br />
<br />
<br />
In 1899, First Nations in northern Alberta signed a treaty with Queen
Victoria that enshrined their right to practice traditional lifeways.
Today, it’s the basis for a legal challenge to Shell Oil’s mining of tar
sands. <br />
Fort Chipewyan is a small indigenous community on the edge of vast
Lake Athabasca in Alberta’s remote north, accessible only by plane in
summer and by snow road in winter. The town is directly downstream from
the Alberta tar sands—Canada’s wildly lucrative, hotly debated, and
environmentally catastrophic energy project.<br />
<br />
Residents say that tar sands mining is not only dangerous but illegal
because it violates the rights laid out in <a href="http://www.otc.ca/siteimages/Treaty8.pdf">Treaty 8</a>, an agreement
signed in 1899 by Queen Victoria and various First Nations. Their legal
challenge to the tar sands project could have a powerful impact on the
legal role of treaties with First Nations people.<br />
It should come as no surprise that Fort Chip’s relationship to the
tar sands industry is a contentious one.<br />
<br />
Being first in line downstream
means that residents are the first to feel the effects of pollution: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62818/title/Tar_sands_fingerprint_seen_in_rivers_and_snow">poisoned water</a>, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-12.shtml">air</a>, and animals. The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mutant-fish-lead-to-calls-for-ottawa-to-monitor-oil-sands/article1380106/">deformed fish</a> with
bulbous tumors that residents pull from Lake Athabasca are legendary,
as are the stories of Fort Chip’s abnormally frequent cases of rare
forms of cancer.<br />
<br />
The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), many of whose members
live in Fort Chip, responded on October 1 with a landmark constitutional
challenge to Shell Canada’s <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/08/27/sci-cp-jackpine-oilsands-shell-scientists.html">expansion of its Jackpine tar sands mine</a>.
The challenge states that the expansion would be a further assault on
their rights as First Nations people, which are federally protected
under Treaty 8.<br />
<br />
<br />
The Jackpine expansion, which will be reviewed at the end of the
month, would destroy over fifty square miles of land and begin mining
portions of the Muskeg River in Canada’s most important watershed. AFCN
members point out that both the federal government and Shell have
ignored their legal duty to consult with them. This time, they’re going
to fight back.<br />
<br />
“As long as the sun shines”<br />
<br />
As indigenous people, the relationship with the land sustains the
Chipewyan: the plants and medicines they gather, the moose and fish that
form the basis of the traditional diet, the water from the lake, and
the deep spiritual connection with this particular place. Land is the
basis for culture and identity; when the land is destroyed, so are the
people.<br />
<br />
When the threats to health and traditional ways of life associated
with tar sands mining are lamented, what’s often missing is the
recognition that the mining is also in violation of Treaty 8.
The Treaty, which covers an area twice the size of California within
northern Alberta and neighboring provinces, guarantees basic rights such
as health care and education, as well as the right to pursue
traditional ways of living, including trapping, hunting, and harvesting.
If the government does decide to reduce the amount of land used for
these activities, it has a duty to consult with and accommodate the
affected First Nations. According to the treaty itself, this agreement
will remain valid “as long as the sun shines, the grass grows, and the
rivers flow.” So, forever—in theory.<br />
<br />
Treaty 8—along with the ten other treaties that were signed a hundred
years ago and supposedly guarantee the continuation of native ways of
life—isn’t supposed to have an expiration date. But the treaty’s
language begs the question: what happens when the sun no longer shines
because it’s obscured by smog? When the grass has been turned into an
open pit mine, and when the rivers no longer flow because that water is
siphoned off for bitumen processing? If the original signatories had
known that this remote outpost would be turned into a smoke-belching <a class="external-link" href="http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/canadian-tar-sands-look-like-tolkeinatms-mordor-says-un-water-advisor.html">Mordor</a>, it would probably have raised some eyebrows. On both sides.<br />
<br />
Wide repercussions for native land rights<br />
<br />
Chelsea Flook of the Sierra Club, which works closely with AFCN, is
hopeful about the case. No constitutional challenge based on Treaty 8
rights has ever been fully argued before a judge, she says. It’s a test
case that, if successful, could set a precedent for stricter enforcement
of treaty rights and change the way industrial development is
regulated. More importantly, though, it would embolden indigenous groups
all over the Canada to fight abuses by both industry and government.<br />
<br />
For those of us in the United States, the gains and losses of a tiny
native community, closer to the Arctic circle than most of us will ever
get, may seem remote. But what’s at stake here isn’t just a few hundred
people’s ability to hunt moose and conduct ceremonies in a particular
spot. Both the U.S. and Canada share a history of colonizing what is
essentially stolen land; our societies were built on a common system of
disenfranchisement.<br />
<br />
Honoring the treaties means honoring the most basic of agreements:
the protection of a way of life—and, by extension, life itself. In the
years since that day in 1899 when Treaty 8 was signed, every attempt to
erase or assimilate indigenous people has been made, regardless of any
commitment on paper. Native language and culture have been criminalized,
children have been relocated to residential schools, and genocide has
been a government policy. Industrial destruction of land is one final
assault.<br />
<br />
It’s a brutal and violent history, one that’s not taught in school.
Coming to terms with our own past—as Canadians, as Americans, as
colonizers—is unpleasant. It means seeing ourselves, here and now, in an
unflattering light. Honoring agreements such as Treaty 8 means
acknowledging all the ways these documents have been violated.<br />
<br />
With this constitutional challenge, ACFN is forcing the Canadian
government to look in the mirror. It’s a small step with huge
implications, and a starting point for redressing more than a century of
broken promises.<br />
<br />
<i>Kristin Moe wrote this article for <a class="external-link" href="http://www.yesmagazine.org/">YES! Magazine</a>,
a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and
practical actions. Kristin is a writer and climate justice activist from
the U.S., spending three months in Alberta writing about the social and
cultural impacts of the tar sands.</i>dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-84067187070356160172012-09-19T10:35:00.000-06:002012-09-19T10:49:07.379-06:00Hunter Attacked By Grizzly<a href="http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/blogs/Injured+hunter+scares+grizzly+with+gunshot+near+Swan+Hills/7262934/story.html">from the edmonton journal 09-19-2012</a><br />
<br />
<span class="name">By Mariam Ibrahim</span><br />
<br />
A 48-year-old man is in hospital with potentially life-threatening
injuries after he was attacked by a grizzly while hunting alone Tuesday
near Swan Hills.<br />
<br />
The man was in a forested area about nine
kilometres northwest of Swan Hills when the bear attacked him from
behind sometime before 10 a.m., STARS air ambulance spokesman Cam Heke
said.<br />
<br />
The attack continued until the hunter was able to reach his gun, Heke said.<br />
<br />
“The patient said he was able to fire off a round, which scared the bear away,” he said.<br />
<br />
The hunter then walked several kilometres looking for a cellphone signal before he could call for help.<br />
<br />
STARS
was dispatched to the scene shortly before 10 a.m. and landed just
under an hour later. Emergency crews used an all-terrain vehicle to
transport the man from the forest to the helicopter, Heke said.<br />
<br />
He was later flown to the QEII Hospital in Grande Prairie in serious condition.<br />
<br />
The man’s identity was not released.<br />
<br />
Swan Hills RCMP did not release any information on the attack and could not be reached for comment.<br />
<br />
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal<br />
<br />
hunter attacked by grizzly. all i can say is yippee and boo-fucking-hoo. suddenly the hunter has become the hunted. pity the bear didn't kill the piece of shit redneck. be kind to animals and leave nature be, you cunt!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-86109867534633325162012-09-18T18:36:00.002-06:002013-12-22T13:03:20.159-07:00Fuck Alberta Rednecksjust saw a story on <a href="http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.961970">cfrn news</a> about some fucking asshole who hit two bison last night at elk island national park with his dodge vehicle and just took off. he hit the first animal, left the scene, then a short while later hit and killed the second one and then sped away.<br />
<br />
how fast must this piece of shit have been going? the speed limit is 60 km on the road going through the park which gives a person plenty of time to stop, day or night, if there are buffalo on the road. elk island is supposed to be a safe haven for these animals, it is <i>their</i> place. i am so fucking sick of ignorant, thoughtless alberta rednecks killing wildlife, destroying nature or <a href="http://theveganarchist.blogspot.ca/2012/09/alberta-makes-me-sick-to-my-stomach.html">defacing cultural heritage sites</a>. fuck 'em all!<br />
<br />
<i><b>update 09-19-2012</b></i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/no-charges-driver-killed-2-elk-island-bison-013800445.html">from cbcnews.ca</a><b></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A man who struck and killed two bison while driving
through Elk Island National Park Wednesday morning will not be charged,
according to RCMP.<br />
<br />
Const. Shane Kitzman says the man was driving
through the park at around 6:30 a.m. when his Dodge Ram hit the animals
on the main road.<br />
<br />
Kitzman says the park can be a dangerous place for drivers, especially in the early morning or late night.<br />
<br />
"We always suggest for people driving through the park to obviously drive with caution as the buffalo do move slow,” he said.</blockquote>
<br />
how fast was this man driving? the posted speed limit gives motorists ample time to stop for
animals on the road. clearly, the pickup truck owner was driving too
fast and recklessly in a national park and now two buffaloes are dead
because of his careless and thoughtless actions. <br />
<br />
slow down in our national parks and have respect for the wildlife who
live there is the message that needs to get through to people. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-8563229347545910142012-09-18T11:01:00.000-06:002012-09-19T09:52:05.835-06:00Alberta Makes Me Sick To My Stomach<h1 class="npStoryTitle">
<a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/alberta-aboriginal-rock-etchings-defaced-with-drill-power-washer-acid/">Alberta aboriginal rock etchings defaced with drill, power washer, acid</a></h1>
From the National Post September 18, 2012 by <span class="npAuthor"><a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/author/ahumphreys/">Adrian Humphreys</a></span><br />
<br />
<div class="npStoryPhoto npTxtPlain">
<img alt="CHRIS DAVIS/PINCHER CREEK VOICE" class="attachment-single-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" height="465" src="http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/glenwood_erratic_cdavis8.jpg?w=620" title="One of two spots where drills were used to eradicate images that were carved into rock." width="620" /> <br />
<div class="npPhotoTxt">
<div class="npGroup">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.pinchercreekvoice.com/2012/09/drills-and-water-under-pressure-used-to.html"><span class="npPhotoCredit">CHRIS DAVIS/PINCHER CREEK VOICE</span></a><span class="npPhotoCaption"> One of two spots where drills were used to eradicate images that were carved into rock.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="npImgRight">
<div class="npPosRel" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em; width: 350px;">
<img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-213557" height="350" src="http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/glenwood_erratic_cdavis7.jpg" title="CHRIS DAVIS/PINCHER CREEK VOICE" width="350" /><br />
<div class="npPhotoTxt npTxtPlain npTxtLeft">
<div class="npGroup">
<span class="npPhotoCredit">CHRIS DAVIS/PINCHER CREEK VOICE</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
Historians are comparing it to the Taliban’s destruction of massive
Buddhist statues in Afghanistan: Ancient aboriginal pictograms and
petroglyphs on an Albertan rock formation have been systematically
destroyed by cultural vandals using a rock drill, acid and a power
washer.<br />
<br />
The obliteration of the etchings on the Glenwood Erratic near Pincher
Creek in southern Alberta was discovered last week, just as an
historian was about to photograph and test the markings.<br />
<br />
“The site is part of the earliest heritage of Canada,” said Michael
Dawe, Curator of History at Red Deer Museum. “It looks like an ancient
ceremonial/religious site at Glenwood, Alta., was deliberately
destroyed. If true, this is a shocking and appalling incident.”<br />
<div class="npRule npRelated">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMGLvIg5VvU9LXigLXLdNe_CijDgNTgJXTdGJudvGXR8RPuBrAb__mo7Afk59jk0FLxyhq44lBblFs2SE6gdpfS2NzkPCcZKF-DyXhv_uUJSryPyQf6es-4C5HxbQg8F_1K10G/s1600/na0918-pictographs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMGLvIg5VvU9LXigLXLdNe_CijDgNTgJXTdGJudvGXR8RPuBrAb__mo7Afk59jk0FLxyhq44lBblFs2SE6gdpfS2NzkPCcZKF-DyXhv_uUJSryPyQf6es-4C5HxbQg8F_1K10G/s1600/na0918-pictographs.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
The carvings formed a large face on the top surface of the stone,
facing the sky, and also included evidence of early syllabic writing,
said Stanley Knowlton, head of interpretive services at Head Smashed-In
Buffalo Jump, a Unesco World Heritage Site.<br />
<br />
“It is almost like someone wants to block this kind of research,”
said Mr. Knowlton, who discovered the destruction. The attack is a
mystery, he said.<br />
<br />
“Why? Well, that’s the big question. If you find out why, you might be able to find out who.”<br />
<br />
He wonders if someone wants to destroy evidence suggesting the
Blackfoot First Nations had a written language before European
migration. The damage is the latest destruction of aboriginal pictograms
and petroglyphs in Alberta, he said.<br />
<br />
News of the loss is perplexing and troubling archaeologists and historians in the province.<br />
<br />
“As in the case of the deliberate destruction of early Buddhist
carvings in Afghanistan and saints tombs in Timbuktu, any attempt to
deliberately ‘erase’ an irreplaceable part of Canada’s ancient cultural
and/or religious heritage is outrageous and inexcusable,” said Mr. Dawe.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="npBlock npImgPlain">
<div class="npPosRel" style="width: 620px;">
<img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-213558" height="408" src="http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/glenwood_erratic_cdavis23.jpg" title="Dark discolourations mark where petroglyphs and pictographs existed before they were destroyed." width="620" /><br />
<div class="npPhotoTxt npTxtPlain npTxtLeft" style="text-align: center;">
<div class="npGroup">
<span class="npPhotoCaption">Dark discolourations mark where petroglyphs and pictographs existed before they were destroyed.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
“If this has happened in Canada, it should be denounced and those
responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”<br />
<br />
Mr. Knowlton has been visiting the Glenwood Erratic for more than a
decade, partly as a historian and partly as a member of Piikani First
Nation.<br />
<br />
“This group of rocks are very revered by the native peoples,” he said.<br />
<br />
The presence of red ochre signified the rock was a sacred ceremonial
site, perhaps thousands of years ago, he said, leading him to pause his
examination out of cultural respect.<br />
<br />
Starting about five years ago, he oversaw tobacco ceremonies and
other aboriginal rites to prepare the way for a thorough examination and
survey of the symbols, including plans to take samples from the ochre
paint in the grooves of the carvings to determine how old they might be.<br />
<br />
When the thick lichen that covered many of the symbols began to
shrivel and flake after the hot, dry summer, he took that as a sign the
site was prepared to give up its secrets.<br />
<br />
“When the lichen started to come off, that was the signal that we were allowed in,” he said. He planned his survey for the fall.<br />
<br />
Mr. Knowlton arrived on the morning of Sept. 9 and noticed tire
tracks leading toward the almost five-metre high rock that has vertical
sides. Around its base, which is about eight metres wide with a similar
length, the long prairie grass had been flattened by activity.<br />
<br />
He placed his ladder and climbed to the top where he stood in dismay.<br />
<br />
“To my absolute horror, I could see what kind of damage had been done. I just couldn’t believe it.”<br />
<br />
The attack likely took place at night, to avoid being seen by nearby
Hutterite farmers on whose property the rock sits, after being dropped
there by a retreating glacier in the prehistoric past.<br />
<br />
A power washer was apparently used to strip off the lichen to reveal
the carvings and stained symbols. It appears acid was then sprayed to
scorch off the painted images and destroy its value for date testing,
Mr. Knowlton said.<br />
<br />
A rock bore or hammer drill was used to repeatedly drill out the rock to obscure the carvings.<br />
<br />
To do all of that would have required more than one person, a power
generator, a pressure washer with a 100-litre water tank, a 1-1/2-inch
electric hammer drill, appropriate bits, access to acid or a similar
industrial-strength chemical, lights, ladders and a heavy truck, he
said.<br />
<br />
“It seems a deliberate effort,” said Mr. Knowlton. “This isn’t a theft or simple vandalism.”<br />
<br />
Another Alberta site containing aboriginal pictograms and petroglyphs
was recently filled in with epoxy cement, while another blown up for
use as gravel.<br />
<br />
In a different type of incident, a rare dinosaur skeleton found near
Grande Prairie was destroyed by vandals who had “smashed
indiscriminately” the fossilized bones of the Hadrosaur, scientists
involved in the dig said.<br />
<br />
<span class="npDateline">© Copyright (c) National Post</span><br />
<br />
<div class="post-message publisher-anchor-color " data-role="message">
almost
makes you wonder if the oil and gas industry isn't somehow involved in
the destruction. there is so much drilling and fracking going on in the
province, <a href="http://environment.alberta.ca/02242.html">with 10 - 15 thousand new wells being drilled each year</a>, that
if something gets in the way of accessing those fossil fuels, it will be
destroyed.<br />
<br />
trouble is however, if that something is culturally significant,
people might make a stink about it and try to protect it...but only if
they are aware of its existence. so why not go into the area in the dark
of night and eradicate any remnants of petroglyphs or pictographs. then
all you're left with is a big rock that most people probably don't give
a damn about. you can then bust it up and drill away.<br />
<br />
maybe all this sounds a little conspiratorial, but government and
industry have lied so many times to the people of this province, that
the only thing they have demonstrated for certain is that they cannot be
trusted. and quite frankly, when it comes to making money in alberta
the environment, wildlife or cultural heritage does not stand a chance.<br />
</div>
<br />
<span class="npDateline"> </span>dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-20998873419041687972012-09-05T08:55:00.001-06:002012-09-05T09:01:32.551-06:00Canadian Democracy: Death by PipelineBy <a href="http://www.onearth.org/author/andrew-nikiforuk">Andrew Nikiforuk</a><br />
<span class="date-display-single">August 27, 2012</span> <br />
<br />
<div class="art_body_text">
<i>Shipping dirty tar sands oil could rip apart Canada’s wilderness -- and its democracy</i><br />
<br />
You should know a few things about the Gitga’at people. They live in
British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest, just south of Alaska, and
speak the Tsimshian language. They dance and sing like spirited Maori
warriors. The women speak softly to living cedar trees when they harvest
a single strip of bark for basket or hat making. Every summer the
Gitga’at greet returning schools of pink and chum salmon with smiles and
shouts of "Ayoo, ayoo." Each member of the Gitga’at nation possesses a
traditional name -- Gu thlaag, for example, means "the very instant that
lightning hits a tree and the tree splits apart." For the past 10,000
years the Gitga’at have set their dinner tables with bounty from the
sea, including salmon, cockles, crab, and halibut. In recent years they
have struggled as commercial fisheries have declined in the region, yet
the Pacific Ocean still defines them.<br />
<br />
About one-quarter of the
750 or so Gitga’at people live in Hartley Bay, a picturesque village
that lies in a mist-shrouded forest just west of the mighty Quaal River,
near the mouth of a fjord called the Douglas Channel. The community is
120 miles south of Alaska and a two-and-a-half-hour boat ride from the
port of Kitimat. But Hartley Bay may soon lose its remoteness as well as
its ocean bounty. Enbridge, the giant Canadian pipeline company that <a href="http://www.onearth.org/article/the-whistleblower">spilled more than 20,000 barrels of toxic bitumen</a>
into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010, now wants to build two
pipelines from Alberta’s tar sands to Kitimat. The import line would
take 193,000 barrels of foreign condensate (a gasoline-like substance)
brought in by supertankers and pump it more than 700 miles to the tar
sands to dilute the heavy crude, which has the consistency of molasses.
The export line would then carry 525,000 barrels of diluted bitumen back
to the coast -- every day.<br />
<br />
The twin pipeline proposal, known as <a href="http://www.northerngateway.ca/" target="_blank">Northern Gateway</a>
and funded largely by Chinese state-owned oil companies, would bring
about 220 tankers to Hartley Bay’s doorstep every year. But for the past
six years the Gitga’at community and its coastal neighbors have
politely but steadfastly informed Enbridge executives that they have no
intention of putting their food supply at risk from tanker spills, just
so that tar-sands developers can put more cars on the road in smoggy
Shanghai. Nor are they willing to exchange their views of rising
humpback whales for supertankers eight times larger than the <i>Exxon Valdez</i>.<br />
<br />
The Gitga’at belong to <a href="http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/" target="_blank">Coastal First Nations</a>
(CFN), an alliance of 10 nations and 20,000 people whose territory
occupies about two-thirds of the British Columbia coastline. Under the
Canadian constitution, the federal government (as well as private
corporations) has a duty to consult with First Nations on projects like
Northern Gateway, especially with those nations that have not
relinquished by treaty their title or right to their homelands and
waters. Officials from Enbridge originally promised to respect the
wishes of these coastal dwellers. But in September 2011 Enbridge CEO Pat
Daniel admitted to First Nations leaders that his company had done a
poor job of consultation. "We don’t want to build this project with
strong opposition...we want to listen and understand," he added.<br />
<br />
Yet
the CFN sees only a trail of broken promises. "They want a battle with
First Nations and we are up for the challenge," says Art Sterritt, the
alliance’s 64-year-old executive director and a member of the Gitga’at.
"We fight best when we have a common enemy."<br />
<br />
Eighty-six-year-old Helen Clifton is the matriarch of the Killer
Whale clan of the Gitga’at nation. Her Gitga’at name, Gwula Nax Nox,
means "always seeing." In the quiet of her living room, she calls the
megaproject a threat to her people’s food, which, she says, has been
blessed by the Creator. "There has got to be a time when you say no and a
time to step back," she says. "You can’t challenge Mother Nature."<br />
<br />
The
Gitga’at are not alone in what is shaping up as an epic battle for the
future of Canadian democracy. The ruling Conservative Party, headed by
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has based its economic strategy on an
aggressive push for hydrocarbon development, hoping to turn Canada into
an "emerging energy superpower" akin to Saudi Arabia. Over the past
decade, many of the world’s richest corporations, including ExxonMobil,
Shell, and China’s state-owned refining giant Sinopec, have poured tens
of billions of dollars into the controversial tar sands project,
responding in part to Canada’s low taxes and royalties. A chunk of
forest and muskeg the size of the state of Delaware will be excavated in
the process. Bitumen, a dirty fuel that requires a huge amount of
energy for conversion into synthetic crude, is now Canada’s most
profitable export to the United States, dominating refining markets in
the Midwest. Currently the tar sands produce about 1.6 million barrels a
day, but Northern Gateway and its Asian tankers would increase that
almost threefold by 2035.<br />
<br />
However, there’s a problem. Unfettered
development of the tar sands has already produced a bitumen glut in
North American markets at the same time that demand for oil on the
continent has peaked and is now steadily declining. As a consequence,
Canada can’t become a global petro-power without getting its bitumen to
tidewater ports.<br />
<br />
To get a million barrels of bitumen a day to the
Gulf of Mexico at Port Arthur, Texas, the Harper government strenuously
lobbied politicians in Washington on behalf of the Keystone XL
pipeline. When that project became bogged down in public protests and
regulatory delays, Harper abandoned a 2008 policy that restricted
bitumen shipments to China and became an outspoken cheerleader for
Enbridge and Northern Gateway. Putting bitumen on supertankers bound for
Asia "will require some significant infrastructure projects to go
forward," Harper said recently in Bangkok. "And we’re obviously…looking
at taking steps necessary to ensure we can get timely regulatory
decisions."<br />
<br />
There is nothing subtle about Harper or the "necessary steps" he has taken. His government has been characterized by the <i>Economist</i>
as "intolerant of criticism and dissent," with a penchant for
rule-breaking. Early in 2012 it branded First Nations and environmental
groups opposed to Northern Gateway, including the Canadian office of the
U.S.-based nonprofit ForestEthics and the David Suzuki Foundation, as
foreign-funded "radicals" opposed to economic prosperity. Environmental
groups with charitable status that have challenged bitumen mining have
been subjected to federal investigation. And to make sure that
Enbridge’s pipeline experiences none of the delays that have beset
Keystone XL, the Harper government launched a concerted attack in March
and April on most of Canada’s main environmental laws.<br />
<br />
"The
debate is no longer about a pipeline," says Robyn Allan, an economist
and former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. "It’s
about an energy strategy designed in the boardrooms of Big Oil that’s
being forced on the Canadian public."<br />
<br />
Enbridge already moves more
than two million barrels of oil a day through some of the world’s
longest pipelines. Like the Harper government, it portrays Northern
Gateway as Canada’s "path to the future." Janet Holder, the company’s
executive vice president for western access, told a crowd of Toronto
business leaders last May that the pipeline may be Canada’s single most
important infrastructure project, given that oil has become the nation’s
most lucrative export, worth $67 billion in 2011. Yes, Holder admitted,
the project might be controversial, but only because it was being
proposed "in a region where oil pipelines have not existed for decades,
which naturally gives rise to concerns among local residents about the
local environment."<br />
<br />
That, to put it mildly, is an understatement.
Enbridge’s pipeline is a technically challenging piece of engineering
that would cross more than 700 salmon-bearing waterways fed by
snowcapped mountains in Canada’s most spectacular geography: the Great
Bear Rainforest. The forest supports surprising gatherings of white
spirit bears, black bears, and grizzlies, which assemble at the mouths
of clear-running rivers in the fall, together with countless eagles, to
feed on some of the world’s greatest salmon runs. These ancient river
oases, located at the base of some of the deepest fjords on the planet,
are a reminder of what the earth once was: a wild place.<br />
<br />
The
rainforest, covering a protected area twice the size of Yellowstone, is
home to about 30,000 people and 28 distinct First Nations. Their
flamboyant aboriginal culture created such a wealth of remarkable
wood-based art in the form of totem poles and facial masks that it
helped inspire the European Surrealist movement. The rainforest also
represents a novel economic vision. In 2006, after a decade-long
conservation battle, First Nations, the logging industry, and
environmental groups, including <a href="http://www.forestethics.org/" target="_blank">ForestEthics</a>
and the Natural Resources Defense Council, forged an unprecedented
agreement to protect both the forest and its island-studded coastline.
More than $100 million, some of which came from U.S. foundations, was
raised to manage the rainforest under a plan that called for (and still
does call for) ecotourism, renewable energy, sustainable forest
products, shellfish aquaculture, and the restoration of First Nations’
access to fisheries. It is about making a living -- as opposed to a
killing -- and not being dependent on one industry, says Sterritt, who
logged and fished in the region as a young man.<br />
<br />
The Harper government initially signed on to the ambitious plan. Together with <a href="http://www.tidescanada.org/strangebedfellows/index.html" target="_blank">Tides Canada</a>,
an environmental and social justice organization, it proposed to fund a
large protected area, known as the Pacific North Coast Integrated
Management Area, off the coast of the Great Bear, stretching from Alaska
to Vancouver Island. But then Enbridge officials came calling with
their $5.5 billion plan for pipelines and tankers. They even showed up
in Hartley Bay and offered the Gitga’at the chance to run an oil-spill
cleaning company, recalls Marven Robinson, a 43-year-old local First
Nation official and ecotour guide. Robinson told the officials that the
Gitga’at weren’t interested. (Later the company came back with another
offer: he could own and operate the tugboats needed to guide
supertankers through the Douglas Channel. The answer was the same: no
thanks. "It’s just crazy what they think money can buy," says Robinson,
whose Gitga’at name, Maan Giis Heitk, means "one step higher.")<br />
<br />
When
Enbridge officials approached the Coastal First Nations with their
pipeline proposal, Sterritt asked if they genuinely intended to respect
aboriginal sovereignty. Enbridge said yes, and even gave the CFN
$100,000 to do its own research on pipelines and tankers. The group
spent much of the money gathering information in Alaska, finding out
what it could about the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and the <i>Exxon Valdez </i>disaster.<br />
<br />
In
many respects the 800-mile-long pipeline, which zigzags from Prudhoe
Bay to the Port of Valdez, Alaska, and at its peak pumped two million
barrels of oil a day (today it moves only a quarter of that amount),
mirrors the complexity and scope of the Northern Gateway project. The
Alaska pipeline crosses tundra and more than 800 rivers and streams,
while Northern Gateway would have to traverse the Rocky Mountains as
well as those 700 fish-bearing waterways. In Valdez, native people and
commercial fishermen told their visitors that the consortium managing
the Alaska pipeline, including ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips, had
promised a spill-proof system. But according to federal records, the
project suffered an average of 480 spills a year between 1977 and 1999.
In 1991 the Government Accountability Office described regulatory
oversight of the Alaska pipeline as inadequate, and recent ruptures and
accidents suggest that little has changed. One independent study in 2009
by the petroleum consultant Richard Fineberg noted that problems of
management, engineering, and lax government oversight continued to
plague the system.<br />
<br />
The Alaskans also told their Canadian visitors about the <i>Exxon Valdez</i>.
Although the ship’s owners blamed the 257,100-barrel spill on an
alcoholic captain, the disaster, as noted by Steve Coll in his book <i><a href="http://www.onearth.org/article/private-empire-exxonmobil-and-american-power">Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power</a></i>,
was "abetted by inadequate regulations and corporate safety systems."
The tanker didn’t have a large enough crew to navigate the hazards of
Prince William Sound, and the Port of Valdez didn’t have enough
equipment to respond to the spill. As a consequence, the oil
contaminated 3,200 miles of shoreline and spread almost 1,200 miles from
the accident scene. It caused the collapse of the herring industry,
badly damaged the pink salmon fishery, and halved seafood harvests for
aboriginal groups. It killed more than 100,000 seabirds and 3,500 sea
otters. Communities sank into alcohol and despair. "The Alaskans told us
that the industry will break every covenant and promise they make,"
says Sterritt.<br />
<br />
Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist and former commercial fisher who has
written two books on the disaster, warned that a tanker accident off the
Great Bear Rainforest could be worse than the <i>Exxon Valdez</i>calamity.
For a start, the Douglas Channel and Hecate Strait offer more narrow
passages and hairpin turns than Prince William Sound. In addition,
diluted bitumen would behave much differently from crude oil in a tanker
spill. While the gasoline-like condensate would rapidly evaporate, the
heavy bitumen would sink into the ocean like a rock (something not
mentioned in Enbridge’s application for Northern Gateway). "So how do
you clean it up?" asks Ott. "It’s more toxic than conventional oil
because it contains more polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are
really long-term bad actors on human health." Ott’s basic message was
simple: "As long as we drill it, we are going to spill it."<br />
<br />
In
2009, after three years of debate, the CFN told Enbridge that no good
could come from the pipeline or tankers. Ever since then, the company
and the First Nations have been on a collision course. In January 2012,
the alliance issued a report warning that, given the intended volume of
tanker traffic, as many as three spills of at least 10,000 barrels were
likely to occur during the 30-year lifespan of the project. Enbridge’s
Pat Daniel has acknowledged that it’s impossible to guarantee that there
will be no spills (although he notes that Enbridge wouldn’t in any case
be liable -- that would be the concern of companies such as China’s
Sinopec). As for pipeline leaks, Enbridge says it is under no obligation
to quantify the risk, boasting only that its safety standards will be
"world class" and challenging the public to "judge us by what we’ve done
-- year in, year out -- through our 60-year history."<br />
<br />
That’s a
problematic invitation. Since 2000 Enbridge pipelines have spilled
132,715 barrels of crude, and in 2010 the company experienced a major
disaster in Michigan, when Line 6B, which moves about 190,000 barrels of
crude a day, ruptured and leaked 840,000 gallons of diluted bitumen
from Alberta’s tar sands, contaminating 38 miles of the Kalamazoo River.
It was the largest onshore spill in U.S. history, and the cleanup has
so far cost more than $800 million. A damning report by the National
Transportation Safety Board in July 2012 condemned Enbridge for its
"culture of deviance," comparing the company’s chaotic management of the
Kalamazoo spill to the Keystone Kops. (Months after the incident,
Enbridge executives all got sizable pay raises.)<br />
<br />
By the beginning
of this year the Canadian government realized that its aspirations to
become an energy superpower were in trouble. The Obama administration
had delayed Keystone XL; the Kalamazoo spill had become a public
relations disaster for Enbridge; and light oil production from the
Bakken field in North Dakota had weakened U.S. demand for Canadian
bitumen. And the First Nations had made their opposition to Northern
Gateway clear.<br />
<br />
The Harper government went on the offensive.
Already, in the fall of 2011, it had withdrawn abruptly from the Pacific
North Coast Integrated Management Area, explaining that it was no
longer "practical" to manage 39,400 square miles of whale and salmon
habitat and that it needed to "streamline" the process. (Just six months
earlier Enbridge lobbyists had argued that the conservation plan could
be used by the First Nations to limit tanker traffic off the coast and
kill Northern Gateway.) Harper, speaking on national television,
denigrated the very idea of a special conservation area in the Great
Bear Rainforest. "Just because certain people in the United States would
like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of
North America," he said, "I don’t think that’s part of what our review
process [for Northern Gateway] is all about."<br />
<br />
In January, one day
before federal hearings on the environmental impacts of Northern Gateway
were set to begin, Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver accused
critics of the project, such as the Gitga’at and environmental groups,
of using funding from U.S. charitable foundations -- which he
characterized as "foreign special interest groups" -- to "undermine
Canada’s national economic interest" and block a historic opportunity
"to diversify our trade." He vowed to stop them with new regulations.
When asked about the nearly $20 billion in foreign money poured into the
tar sands projects by state-owned Chinese companies, he replied that
this was different. "They’re helping us build infrastructure to help us
diversify our market," he said. "Other groups are trying to
impede…economic progress."<br />
<br />
In March the Harper government attached
to a routine budget bill, Bill C-38, dozens of legislative changes to
the country’s environmental laws. The bill passed without a single
amendment. Laws that might stand in the way of pipelines, tankers, or
bitumen mining were rewritten or amended. Science-based agencies were
axed. Even Canada’s most conservative newspaper, the <i>National Post</i>, was shocked by Harper’s actions, calling them in an editorial "unacceptable and inexplicable."<br />
<br />
The
short title of Bill C-38 was the Jobs, Growth, and Long-term Prosperity
Act, but it may go down in history as the Enbridge Enhancement Act.
Enbridge had lobbied hard for changes to Canada’s Fisheries Act, one of
the nation’s oldest and most powerful pieces of environmental
legislation, arguing that the provisions protecting fish habitat were
"too onerous." The new version of the act aims to prevent "serious harm"
only to those fish that are deemed commercially important. All
protections for amphibians, reptiles, mussels, crayfish, and other
aquatic creatures have disappeared. The Harper government acknowledges
that these changes may make it much easier for the Northern Gateway
pipeline to cross hundreds of waterways.<br />
<br />
This gutting of the
Fisheries Act appalled not only environmental groups but several former
federal fisheries ministers, including the Conservative John Fraser, who
told the <i>Vancouver Sun</i>, "I say this as a lifelong conservative.
People who want to eliminate the appropriate safeguards….aren’t
conservatives at all, they’re ideological right-wingers with very, very
limited understanding, intelligence, or wisdom."<br />
<br />
The 425-page
omnibus bill didn’t stop with fish. It also amended the Navigable Waters
Protection Act so that pipelines are no longer subject to its
provisions. Cabinet ministers can now grant exemptions from the Species
at Risk Act, which covers 15 species along the pipeline route, putting
at increased risk woodland caribou in bitumen mining areas as well as
threatened birds like the short-tailed albatross.<br />
<br />
As Oliver had
promised, the government rewrote the country’s Environmental Assessment
Act, which controls federal review of projects such as Northern Gateway.
The changes to the law reduce the number of projects subject to review,
limit public involvement, and narrow the definition of "environmental
effects." As a consequence, says the Toronto environmental law firm
Willms & Shier, "the list of eligible intervenors… will be slashed,
the timeline will be compressed, and the Cabinet will be given the
authority to overrule the Review Panel’s final recommendation if it sees
fit."<br />
<br />
In addition, the bill set aside $8 million for the Canada
Revenue Agency to investigate the political activities of registered
charities such as environmental NGOs and Tides Canada. Without producing
any evidence, Environment Minister Peter Kent accused such
organizations of "money laundering" of U.S. funds. (None of the nation’s
top 10 foreign-funded charities are environmental groups, and Canadian
law clearly permits charities and NGOs to receive foreign foundation
funding and also to conduct political advocacy, provided this does not
exceed 10 percent of their charitable activities.) In response to this
witch hunt, the environmentalist David Suzuki resigned from his own
foundation to retain his freedom to speak out on energy issues, and
Forest Ethics split into two separate organizations, one of which will
focus solely on advocacy work. "This smearing of environmental groups,
this undermining of the role of environmental organizations in the
environmental debate, is blatant and aggressive and gratuitous," said
Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, in a
recent magazine interview. "This is not something we’ve ever seen
before."<br />
<br />
The bill also slashed funding for critical environmental
research programs. Federal science teams working on air pollution and
marine toxicology were disbanded. The world’s most famous freshwater
research station, the Experimental Lakes Area in Ontario, was closed
down. That scientific jewel, which studied the behavior of pollutants in
whole lake systems for 44 years, had produced research that drove
global public policy on pollution from phosphates, acid rain, and
mercury. Scientists from around the world expressed dismay at its
closure. The distinguished marine ecologist Ragnar Elmgren of Stockholm
University called it "an act of wanton destruction...the kind of act one
expects from the Taliban in Afghanistan, not from the government of a
civilized and educated nation."<br />
<br />
While it has removed most
legislative and scientific obstacles to Northern Gateway, the Harper
government has failed to bolster waning public support for the project.
The scathing indictment by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board
of Enbridge’s bungled response to the Kalamazoo River spill created a
political uproar in Canada. Nor has the Harper government yet
extinguished the constitutional land claims and rights of the Gitga’at
and other First Nations. Art Sterritt of the Coastal First Nations warns
that legal action is imminent and could drag on for years, perhaps
going all the way to the Supreme Court. Harper’s own former environment
minister, Jim Prentice, who left the administration in 2010 to become a
senior bank official, fears that the government’s open cheerleading for
bitumen, combined with its failure to respect aboriginal ownership of
lands along the pipeline route, could spell a greater political calamity
for the tar sands. "The real risk is not regulatory rejection but
regulatory approval, undermined by subsequent legal challenges and the
absence of 'social license' to operate,"<a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Opinion+Expanding+export+markets+defining+opportunity+Canada+Public/6862210/story.html" target="_blank">Prentice wrote in June in the <i>Vancouver Sun</i></a>.<br />
<br />
At
Enbridge’s annual meeting in May, Pat Daniel, who has announced that he
will step down as CEO this fall, vented his frustration at the
opposition to Northern Gateway. How can people say no to it, he asked,
while saying yes "to lights, cooked food, school buses, warm homes, and
diesel-powered trains? It’s a glaring disconnect in society."<br />
<br />
Indeed
it is. In February I traveled to Prince Rupert, an old salmon cannery
town of 12,500 people, 45 minutes north of Hartley Bay by air. Nearly
2,000 people, both white and aboriginal, had gathered for a peaceful
march. At a rally, scores of chiefs and elders representing as many as
40 First Nations from across British Columbia voiced their fierce
opposition to the Enbridge pipeline in a variety of aboriginal
languages. Dancers from Hartley Bay pounded their drums and sang ancient
songs about salmon, ravens, and whales. An 11-year-old girl from the
Sliammon First Nation, Ta’Kaiya Blaney, silenced the crowd with a
composition called "Shallow Waters." "Come with me to the emerald sea,"
she sang,
"where black gold spills into my ocean dreams." She got a
standing ovation.</div>
<br />
<br />dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-20305513428035804242012-09-04T12:23:00.001-06:002012-09-04T13:00:34.703-06:00We Need Psychological Maturity Mitt Romney said in his speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa Florida last Thursday,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and
heal the planet. [Pause. Laughter.] MY promise … is to help you and your
family.</blockquote>
"Quick show of hands, how many of your families live on the planet?",
asked Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report, "Oh, then it seems a lot
less funny, now." <br />
<br />
The following is from an essay entitled <i>The Psychology of Peak Oil and Climate Change</i> from Richard Heinberg's book <i><span class="st"><i>Peak Everything</i>: Waking Up to the Century of Declines, </span></i>which points out the mental and emotional underpinnings of Romney's short-sighted statement and the moral immaturity of those who would agree with him,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="st">Why are Peak Oil and Climate Change so hard for many people to understand? There are probably many reasons.One often cited (and discussed brilliantly and at length by Robert Ornstein and Paul Ehrlich in their 1989 book New World New Mind) is that humans are hard-wired via the reptilian brain for fight-or-flight responses to adversity or danger, but have an innate inability to respond effectively to slowly developing problems that are hard to personalize. Ornstein and Ehrlich suggest that our species, if it is to survive, must quickly improve its capacity to understand and deal with systemic crises.</span><br />
<span class="st"><br />Another possible reason why so many people can't “get” Peak Oil and Climate Change has to do with psychological maturity — which often does not correlate particularly well with chronological age. Psychological maturity might be defined as the ability or tendency to think of not just one's own welfare but that of larger groups ...and to think in terms of long time horizons in addition to short ones. This includes thinking about consequences of present behavior that will be felt only by future generations.</span> </blockquote>
You won't get very far helping someone's family if they don't have access to clean air, clean water and clean soil to grow food. On a planet where increasing pollution has already destroyed much of these vitally important necessities for our continued existence, we need to start undoing the damage we have caused to our natural ecosystems and begin to preserve them now for everyone, and for all those future inhabitants who will be around long after we have perished.<br />
<br />
If we do not show the will and make the effort to take care of our planet responsibly, and reorganize our economic and social systems to function in a more equitable fashion, then our planet will take care of us...and the consequences will be none to pleasant. There is a very real possibility that our species, with the proud, self-appointed name <i>homo sapiens,</i> may become extinct because of our own sweeping ignorance and rampant greed. I'm sure the rest of creation who remain to flourish in our wake will rejoice at our long overdue fate and exclaim, "Good riddance!"dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-15160367199705702512012-08-26T11:51:00.001-06:002012-08-26T15:49:29.717-06:00Compliance - Why We Like to Follow the Leader<div id="article-body-blocks">
<div id="main-article-info">
<h1 itemprop="name" style="font-weight: normal;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Film highlights the temptations and perils of blind obedience to authority</span></b></h1>
<div class="stand-first-alone" data-component="comp : r2 : Article : standfirst_cta" id="stand-first" itemprop="description">
Indie film Compliance recalls notions that the past decade's worst events are explained by failures to oppose authority</div>
</div>
<br />
by Glenn Greenwald<br />
from <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/" itemprop="publisher">guardian.co.uk</a>,
Sunday 26 August 2012<br />
<br />
One can object to some of its particulars, but Frank Bruni has a quite interesting and incisive <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/bruni-gullibility-in-politics-and-in-film.html?_r=1">New York Times column today</a> about a <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120816/NEWS01/308160088?nclick_check=1">new independent film</a> called Compliance, which explores the human desire to follow and obey authority.<br />
<br />
Based on <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392">real-life events</a>
that took place in 2004 at a McDonalds in Kentucky, the film dramatizes
a prank telephone call in which a man posing as a police officer
manipulates a supervisor to abuse an employee with increasing amounts of
cruelty and sadism, ultimately culminating in sexual assault – all by
insisting that the abuse is necessary to aid an official police
investigation into petty crimes.<br />
<br />
That particular episode was <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/NEWS01/510090392">but one of a series</a>
of similar and almost always-successful hoaxes over the course of at
least 10 years, in which restaurant employees were manipulated into
obeying warped directives from this same man, pretending on the
telephone to be a police officer.<br />
<br />
Bruni correctly notes the prime
issue raised by all of this: "How much can people be talked into and how
readily will they defer to an authority figure of sufficient craft and
cunning?" That question was answered 50 years ago by the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk">infamous experiment</a>
conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram, in which an authority figure
in a lab coat instructed participants to deliver what they were told
were increasingly severe electric shocks to someone in another room whom
they could hear but not see. Even as the screams became louder and more
agonizing, two-thirds of the participants were induced fully to comply
by delivering the increased electric shocks.<br />
<br />
Most disturbingly,
even as many expressed concerns and doubts, they continued to obey until
the screams stopped – presumably due to death (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2765416&page=1#.UDoCeKMunDM">subsequent experiments</a> replicated those results). As the University of California's Gregorio Billikopf <a href="http://cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm">put it</a>,
the Milgram experiment "illustrates people's reluctance to confront
those who abuse power", as they "obey either out of fear or out of a
desire to appear co-operative – even when acting against their own
better judgment and desires".<br />
<br />
Bruni ties all of this into our
current political culture, noting one significant factor driving this
authoritarian behavior: that trusting authority is easier and more
convenient than treating it with skepticism. He writes:<br />
<blockquote>
As
Craig Zobel, the writer and director of 'Compliance,' said to me on the
phone on Friday, 'We can't be on guard all the time. In order to have a
pleasant life, you have to be able to trust that people are who they
say they are. And if you questioned everything you heard, you'd never
get anything done.' It's infinitely more efficient to follow a chosen
leader and walk in lock step with a chosen tribe.</blockquote>
He
suggests that this is the dynamic that drives unthinking partisan
allegiance ("What's most distinctive about the current presidential
election and our political culture [is] … how unconditionally so many
partisans back their side's every edict, plaint and stratagem"), as well
as numerous key political frauds, from Saddam's WMDs to Obama's fake
birth certificate to Romney's failure to pay taxes for 10 years. People
eagerly accept such evidence-free claims "because the alternative
mean[s] confronting outright mendacity from otherwise respected
authorities, trading the calm of certainty for the disquiet of doubt".<br />
<br />
This <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/09/the_authoritarian_mind/">authoritarian desire</a> to pledge fealty to institutions and leaders is indeed the dynamic that resides <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/27/the_authoritarian_mind_2/">at the core</a> of so many of our political conflicts (<a href="http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf">the 2006 book</a> by Canadian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/psychology" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Psychology">psychology</a> professor Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarians, is a superb examination of how this <a href="http://la.indymedia.org/news/2001/10/12432_comment.php">manifests in the right-wing political context</a>).<br />
<br />
One of my first posts when I began writing about politics back in 2006 was an <a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com.br/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-political.html">examination of the blindly loyal, cult-like veneration</a>
which the American Right had erected around George Bush; as Paul
Krugman was one of the first to observe, that same disturbing thirst for
leader-worship then drove followers of Barack Obama (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html">Krugman in February, 2008</a>:
"the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of
personality. We've already had that from the Bush administration –
remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don't want to go there
again").<br />
<br />
There is always much to say about this topic, as its
centrality in shaping both individual and collective behavior is more or
less universal. But I want to highlight two specific points about all
of this which relate to several of the topics I wrote about in my first
week here, as well as some of the resulting reaction to that:<br />
<br />
<i>First</i>,
there are multiple institutions that are intended to safeguard against
this ease of inducing blind trust in and obedience to authorities. The
most obvious one is journalism, which, at its best, serves as a check
against political authority by subjecting its pronouncements to
skepticism and scrutiny, and by acting in general as an adversarial
force against it. But there are other institutions that can and should
play a similar role.<br />
<br />
One is academia, a realm where tenure is
supposed to ensure that authority's most sacred orthodoxies are
subjected to unrelenting, irreverent questioning. Another is the federal
judiciary, whose officials are vested with life tenure so as to empower
them, without regard to popular sentiment, to impose limits on the acts
of political authorities and to protect the society's most scorned and
marginalized.<br />
<br />
But just observe how frequently these institutions
side with power rather than against it, how eagerly they offer their
professional and intellectual instruments to justify and glorify the
acts of political authority rather than challenge or subvert them. They
will occasionally quibble on the margins with official acts, but their
energies are overwhelmingly devoted to endorsing the legitimacy of
institutional authority and, correspondingly, scorning those who have
been marginalized or targeted by it.<br />
<br />
Their collective instinct on
any issue is to rush to align themselves with the sentiment prevailing
in elite power circles. Most denizens in these realms would be
hard-pressed to identify any instances in which they embraced causes or
people deeply unpopular within those circles. Indeed, they judge their
own rightness – they derive vindication – by how often they find
themselves on the side of elite institutions and how closely aligned
they are with the orthodoxies that prevail within them, rather than by
how often they challenge or oppose them.<br />
<br />
It is difficult to
overstate the impact of this authority-serving behavior from the very
institutions designed to oppose authority. As Zobel, the writer and
director of Compliance, notes, most people are too busy with their lives
to find the time or energy to scrutinize prevailing orthodoxies and the
authorities propagating them. When the institutions that are in a
position to provide those checks fail to do that, those orthodoxies and
authorities thrive without opposition or challenge, no matter how false
and corrupted they may be.<br />
<br />
As much as anything else, this is the
institutional failure that explains the debacles of the last decade.
There is virtually no counter-weight to the human desire to follow and
obey authority because the institutions designed to provide that
counter-weight – media outlets, academia, courts – do the opposite: they
are the most faithful servants of those centers of authority.<br />
<br />
<i>Second</i>,
it is very easy to get people to see oppression and tyranny in faraway
places, but very difficult to get them to see it in their own lives (<i>"How dare you compare my country to Tyranny X; we're free and they aren't"</i>).
In part that is explained by the way in which desire shapes perception.
One naturally wants to believe that oppression is only something that
happens elsewhere because one then feels good about one's own situation (<i>"I'm free, unlike those poor people in those other places"</i>).
Thinking that way also relieves one of the obligation to act: one who
believes they are free of oppression will feel no pressure to take a
difficult or risky stand against it.<br />
<br />
But the more significant
factor is that one can easily remain free of even the most intense
political oppression simply by placing one's faith and trust in
institutions of authority. People who get themselves to be satisfied
with the behavior of their institutions of power, or who at least
largely acquiesce to the legitimacy of prevailing authority, are almost
never subjected to any oppression, even in the worst of tyrannies.<br />
<br />
Why
would they be? Oppression is designed to compel obedience and
submission to authority. Those who voluntarily put themselves in that
state – by believing that their institutions of authority are just and
good and should be followed rather than subverted – render oppression
redundant, unnecessary.<br />
<br />
Of course people who think and behave
this way encounter no oppression. That's their reward for good,
submissive behavior. As Rosa Luxemburg put this: "Those who do not move,
do not notice their chains." They are left alone by institutions of
power because they comport with the desired behavior of complacency and
obedience without further compulsion.<br />
<br />
But the fact that good,
obedient citizens do not themselves perceive oppression does not mean
that oppression does not exist. Whether a society is free is determined
not by the treatment of its complacent, acquiescent citizens – such
people are always unmolested by authority – but rather by the treatment
of its dissidents and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/personalizing_civil_liberties_abuses/">its marginalized minorities</a>.<br />
<br />
In
the US, those are the people who are detained at airports and have
their laptops and notebooks seized with no warrants because of the <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/">films they make</a> or the <a href="http://boingboing.net/2011/01/12/wikileaks-volunteer-1.html">political activism they engage in</a>; or who are <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/nypd-official-muslim-spying-in-neighborhoods-led-to-no-leads-terror-cases-in-over-6-years/2012/08/21/e14d96f6-eb5b-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html">subjected to mass, invasive state surveillance</a> despite no evidence of wrongdoing; or who are <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/04/speech_23">prosecuted and imprisoned for decades</a> – <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/01/free_speech_4/">or even executed without due process</a> – for expressing political and religious views deemed dangerous by the government.<br />
<br />
People who resist the natural human tendency to follow, venerate and obey prevailing authority typically have <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/we_do_not_live_in_a">a much different view</a>
about how oppressive a society is than those who submit to those
impulses. The most valuable experiences for determining how free a
society is are the experiences of society's most threatening dissidents,
not its content and compliant citizens. It was those who marched
against Mubarak who were detained, beaten, tortured and killed, not
those who acquiesced to or supported the regime. That is the universal
pattern of authoritarian oppression.<br />
<br />
The temptation to submit to
authority examined by Compliance bolsters an authoritarian culture by
transforming its leading institutions into servants of power rather than
checks on it. But worse, it conceals the presence of oppression by
ensuring that most citizens, choosing to follow, trust and obey
authority, do not personally experience oppression and thus do not
believe – refuse to believe – that it really exists.</div>
<br />dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-8184772039161312312012-08-24T10:37:00.001-06:002012-08-24T11:47:19.207-06:00Howard Zinn - There are No "Good Wars"howard zinn - historian, author, social activist - would have been 90 years old today. the following video is from <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/">democracy now!</a> and features howard zinn in one of his last speeches on november 11, 2009 given at boston university. howard died on january 27, 2010 in santa monica, california. he was 87. <br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="225" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/blog/2010/1/8/howard_zinn_three_holy_wars" width="400"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<span class="caps">TRANSCRIPT</span>:<br />
Three Holy Wars<br />
<br />
<b><span class="caps">HOWARD</span> <span class="caps">ZINN</span>: </b>Three
Holy Wars. I only started recently talking about this. You know, very
often, if you’re a speaker, there’s a topic you’ve been speaking on for
twenty or thirty years, you know. And there are topics that I’ve been
speaking on for twenty or thirty years, but it’s only in the past year
that I decided I would speak on “Three Holy Wars.” And when I tell
people the title, very often they’re a little puzzled, because they
think I’m going to speak about religious wars. No. I’m speaking about
three wars in American history that are sacrosanct, three wars that are
untouchable, three wars that are uncriticizable. <br />
<br />
And I think you’ll probably agree with me. I’m not always sure
that people will agree with me, but I think you will agree with me that
nobody criticizes the Revolutionary War. Right? Especially here in
Boston. No, not at all. The Revolutionary War is holy. The war against
England, here in Boston, wow! Paul Revere and Lexington and Concord and
Sam Adams and all the Adamses. And all of that. No, the Revolutionary
War, the great war, win independence from England, heroic battles,
Bunker Hill. Oh, yeah, brings tears to my eyes. No, not only in Boston,
but elsewhere. The Revolutionary War, you don’t criticize that. If you
did, you’d be a Tory; they’d deport you to Canada. Which might be good. <br />
<br />
And then there’s the Civil War. Notice the quiet? You don’t
criticize the Civil War. And it’s understandable. Why would you
criticize the Civil War? Slavery? Freedom? No. Civil War, slaves are
freed. Abraham Lincoln! You can’t criticize the Civil War. It’s a good
war, a just war. Emancipation.<br />
<br />
And then there’s World War II. Again, “the Good War,” except if you read Studs Terkel’s oral history called <i>“The Good War”</i>,
in which he interviews all sorts of people who participated in World
War II — military, civilians. When he adopted the title of this oral
history, <i>“The Good War”</i>, his wife suggested, after reading the
book — reading the manuscript, reading the interviews — suggested he put
quotation marks around <i>“The Good War”</i>, suggesting that, well,
maybe there’s a little doubt about how good that war is. But very few
people have doubt about “the Good War.” You turn on the History Channel,
what is it all about? “The Good War.” World War II. Heroism. Iwo Jima.
D-Day. The Greatest Generation. No, World War II is — it’s the best, the
best of wars, you know. I was in it.<br />
<br />
And now I’m going to subject all three of those “good wars” to a
kind of examination, which is intended — yeah, I’ll tell you frankly
what my intention is — to make us reexamine the idea of a good war, to
make us reexamine the idea that there’s any such thing as a good war.
Even the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War II, no. It’s not
easy to do, because, as I said, these three wars are holy. And all three
wars accomplished something. No one would doubt that. I mean, that’s
why they’re considered holy. They all accomplished something:
independence from England, freedom for the slaves, the end of fascism in
Europe, right? So, so to criticize them is to — is to undertake a
heroic task. I only undertake heroic tasks.<br />
<br />
But the reason I think it’s important to subject them to
criticism is that this idea of “good wars” helps justify other wars
which are obviously awful, obviously evil. And though they’re obviously
awful — I’m talking about Vietnam, I’m talking about Iraq, I’m talking
about Afghanistan, I’m talking about Panama, I’m talking about Grenada,
one of our most heroic of wars — the fact that you can have the historic
experience of “good wars” creates a basis for believing, well, you
know, there’s such a thing as a good war. And maybe you can find, oh,
parallels between the good wars and this war, even though you don’t
understand this war, but, oh, yeah, the parallels. Saddam Hussein is
Hitler. Well, that makes it clear. We have to fight against him, because
he — right? To not fight in the war means surrender, like Munich. There
are all the analogies. I remember Lyndon Johnson. World War II is a
perfect setup for analogies. You compare something to World War II, you
immediately infuse it with goodness. And so, during the Vietnam War, I
remember at one time Lyndon Johnson referred to the — to the head of
South Vietnam, Ngo Dình Diem, whom we had set up in power of South
Vietnam, so independent was he — but Lyndon Johnson referred to Diem as
“the Winston Churchill of Asia.” I really like that. So, yes, I think we
ought to examine these wars.<br />
<br />
Let’s start with the Revolutionary War. Let’s do it in
chronological order, because, after all, I’m a historian. We do
everything in chronological order. I eat in chronological order.
All-Bran. We’ll start with All-Bran. We’ll end with Wheatena. <br />
<br />
Anyway, the Revolutionary War. Balance sheet. I don’t want to
make it too mathematical, you know, I’ll be falling in line with all
these mathematical social scientists. You know, everything has become
mathematical — political science and anthropology and even social work.
You know, mathematical — no, I don’t want to get that strict. But a
rough moral balance sheet, let’s say. Well, what’s good about the
Revolutionary War? And — oh, there’s another side? Yes, there’s another
side to the balance sheet. What’s dubious about the Revolutionary War?
And let’s — yeah, and let’s look at both sides, because if you only look
at, “Oh, we won independence from England,” well, that’s not enough to
do that. You have to look at other things.<br />
<br />
Well, let’s first look at the cost of the war, on one side of the
balance sheet. The cost of the war. In lives, I mean. Twenty-five
thousand. Hey, that’s nothing, right? Twenty-five thousand? We lost
58,000 in Vietnam. That’s — 25,000 — did you even know how many lives
were lost in the Revolutionary War? It’s hardly worth talking about. In
proportion to population — in proportion to the Revolutionary War
population of the colonies, 25,000 would be equivalent today to
two-and-a-half million. Two-and-a-half million. Let’s fight a war. We’re
being oppressed by England. Let’s fight for independence.
Two-and-a-half million people will die, but we’ll have independence.
Would you have second thoughts? You might. In other words, I want to
make that 25,000, which seems like an insignificant figure, I want to
make it palpable and real and not to be minimized as a cost of the
Revolutionary War, and to keep that in mind in the balance sheet as we
look at whatever other factors there are. So, yes, we win independence
against England. Great. And it only cost two-and-a-half million. OK?<br />
<br />
Who did the Revolutionary War benefit? Who benefited from
independence? It’s interesting that we just assume that everybody
benefited from independence. No. Not everybody in the colonies benefited
from independence. And there were people right from the outset who knew
they wouldn’t benefit from independence. There were people from the
outset who thought, you know, “I’m just a working stiff. I’m just a poor
farmer. Am I going to benefit? What is it — what difference will it
make to me if I’m oppressed by the English or oppressed by my local
landlord?” You know, maybe one-third of the colonists — nobody knows,
because they didn’t take Gallup polls in those days. Maybe one — various
estimates, one-third of the colonists were opposed to the Revolutionary
War. And only about maybe about one-third supported the Revolutionary
War against England. And maybe one-third were neutral. I don’t know. I’m
going by an estimate that John Adams once made. Just a very rough. <br />
<br />
But there obviously were lots of people who were not for the
Revolution. And that’s why they had a tough time recruiting people for
the Revolution. It wasn’t that people rushed — “Wow! It’s a great
crusade, independence against — from England. Join!” No, they had a
tough time getting people. In the South, you know, they couldn’t find
people to join the army. George Washington had to send a general and his
troops down south to threaten people in order to get them into the
military, into the war. <br />
<br />
And in fact, in the war itself, the poor people, the working
people, the farmers, the artisans, who were in the army, maybe some of
them were there for patriotic reasons, independence against England,
even if they weren’t sure what it meant for them. But some of them were
there for that reason. Others were there — you know, some of them had
actually listened to the Declaration of Independence, read from the town
hall. And inspiring. You know, liberty, equality, equality. We all have
an equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You
know, it can make people — some people were inspired, and they joined. <br />
<br />
Other people joined because they were promised land at — you
know, they were promised at the end of the Revolution — you know, they
were promised, you might say, a little GI Bill of Rights, just as today
recruiting offices make promises to young guys that they want into the
Army. They give them bonuses, and they promise them maybe a free
education afterward. No, people don’t naturally rush to war. You have to
seduce them. You have to bribe them or coerce them. Some people think
it’s natural for people to go to war. Not at all. No. <br />
<br />
Nations have to work hard to mobilize the citizens to go to war.
And they had to work in the Revolutionary War, especially, well, when
they found out that, although there was a draft, there was a kind of
conscription that the rich could get out of the conscription by paying a
certain amount of money. But the young, the farmers who went into the
Revolutionary Army and who fought and who died and who were wounded in
the war, they found that they, the privates, the ordinary soldier in the
war, that they weren’t treated as well as the officers who came from
the upper classes. The officers were given splendid uniforms and good
food and were paid well. And the privates very often did not have shoes
and clothes and were not paid. And when their time was supposed to be
up, they were told, no, they had to stay. There was a class difference
in the Revolutionary War. <br />
<br />
You know, in this country, we’re not accustomed to the idea of
class differences, because we’re all supposed to be one big, happy
family. One nation, indivisible. We’re very divisible. No, we’re not one
nation. No, there are working people, and there are rich people, and in
between, yes, there are nervous people. So, yeah, the conditions of the
ordinary farmer who went into the Revolution, the private, the
conditions were such that they mutinied — mutinied against the officers,
against George Washington and the other officers. And when I say
“mutinied,” I mean thousands of them. Ever hear about this in your
classrooms when you discuss — when you learn about the Revolutionary
War? When you learn about Bunker Hill and Concord and the first shot
heard around the world — right? — do you ever hear about the mutinies? I
doubt it. I never learned about it. I didn’t learn about it in
elementary school or high school or college or graduate school. You find
very often that what you learn in graduate school is what you learned
in elementary school, only with footnotes. You see. No, I never learned
about the mutinies. <br />
<br />
But there were mutinies. Thousands of soldiers mutinied, so many
of them that George Washington was worried, you know, that he couldn’t
put it down. He had to make concessions, make concessions to what was
called the Pennsylvania Line, the thousands of mutineers. However, when
shortly after he made those concessions and quieted down the mutiny by
saying — promising them things, promising them he’d get them out of the
army soon and give them pay and so on, soon after that, there was
another mutiny in the New Jersey Line, which was smaller. And there,
Washington put his foot down. He couldn’t handle the thousands in the
Pennsylvania Line, but he could handle the hundreds in the New Jersey
Line, and he said, “Find the leaders and execute them.” You hear about
this in your classrooms about the Revolutionary War? You hear about the
executions of mutineers? I doubt it. If I’m wrong in the question
period, correct me. I’m willing to stand corrected. I don’t like to
stand corrected, but I’m will to be stand corrected. And yeah, so they
executed a number of the mutineers. Their fellow soldiers were ordered
to execute the mutineers. So the Revolution — you know, not everybody
was treated the same way in the Revolution. <br />
<br />
And, in fact, when the Revolution was won, independence was won,
and the soldiers came back to their homes — and some of them did get
bits of land that were promised to them, so, yeah, many of them became
small farmers again. And then they found that they were being taxed
heavily by the rich, who controlled the legislatures. They couldn’t pay
their taxes, and so their farms and their homes were being taken away
from them, auctioned off. “Foreclosures” they call them today, right?
It’s an old phenomenon. <br />
<br />
So, there were rebellions. I think everybody learns about Shays’
Rebellion. They don’t learn much about Shays’ Rebellion, but they learn
it enough to recognize it on a multiple choice test. Shays’ Rebellion in
western Massachusetts. Thousands of farmers gathered around courthouses
in Springfield and Northampton and Amherst and Great Barrington around
those courthouses. And they stopped the auctions from going on. They
prevent the foreclosures. It’s a real rebellion that has to be put down
by an army, paid for by the merchants of Boston. It’s put down. But it
puts a scare into the Founding Fathers.<br />
<br />
Now, there’s an interesting chronology there. Shays’ Rebellion
takes place in 1786. The Founding Fathers get together in 1787, for the
Constitutional Convention. Is there a connection between the two? I
don’t remember ever learning that there was a connection between Shays’
Rebellion and the Constitution. What I learned is that, oh, they got
together with the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation
created a weak central government, that we need a strong central
government. And everybody likes the idea of a strong central government,
so it was a great thing to have a Constitutional Convention and draft
the Constitution. <br />
What you were not told, I don’t think — I wasn’t told — was that the
Founding Fathers on the eve of the Constitutional Convention were
writing to one another before the Constitutional Convention and saying,
“Hey, this rebellion in western Massachusetts, we better do something
about that. We better create a government strong enough to deal with
rebellions like this.” That’s why we need a strong central government. <br />
<br />
There was a general, General Henry Knox of Massachusetts, who had
been in the army with George Washington, and he wrote to Washington at
one point. And I don’t have his letter with me. I do have it somewhere,
you know. I’ll paraphrase it. It won’t be as eloquent as him. You know,
they were eloquent in those days. Take a look at the language used by
the political leaders of that day and the language of the political
leaders in our day. I mean, really, it’s, you know — yeah. So when Knox
writes to Washington, it says something like this. It says, “You know,
these people who fought in the Revolution, these people who are
rebelling, who have rebelled in west Massachusetts” —- and other states,
too, not just in Massachusetts -—<br />
<br />
<b><span class="caps">AUDIENCE</span> <span class="caps">MEMBER</span>: </b>Maine.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="caps">HOWARD</span> <span class="caps">ZINN</span>: </b>In Maine, too. Yeah, you know that, Roger. You were among the rebels, I’m sure. You were there, I know.<br />
<br />
Knox says to Washington, says, “These people who have rebelled,
you know, they think that because they fought in the Revolution, they
fought in the war against England, that they deserve an equal share of
the wealth of this country.” No. Those were the kinds of letters that
went back and forth. “We’ve got to set up a government that will be
strong enough to put down the rebellions of the poor, slave revolts, the
Indians, who may resent our going into their territory.” That’s what a
strong central government is for, not just because, oh, it’s nice to
have a strong central government. The reason’s for that. The
Constitution was a class document written to protect the interests of
bondholders and slave owners and land expansionists. So the outcome of
the Revolution was not exactly good for everybody, and it created all
sorts of problems. <br />
<br />
What about black people, the slaves? Did they benefit from the
winning of the Revolution? Not at all. There was slavery before the
Revolution; there was slavery after the Revolution. In fact, Washington
would not enlist black people into his army. The South, Southern slave
owners, they were the first with the — for the British, doing it for the
British. The British enlisted blacks before Washington did. No, blacks
didn’t benefit. <br />
<br />
Hey, what about Indians? Should we even count the Indians? Should
we even consider the Indians? Who are they? Well, they lived here. They
owned all this land. We moved them out of here. Well, they should be
considered. What was the outcome for them when we won the Revolution? It
was bad, because the British had set a line called the Proclamation of
1763. They had set a line at the Appalachians, where they said, no, the
colonists should not go beyond this line into Indian territory. I mean,
they didn’t do it because they loved the Indians. They just didn’t want
trouble. They set a line. The British are now gone, and the line is
gone, and now you can move westward into Indian territory. And you’re
going to move across the continent. And you’re going to create
massacres. And you’re going to take that enormous land in the West away
from the Indians who live there. <br />
<br />
These are some of the consequences of the Revolution. But we did
win independence from England. All I’m trying to suggest, that to simply
leave it that way, that we won independence from England, doesn’t do
justice to the complexity of this victory. And, you know, was it good
that we — to be independent of England? Yes, it’s always good to be
independent. But at what cost? And how real is the independence? And is
it possible that we would have won independence without a war? <br />
<br />
Hey, how about Canada? Canada is independent of England. They
don’t have a bad society, Canada. There are some very attractive things
about Canada. They’re independent of England. They did not fight a
bloody war. It took longer. You know, sometimes it takes longer if you
don’t want to kill. Violence is fast. War is fast. And that’s attractive
— right? — when you do something fast. And if you don’t want killing,
you may have to take more time in order to achieve your objective. And
actually, when you achieve your objective, it might be achieved in a
better way and with better results, and with a Canadian health system
instead of American health system. You know, you know. <br />
<br />
OK, all of this — I won’t say anything about the Revolutionary
War. I just wanted to throw a few doubts in about it. That’s all. I
don’t want to say anything revolutionary or radical. I don’t want to
make trouble. You know, I just want to — no, I certainly don’t want to
make trouble at BU. No. So — yet I just want to — I just want to think
about these things. That’s all I’m trying to do, have us think again
about things that we took for granted. “Oh, yes, Revolutionary War,
great!” No. Let’s think about it.<br />
<br />
And the Civil War. OK, well, Civil War is — Civil War is even
tougher, even tougher to critically examine the Civil War. Slavery.
Slavery, nothing worse. Slavery. And at the end of the Civil War,
there’s no slavery. You can’t deny that. So, yeah, you have to put that
on one side of the ledger, the end of slavery. On the other side, you
have to put the human cost of the Civil War in lives: 600,000. I don’t
know how many people know or learn or remember how many lives were lost
in the Civil War, which was the bloodiest, most brutal, ugliest war in
our history, from the point of view of dead and wounded and mutilated
and blinded and crippled. Six hundred thousand dead in a country of 830
million. Think about that in relation today’s population; it’s as if we
fought a civil war today, and five or six million people died in this
civil war. Well, you might say, well, maybe that’s worth it, to end
slavery. Maybe. Well, OK, I won’t argue that. Maybe. But at least you
know what the cost is. <br />
<br />
One of the great things about the book by the president of
Harvard, which she — you know, recently a book she wrote about the Civil
War, she brings home, in very graphic detail — Drew Gilpin Faust,
President Faust of Harvard, wrote a remarkable book about the Civil War.
And what she concentrates on is the human consequences of the Civil
War, the dead, the wounded. I mean, you know, that was a war in which
enormous number of amputations took place, without anesthetic. You know,
I mean, so it’s not just the 600,000 dead; it was all those who came
home without a leg or an arm. <br />
<br />
I’m trying to make the cost of the war more than a statistic,
because we have gotten used to just dealing with statistics. And the
statistics are dead. The statistics are — you know, become meaningless.
They’re just numbers. Six hundred thousand — just read it and go quickly
past it. But no, I don’t want to go past the cost of these wars. I want
to consider them very, very, very closely and rack it up and don’t
forget about it, even as you consider the benefits of the war, the
freedom of the slaves.<br />
<br />
But you also have to think, the slaves were freed, and what
happened after that? Were they really freed? Well, they were, actually —
there was no more slavery — but the slaves, who had been given promises
— you know, forty acres and a mule — they were promised, you know, a
little land and some wherewithal so they could be independent, so they
needn’t be slaves anymore. Well, they weren’t given anything. They were
left without resources. And the result was they were still in the
thrall, still under the control of the plantation owner. They were free,
but they were not free. There have been a number of studies made of
that, you know, in the last decade. Free, but not free. They were not
slaves now. They were serfs. They were like serfs on a feudal estate.
They were tenant farmers. They were sharecroppers. They couldn’t go
anywhere. They didn’t have control of their lives. And they were in the
thrall of the white plantation owners. The same white plantation owners
who had been their masters when they were slaves were now their masters
when they were serfs.<br />
<br />
OK, I don’t want to minimize the fact that it’s still not slavery
in the old sense. No, it’s not. It’s better. It’s a better situation.
So, I want to be cautious about what I say about that, and I want to be
clear. But I want to say it’s more complicated than simply "Oh, the
slaves were freed." They were freed, and they were betrayed. Promises
made to them were betrayed, as promises made during wartime are always
betrayed. The veterans are betrayed. The civilians are betrayed. The
people who expected war to produce great results and freedom and
liberty, they are betrayed after every war.<br />
<br />
So I just want us, you know, to consider that and to ask the
question, which is a very difficult question to answer, but it’s worth
asking: is it possible that slavery might have ended without 600,000
dead? Without a nation of amputees and blinded people? Is it possible?
Because, after all, we do want to end slavery. It’s not that we’re
saying, well, we shouldn’t have a bloody war because — "Just let people
remain slaves." No, we want to end slavery, but is it possible to end
slavery without a bloody civil war? <br />
<br />
After all, when the war started, it wasn’t Lincoln’s intention to
free the slaves. You know that. That was not his purpose in fighting
the war. His purpose in fighting the war was to keep Southern territory
within the grasp of the central government. You could almost say it was
an imperial aim. It was a terrible thing to say, I know. But yeah, I
mean, that’s what the war was fought for. Oh, it’s put in a nice way. We
say we fought for the Union. You know, we don’t want anybody to secede.
Yeah. Why no? What if they want to secede? We’re not going to let them
secede. No, we want all that territory. <br />
<br />
No, Lincoln’s objective was not to free the slaves. The
Emancipation Proclamation came. And by the way, it didn’t free slaves
where they were enslaved. It freed the slaves that the national
government was not able to free. It declared free the slaves who were in
the states — in the Confederate states that were still fighting against
the Union. In other words, it declared free the slaves that we couldn’t
free, and it left as slaves the slaves that were in the states that
were fighting with the Union. In other words, if you fought — if you
were a state that was a slave state, but you were fighting on the side
of the Union, "We’ll let you keep your slaves." That was the
Emancipation Proclamation. I never learned that when I learned it. I
thought, "Oh, the Emancipation Proclamation is great!"<br />
<br />
But then, yes — no, slavery was — and, yes, Congress passed the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth Amendments. Thirteenth Amendment ends
slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment declares equal rights, you can’t deny
people equal protection of the law. Fifteenth Amendment, you can’t
prevent people from voting because of their color, their race, no. These
are — however, these promises of equality in the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments — the promise, a right to vote — they were honored
for a few years when there were federal troops in the South who enforced
them, and then they were set aside. And black people in the South were
left at the mercy of the white plantation owners. So there was a great
betrayal that took place, a betrayal that lasted a hundred years, those
hundred years of segregation and the lynching and of the national
government looking the other way as the Constitution was violated a
thousand times by the white power structure in the South. <br />
<br />
And, you know, it took a hundred — and, you know, the Congress
passed those amendments. Why? Not because Lincoln or Congress itself
initiated them. They passed those amendments because a great movement
against slavery had grown up in the country from the 1830s to the 1860s,
powerful anti-slavery movement which pushed Congress into the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Very important thing to
keep in mind, that when justice comes and when injustices are remedied,
they’re not remedied by the initiative of the national government or
the politicians. They only respond to the power of social movements. And
that’s what happened with the relationship between anti-slavery
movement and the passage of those amendments. <br />
<br />
And, of course, then those amendments, the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments, had no meaning for the next hundred years. The
blacks were not allowed to vote in the South. Blacks did not get an
equal protection of the laws. Every president of the United States for a
hundred years, every president, Democrat or Republican, liberal or
conservative, every president violated his oath of office. Every
president, because the oath of office says you will see to it that the
laws are faithfully executed. And every president did not enforce the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, collaborated with Southern racism
and segregation and lynching and all that happened.<br />
<br />
So, the Civil War and its aftermath, you know, have to be looked
at in a longer perspective. And yes, the question needs to be asked
also: yeah, is it possible if slavery could have been ended without
600,000 dead? We don’t know for sure. And when I mention these
possibilities, you know, it’s very hard to imagine how it might have
ended, except that we do know that slavery was ended in every other
country in the western hemisphere. Slavery was ended in all these others
places in the western hemisphere without a bloody civil war. Well, that
doesn’t prove that it could have been ended, and, you know, every
situation is different, but it makes you think. If you begin to think,
"Oh, the only way it could have been done is with a bloody civil war,"
maybe not. I mean, maybe it would have taken longer. You know, maybe
there could have been slave rebellions which hammered away at the
Southern slave structure, hammered away at them in a war of attrition,
not a big bloody mass war, but a war of attrition and guerrilla warfare,
and John Brown-type raids. <br />
<br />
Remember John Brown, who wanted to organize raids and a slave
rebellion? Yeah, a little guerrilla action, not totally peaceful, no.
But not massive slaughter. Well, John Brown was executed by the state of
Virginia and the national government. He was executed in 1859 for
wanting to lead slave revolts. And the next year, the government goes to
war in a war that cost 600,000 lives and then, presumably, as people
came to believe, to end slavery. There’s a kind of tragic irony in that
juxtaposition of facts. So it’s worth thinking about, about the Civil
War, and not to simply say, “Well, Civil War ended slavery, therefore
whatever the human cost was, it was worth it.” It’s worth rethinking.<br />
<br />
Now we come to World War II. Looking at my watch, I don’t mean it.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="caps">TIME</span> <span class="caps">KEEPER</span>: </b>You’re on a roll tonight. You’re good.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="caps">HOWARD</span> <span class="caps">ZINN</span>: </b>No, I don’t mean it. <br />
<br />
Well, World War II, “the Good War,” the best. Fascism. I mean,
that’s why I enlisted in the Air Force: fight against fascism. It’s a
good war, it’s a just war. What could be, you know, more obvious? They
are evil; we are good. <br />
<br />
And so, I became a bombardier in the Air Force. I dropped bombs
on Germany, on Hungary, on Czechoslovakia — even on a little town in
France three weeks before the war was to end, when everybody knew the
war was to end and we didn’t need to drop any more bombs, but we dropped
bombs. On a little town in France, we were trying out napalm, the first
use of napalm in the European theater. I think by now you all know what
napalm is. One of the ugliest little weapons. But trying it out, and
adding metals. And who knows what reason, what complex of reasons, led
us to bomb a little town in France, when everybody knew the war was
ending? And yes, there were German soldiers there, hanging around. They
weren’t doing anything, weren’t bothering anybody, but they’re there,
and gives us a good excuse to bomb. We’ll kill the Germans, we’ll kill
some Frenchmen, too. What does it matter? It’s a good war. We’re the
good guys.<br />
<br />
One thing — and I didn’t think about any of this while I was
bombing. I didn’t examine: oh, who are we bombing, and why are we
bombing, and what’s going on here, and who is dying? I didn’t know who
was dying, because when you bomb from 30,000 feet, well, this is modern
warfare; you do things at a distance. It’s very impersonal. You just
press a button, you know, and somebody dies. But you don’t see them. So I
dropped bombs from 30,000 feet. I didn’t see any human beings. I didn’t
see what’s happening below. I didn’t hear children screaming. I didn’t
see arms being ripped off people. No, just dropped bombs. You see little
flashes of light down below as the bombs hit. That’s it. And you don’t
think. It’s hard to think when you’re in the military. Really, it’s hard
to sit back and examine, ask what you’re doing. No, you’ve been trained
to do a job, and you do your job. <br />
<br />
So I didn’t think about any of this until after the war, when I
began to think about that raid on France. And then I began to think
about the raid on Dresden, where 100,000 people were killed in one
night, day of bombing. Read Kurt Vonnegut’s book <i>Slaughterhouse Five</i>.
He was there. He was a prisoner of war and there in the basement, you
know, a kind of meat locker, a slaughterhouse. And then I became aware
of the other bombings that had taken place. But, you know, when you’re
in a war, you don’t see the big picture, and you don’t — you really
don’t — I didn’t know until afterward, 600,000 German civilians were
killed by our bombing. They weren’t Nazis. Well, yeah, you might say
they were passive supporters and that they didn’t rebel. Well, a few
rebelled. But how many Americans rebel against American wars? Are we all
complicit for what we did in Vietnam, killing several million people?
Well, maybe we are, but there was a kind of stupid, ignorant innocence
about us. And the same thing was true of the Germans. And we killed
600,000. If some great power, while we were dropping bombs on Vietnam,
had come over here and dropped bombs on American cities in retaliation,
it would’ve been — and they say, “Well, these are imperialists, we’ll
kill them all" — no, the American people were not themselves
imperialists, but they were passive bystanders, until they woke up,
yeah. <br />
<br />
So I began to think about it, as I began to think about Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. And I had welcomed the bombing of Hiroshima when it took
place, because I didn’t know. I didn’t know what it really meant. We had
finished our bombing missions in Europe, we had won the war in Europe,
and my crew and I, we flew our plane, the same plane we had flown
missions on, we flew that same plane back across the Atlantic, and we
were given a thirty-day furlough. And then the idea was we were going to
go on to the Pacific, because the war against Japan was still going on.
And during this thirty-day furlough in early August, my wife and I
decided, because we had been married just before I went overseas — my
wife and I decided we’d take a little vacation in the country. And we
took a bus to go into the country. And at the bus stop, there was a
newsstand, and there was a newspaper and the big headline "Atomic Bomb
Dropped on Hiroshima." Well, oh, great! Didn’t really know what an
atomic bomb was, but it was sort of obvious from the headlines, oh, and
it was a big bomb. Well, I had dropped bombs. This was just a bigger
bomb. <br />
<br />
But I had no idea what it meant until I read John Hersey’s book
on Hiroshima. John Hersey had gone into Hiroshima after the bombing, and
he had talked to survivors. Survivors? You can imagine what those
survivors looked like. They were kids and old people and women and all
sorts of Japanese people. And they were without arms or legs, or they
were blinded, or their skin could not be looked at. John Hersey
interviewed them and got some idea and reported — he was a great
journalist — he reported what the bombing of Hiroshima was like to the
people who were there. And when I read his account, for the first time, I
understood. This is what bombing does to human beings. This is what my
bombs had done to people. <br />
<br />
And I began to rethink the idea of a "good war," of our world war
against fascism. "Oh, well, it’s OK, because we did defeat Hitler.”
That’s just it, just like we did get independence from England, we did
end slavery. But wait a while. A lot of other — it’s not that simple.
And World War II is not that simple. “Oh, we defeated Hitler, therefore
eveything is OK. We were the good guys; they were the bad guys." But
what I realized then was that once you decide — and this is what we
decided at the beginning of the war, this is what, you know, I decided —
they were the bad guys, we were the good guys, what I didn’t realize
was that in the course of the war, the good guys become the bad guys.
War poisons everybody. War corrupts everybody. And so, the so-called
good guys begin behaving like the bad guys. The Nazis dropped bombs and
killed civilians in Coventry, in London, in Rotterdam. And we drop bombs
and kill civilians, and we commit atrocities, and we go over Tokyo
several months before Hiroshima. <br />
<br />
And I’ll bet you 90 percent of the American people do not know
about the raid of Tokyo. Everybody has heard about Hiroshima. I’ll bet
90 percent of the American people — I don’t you know if you have — know
that several months before Hiroshima, we sent planes over Tokyo to set
Tokyo afire with firebombs, and 100,000 people died in one night of
bombing in Tokyo. Altogether we killed over half a million people in
Japan, civilians. And some people said, “Well, they bombed Pearl
Harbor.” That’s really something. These people did not bomb Pearl
Harbor. Those children did not bomb Pearl Harbor. But this notion of
violent revenge and retaliation is something we’ve got to get rid of. <br />
<br />
So I began, yeah, reconsidering all of that, rethinking all of
that, investigated the bombing of Hiroshima, investigated the excuse
that was made — “Oh, you know, if we don’t bomb Hiroshima, well, we have
to invade Japan, and a million people will die.” And I investigated all
of that, found it was all nonsense. We didn’t have to invade Japan in
order for Japan to surrender. Our own official investigative team, the
Strategic Bombing Survey, which went into Japan right after the war,
interviewed all the high Japanese military, civilian officials, and
their conclusion was Japan was ready to end the war. Maybe not the next
week, maybe in two months, maybe in three months. "Oh, no, we can’t
wait. We don’t want to wait. We’ve got these bombs. We’ve got to see
what they look like." Do you know how many people die because of
experimentation with weapons? We were experimenting. We were
experimenting on the children of Hiroshima. “Let’s see what this does.
Hey, and also, let’s show the Russians. Let’s show the Russians we have
this bomb.” A British Scientist who was an adviser to Churchill called
the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima "the first step of the Cold War."
Soviet Union was in the mind of the people around Harry Truman — James
Burns, Forrestal and others. <br />
<br />
So, yes, I began thinking about "the good war" and how it
corrupts and poisons. And then I looked at the world after the war. Oh,
yeah, what were the results? Yeah, I said bad things about the war. I’m
sorry, all those casualties, but it ended — it stopped fascism. Now wait
a while. Let’s look closely at that. Yeah, it got rid of Hitler, got
rid of Mussolini. Did it get rid of fascism in the world? Did it get rid
of racism in the world? Did it get rid of militarism in the world? No,
you had two superpowers now arming themselves with nuclear weapons,
enough nuclear weapons that if they were used, they would make Hitler’s
Holocaust look puny. And there were times, in fact, in the decades that
followed when we came very, very close to using those nuclear weapons. <br />
<br />
So the world after World War II — and this is so important — you
don’t just look at, “Oh, we won.” No, what happens after that? What
happens five years after that? What happens ten years after that? What
happens to the GIs who came back alive, five or ten years later? And
maybe one of them will go berserk at Fort Hood. Think about that. Think
about all the superficial comments made of “Oh, let’s examine this guy
psychologically and his religious [inaudible], and let’s not go deeper
into that and say these are war casualties.” Those people he killed were
war casualties; he was a war casualty. That’s what war does. War
poisons people’s minds. So we got rid of Hitler. But what was the world
like? <br />
<br />
When I was discharged from the Army, from the Air Force, I got a
letter from General Marshall. He was the general of generals. He was
sending a letter, not a personal letter to me — "Dear Howie..." No. A
letter that was sent to 16 million men who had served in the Armed
Forces, some women, too. And the letter was something like this: “We’ve
won the war. Congratulations for your service. It will be a new world.”
It wasn’t a new world. And we know it hasn’t been a new world since
World War II. War after war after war after war, and 50 million people
were dead in that war to end all wars, to end fascism and dictatorship
and militarism. No. <br />
<br />
So, yes, I came to a conclusion that war cannot be tolerated, no
matter what we’re told. And if we think that there are good wars and
that, therefore, well, maybe this is a good war, I wanted to examine the
so-called good wars, the holy wars, and — yeah, and take a good look at
them and think again about the phenomenon of war and come to the
conclusion, well, yes, war cannot be tolerated, no matter what we’re
told, no matter what tyrant exists, what border has been crossed, what
aggression has taken place. It’s not that we’re going to be passive in
the face of tyranny or aggression, no, but we’ll find ways other than
war to deal with whatever problems we have, because war is inevitably —
inevitably — the indiscriminant massive killing of huge numbers of
people. And children are a good part of those people. Every war is a war
against children.<br />
<br />
So it’s not just getting rid of Saddam Hussein, if we think about
it. Well, we got rid of Saddam Hussein. In the course of it, we killed
huge numbers of people who had been victims of Saddam Hussein. When you
fight a war against a tyrant, who do you kill? You kill the victims of
the tyrant. Anyway, all this — all this was simply to make us think
again about war and to think, you know, we’re at war now, right? In
Iraq, in Afghanistan and sort of in Pakistan, since we’re sending
rockets over there and killing innocent people in Pakistan. And so, we
should not accept that.<br />
<br />
We should look for a peace movement to join. Really, look for
some peace organization to join. It will look small at first, and
pitiful and helpless, but that’s how movements start. That’s how the
movement against the Vietnam War started. It started with handfuls of
people who thought they were helpless, thought they were powerless. But
remember, this power of the people on top depends on the obedience of
the people below. When people stop obeying, they have no power. When
workers go on strike, huge corporations lose their power. When consumers
boycott, huge business establishments have to give in. When soldiers
refuse to fight, as so many soldiers did in Vietnam, so many deserters,
so many fraggings, acts of violence by enlisted men against officers in
Vietnam, B-52 pilots refusing to fly bombing missions anymore, war can’t
go on. When enough soldiers refuse, the government has to decide we
can’t continue. So, yes, people have the power. If they begin to
organize, if they protest, if they create a strong enough movement, they
can change things. <br />
<br />
That’s all I want to say. Thank you.dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-34371551271266264802012-08-23T10:50:00.001-06:002013-11-07T14:53:46.170-07:00It's Time For Tim's...To Clean Up Their Messmost consumers are idiots. in fact, most people in general are quite ignorant and apathetic about issues that are critically important to the preservation of a healthy environment and the well-being of everyone. hence the problem with democracy and why we get the kind of political representation we have. "garbage in, garbage out," as the late comedian george carlin famously observed regarding our electoral process. when for example <a href="http://theveganarchist.blogspot.ca/2012/08/whats-wrong-with-albertans.html">79% of albertans</a> do not believe humans play a role in climate change, or when people believe the best way to deal with summertime mosquitoes is to <a href="http://theveganarchist.blogspot.ca/2012/08/no-mosquitoes-for-heritage-days-how.html">spray toxic chemicals into our environment</a>, how is that going to translate when they go into the voting booth to cast their ballots?<br />
<br />
when people choose to turn a blind eye to scientific facts and not find out the truth for themselves, or when they just outright deny evidence because it would run counter to the way they already think, the decisions they make will be uniformed and imbecilic at best, or dangerous and deadly at worst.<br />
<br />
these prevailing attitudes of gullibility and stupidity seem to guide many people's actions in their day to day lives as consumers. if there is something to use, they will use it without thinking twice about what went into its production, or where it goes after they are finished using it. and in many cases the thing is only meant for a single one-time use.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8WfCwqVflTklk3lpDXWDRUPwrEKjWBog49jPcfu-DVJe7-LlZLhrbeg0EU14F9Zzngo64ZYK-gzhqJ-DTjJenr-0j8LHqTCoJeP3v5D8o868wMHZutFnNNRiBR-sPiXi6XLZ9/s1600/DSC03241.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8WfCwqVflTklk3lpDXWDRUPwrEKjWBog49jPcfu-DVJe7-LlZLhrbeg0EU14F9Zzngo64ZYK-gzhqJ-DTjJenr-0j8LHqTCoJeP3v5D8o868wMHZutFnNNRiBR-sPiXi6XLZ9/s320/DSC03241.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
take for instance a tim hortons disposable cup. canadians flock like flies to shit to get their daily fix of tim hortons coffee in a throw away cup. often a person will place his cup of coffee into another cup, so he doesn't burn his delicate little fingers when he raises the beverage to his ravenous maw. what ever happened to people putting their coffee in a reusable thermos? when did we get so addicted to these one-use containers? and what's so shit hot about tim hortons coffee anyway? what, are they putting heroin in it or something? it's all part of the culture of consumerism, to keep people hopped up on caffeine and alert so they move, move, move and work, work, work to stimulate the precious economy until it blows its destructive load all over the face of the earth. everybody just needs to take a step back, consider what they're doing, and calm the fuck down!<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_298722580"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.bethechangeearthalliance.org/youthaction/thefacts">canadians use 1.6 billion disposable coffee cups every year</a> or nearly 4.5 million each day. think about that. if the average height of a cup is 12 cm (about the size of a can of pop), 1.6 billion stacked end to end would reach halfway to the moon! that's fucked up. if i were lloyd braun from seinfeld i might ask, "am i crazy, or is that a lot of cups?" to which any sane person would respond, "it's a lot of cups!"<br />
<br />
but like i say, most people are idiots. if something is available for use, they will use it and assume that it's okay because it's in the marketplace and advertised on billboards, on tv, and everywhere else you look - and advertising wouldn't lie to you now, would it? companies know this, and they externalize the costs of doing business onto the environment in the form of disposable packaging. then they will put the anus on us and tell us not to litter. yet tim hortons has the audacity to <i>litter</i>ally encourage people to continue using their disposable cups because of their roll up the fucking rim to win bullshit. people love to win shit, don't they? it's the canadian dream.<br />
<br />
when is tim hortons going to take responsibility for the garbage that they are creating and peddling in the first place? sure, the junkie has a problem, but goddamn the pusher man. in annie leonard's book <i>the story of stuff</i>, she writes,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In 1991, the German government adopted a packaging ordinance, the foundation of which is the belief that the companies that design, produce, use, and profit from packaging should be held financially responsible for it—an idea known as extended producer responsibility.</blockquote>
hear that tim hortons? this is your garbage. you made it. it has your name on it. it belongs to you. stop making stuff that is designed to be thrown away. whether it's here or there, on the street or in a garbage can makes little difference. it's more waste that's being added into a world already overflowing with trash. or perhaps they view their cups and bags lying around not as garbage at all, but as mini billboards scattered hither and yon advertising their business. maybe if the financial burden was placed squarely onto the shoulders of tim hortons to deal with all of their disposable property, they would create less waste and encourage people to use their own reusable cups instead.<br />
<br />
yes, people need to take responsibility for what they buy and what they throw away. but certainly companies need to take equal, or in my opinion greater responsibility for the disposable packaging they hand out to customers on a daily basis. and the only way that companies will change and stop with their dispensing of disposables is not voluntarily, but when people demand it through boycotts and through government regulation and enforcement with strong penalties for those who do not comply.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3VqIzIT63xo78maqdzcs11Vcg7Hacp_IQdyK0wzqgLlIQ1JTH4iC5qGptRlSD-08x6maU2XTm3FeasH84VgpkDfRTRlzGl3hf3IKXU06Q3oIMdKSRgMbK7ksTlqmIHkUGB0eb/s1600/tim+hortons+garbage.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3VqIzIT63xo78maqdzcs11Vcg7Hacp_IQdyK0wzqgLlIQ1JTH4iC5qGptRlSD-08x6maU2XTm3FeasH84VgpkDfRTRlzGl3hf3IKXU06Q3oIMdKSRgMbK7ksTlqmIHkUGB0eb/s320/tim+hortons+garbage.bmp" width="320" /></a>1.6 billion disposable cups every year in canada is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the amount of waste generated in this country. we have all got to reconsider and question the economic capitalist monster we have manufactured that allows for such rampant disregard of our environment and the well-being of our communities. we are being smothered by garbage created by irresponsible companies like tim hortons, who continue to ignore the real costs of getting rid of and storing their trash, while they are laughing all the way to the bailed out banks.<br />
<br />
enough is enough. so sing along with the jingle, "it's time for tim's...to clean up their mess!"dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-49163397871110805942012-08-22T14:45:00.000-06:002012-08-26T18:01:53.692-06:00Canadians - Waste Producing Machinesin annie leonard's book the story of stuff, which she wrote in response to her enormously popular <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM">youtube video</a>, there is a section where she discusses the amount of municipal solid waste (msw) produced by each country. msw is defined as,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Everything we commonly think of as garbage—from packaging and yard waste to broken Stuff, rotten food, or recyclables; everything we put in the bins that we set out on the curb—collectively makes up what’s known as the municipal solid waste stream, or MSW. </blockquote>
listed are the figures of various countries for their per capita garbage production for 2007. the united states comes in at 4.6 pounds (2.1 kg) per person/day while canada's numbers are listed at 1.79 lbs (0.8 kg). knowing what i know about the selfishness and wastefulness of canadians, that figure seemed a bit off to me.<br />
<br />
after doing a little probing (which can sometimes get messy after you discover things you weren't expecting) i came across the <a href="http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment/municipal-waste-generation.aspx">conference board of canada's website</a>, where they list canada's municipal waste generation at 894 kg per capita each year. that's 2.5 kg per person/day or 5.4 lbs!<br />
<br />
5.4 pounds (time for a spit take)? dang, that's even more than the united states. so what's up with these dirty thoughtless hosers?<br />
<br />
from my own personal experience i can say that in general most canadians don't give a shit about the environment or the negative impact that their actions have on others. take a walk in any canadian city and see <span id="goog_1229059332"></span><span id="goog_1229059333"></span>how much trash you see strewn about, with the vast majority of it being fast food garbage. canadians fill their fat bellies with garbage food and then fill the streets with garbage packaging when they're done.<br />
<br />
and if you happen to have the misfortune of living in the prairie provinces, you are well aware of the amount of huge gas guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs on the road befouling the air. usually, but not always, driven by some ignorant redneck who believes owning such a monstrosity makes him appear more manly. where in fact, more appropriately, to quote cornelius from planet of the apes,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
somehow, it makes you look less intelligent. </blockquote>
but whether the trash that these heads-far-up-their-own-ass-jingo-bell-ringing canadians generate is on the street or in the dump, they do indeed excel at being wasteful. in fact, of the 17 countries listed on the conference board of canada's site for the amount of garbage each one produces, guess where the canucks rank? that's right...dead last! and this time they can't blame the officiating. crybabies. although knowing how in the dark most people here are about living ethically, they're probably proud of this dubious distinction.<br />
<br />
once these asbestos-exporting, seal-clubbing, ecosystem-destroying, trash creating stinkbags come to realize that their own actions are not only having detrimental effects on their surroundings, but by extension on themselves as well, perhaps then they will finally clue in to the fact that it's time to live a bit more responsibly in this world and clean up their fucking act! after all, there are many others we share the planet with so let's not be total dicks. okay?<br />
<br />
now go watch your reruns of supermarket sweep and leave me alone!<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzXwHaWZInULxQoY0BYnp4Xr4Ox_GYmY6F2KVZndWXNTIkqGJ1eP6OwL0kNCdp1JkyaHTFeQeP1Y7g' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
45 grave - consumers - from the 1987 album, autopsy</div>
dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-13346330319425177382012-08-21T19:00:00.001-06:002012-08-22T08:05:36.128-06:00West Nile Hits Southern Albertathere was a story on cfrn news today about a woman in southern alberta who has contracted the <a href="http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/west-nile-virus-case-confirmed-in-alberta-1.923419">west nile virus</a>. in the report, a spokesperson from alberta health services said he does not believe the situation will be as bad as it is in <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-north-texas-west-nile-20120814,0,6796181.story">texas</a>, where so far this year 16 people have lost their lives due to the virus, because as he put it, west nile is "temperature dependent".<br />
<br />
you don't say. well thanks to industrial operations like the tar sands in the northeastern section of the province, ripping up over 600 square kilometers of boreal forest so far (nearly the size of edmonton), and continuing to dump massive amounts of co2 and methane into the atmosphere, playing a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html">significant role in contributing to a warming climate</a>, is it not possible, alberta health services, that this province could see more cases of west nile in the not too distant future?<br />
<br />
author and environmentalist bill mckibben told an <a href="http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/earthmatters/2011/04/10/mckibben-tells-vancouverites-help-close-tar-sands">audience in vancouver</a> recently,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
if an alien were to view human activity from afar and take a guess at
what we were trying to do with the planet, creating the perfect conditions for a worldwide mosquito ranch would be
a viable hypothesis.</blockquote>
will alberta's answer to an increased number of mosquitoes, brought on by humans negatively impacting the delicate ecosystem balance that sustains our species, simply be to spray more insecticides like <a href="http://theveganarchist.blogspot.ca/2012/08/no-mosquitoes-for-heritage-days-how.html">dursban</a> and poison our environment even more? or will we take this as a warning sign and stop our ecologically damaging activities that pollute the air, water and soil that all creatures rely on, and begin to take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and finally learn to live more in harmony with our natural world?<br />
<br />
i wager 100 quatloos that alberta responds with the former.<br />
<br />
<br />dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-7161067848746118062012-08-20T23:50:00.001-06:002012-08-21T00:03:13.629-06:00Ballad of Easy Rider - [original cover song]<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dx0tsGc6N1syZ8oAeJmSGL0nQMPaJYREZVhPpRs98GoxHET9IjkcjXNPpLGaxhOJEcsOoOAyklKafY' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
my musical tribute to dennis hopper<span class="st"> </span>and easy rider
</div>
dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-61442242663344162042012-08-19T13:34:00.001-06:002012-08-19T23:00:59.065-06:00Blue-Green Algae in Alberta Lakes - "We Are Over Fertilizing Our Lakes" <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dw2r_GX3LQtHG8tD9qn3fnwwkDOE8xKl60nJVdmUSvTfh5Rq-d7aK264zFE-Kd_2M0woNRoEVkyonc' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
from cbc edmonton am with rick harp - 07/26/2012</div>
<br />
university of alberta professor of ecology dr. david schindler says nutrients are going up in alberta lakes. there is 2 to 3 times more phosphorus present than 100 years ago due to human activity that includes pastures and feedlots, lakeshore development, and human sewage.<br />
<br />
there are much stricter controls in europe where phosphorus levels have been reduced by cutting back on pastures and animal feedlots, and by putting restrictions on the kinds of development that you can do surrounding lakeshores.<br />
<br />
will appropriate steps be taken in alberta? dr. schindler says, as long as "weak willed municipalities looking for tax grabs and developers looking to make money discount these problems and go ahead and develop, our lakes will continue to look like green paint". but then in a province where the cattle industry reigns supreme, and where the most ecologically destructive project on the planet, the tar sands, continues to rip up the boreal forest, pollute the air and poison river systems, what do you expect? <br />
<br />
if there's money to made destroying our environment, alberta will be at the front of the line collecting the cheque.<br />
<br />
even if this province did implement measures to alleviate the problem of over-fertilized lakes caused by human activity, it would take some 30-40 years for lakes to recover.<br />
<br />
here is an <a href="http://m.edmontonsun.com/2012/07/23/scientist-warns-piegon-lake-problems-will-continue">article from the edmonton sun</a> dated july 23, 2012 entitled, <i>Scientist warns Pigeon Lake problems will continue</i>. <br />
<br />
i just love the last line. here is the piece:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A University of Alberta scientist says problems at Pigeon Lake will continue to worsen if development in the area grows — this after a slew of dead fish washed up on the sand along Ma-Me-O Beach Sunday.<br />
<br />
Lake residents said Sunday that "thousands" of fish had washed up on shore, which they were concerned could turn visitors away.<br />
<br />
While not uncommon, it is alarming, says David Schindler, a renowned University of Alberta water doc.<br />
<br />
Schindler says warm temperatures raises the temperature of shallow bodies of water, like Pigeon Lake.<br />
<br />
White fish are particularly susceptible to the warmer temperatures, because they are a cool-water species that are unable to adjust to the warmer water.<br />
<br />
They get squeezed between temperatures above, and low oxygen below, Schindler said.<br />
<br />
"It's a problem that is getting worse on Pigeon and other lakes around here because with more development, there are more algae blooms, and then more algae going to the bottom to decompose, and therefore less oxygen," he said.<br />
<br />
"The zone that they occupy between the thermocline and the oxygen gets smaller and smaller."<br />
<br />
Harriet Shugarman was looking forward to soaking up the sand and surf of Pigeon Lake at Ma-Me-O Beach like she did as a child growing up in the area.<br />
<br />
Instead, the New Jersey resident joined a small brigade of volunteers armed with pitch forks and shovels to help remove what some say thousands of dead, rotting fish, which have washed ashore at the popular beach area, west of Wetaskiwin.<br />
<br />
"I grew up in Edmonton, and live in New Jersey, and I'd come and spend my summers out at Pigeon Lake cause I love Pigeon Lake," said Shugarman taking a break from manning a pitch fork.<br />
<br />
"And I want my children to experience how wonderful Ma-Me-O (Beach) and Pigeon Lake is."<br />
<br />
Shugarman said her mother, who is in her 70s, said the fish kills have been happening on this kind of scale only during the past few years.<br />
<br />
"There has to be some relation to something that is happening."<br />
<br />
"Whether it's our warming climate combined with what we are doing with sewage and nitrogen from runoff from the shores."<br />
<br />
The province said they had sent researchers out to the lake to investigate, but said the higher temperatures are likely the root of the kill.<br />
<br />
David Ealey, with Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, also agreed that nutrients coming in from surrounding cabins and agricultural activities could have played a role.<br />
<br />
But he stopped short of saying surrounding developments were to blame.<br />
<br />
Schindler says the likelihood of the problem worsening over time is "almost inevitable."<br />
<br />
"(They need to) stop developing the lake shore. But no one is willing to do that," he said.<br />
<br />
"So they're going to have lakes like green paint and dead fish in the summer."<br />
<br />
The province says because the fish died of a natural occurrence, it's up to beach residents to clean it up.</blockquote>
wow! natural occurrence eh? this is precisely the excuse the province uses for toxins in the air and water surrounding the tar sands. unbelievable!<br />
<br />
it should also be noted that the leader of the popular right-wing wildrose party in alberta, danielle smith, is a climate change denier. she is just an example of the kind of scientific savvy we're getting from our political representatives here, who are nothing more than puppets and mouthpieces for big oil and the meat and dairy industry.dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-77712936401326391852012-08-15T15:05:00.001-06:002012-08-18T18:16:49.519-06:00What's Wrong with Albertans?the results of a recent <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/08/15/calgary-climate-change-web-poll.html">poll</a> show that in canada,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
32 per cent said they believe climate change is happening because of
human activity, while 54 per cent said they believe it's because of
human activity and partially due to natural climate variation.</blockquote>
these numbers seem startlingly low to me, but at the same time it really should come as no surprise. afterall, the leader of the conservative government in canada is the son of an oil executive, and the country is home to the most environmentally detrimental project on the face of the earth, <a href="http://dirtyoilsands.org/">the tar sands of alberta</a>.<br />
<br />
let's not forget also that canada thinks nothing of <a href="http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/07/quebec-and-canada-keep-deadly-asbestos-industry-alive/">exporting asbestos to developing countries</a>, or continuing with unethical practices like the seal hunt, even though the european union has demonstrated that they <a href="http://www.harpseals.org/resources/news_and_press/2012/seal_hunt_opinions_2012.php">no longer want canada's bloody fur</a>.<br />
<br />
but as if canadians as a whole weren't in the dark enough about global warming, only <i>21% of albertans</i> believe climate change is occurring due to human activities. and it is these very same uninformed alberta imbeciles who don't give a damn about nature, as they buy their huge gas guzzling pickup trucks and thoughtlessly leave them idling for lengthy periods of time, without considering the impact it has on the environment or the people who have to breathe that shit in.<br />
<br />
if alberta were its own country, it would have the highest carbon footprint of any other country on the planet at <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_899954625">69 tonnes</a><a href="http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/climate"> of co2</a> spewed out per person per year, due largely to the tar sands, and in no small part to the harmful lifestyle choices of so many albertans.<br />
<br />
yet 79% of these weirdo hicks do not believe that people play a role in altering the very chemical makeup of our atmosphere putting life as we know it at risk. what facts are they basing their beliefs on and where are they getting their information? is it from the local media, who seem more concerned about a new "cool looking" arena in downtown edmonton or the amount of pesky mosquitoes in summer, than in asking the tough questions and speaking truth to power; or is it from their right-wing government, who time and again side with corporate interests over the health and well-being of people and wildlife; or is it from the oil and gas industry, whose only concern is raking in millions more in profits?<br />
<br />
it would seem it's much easier for people to believe that something is not happening so they can continue with business as usual. but the truth still exists, despite what they may "believe". in her book <i>breaking the sound barrier</i>, <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/">democracy now's</a> amy goodman writes,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
truth matters..."you're entitled to your own opinions, you're not
entitled to your own facts," the late senator daniel patrick moynihan
famously observed. </blockquote>
if your beliefs are not based on factual evidence, they are worthless. actually, they are worse than worthless, in many cases, they are downright harmful and destructive.<br />
<br />
meanwhile, the clueless redneck in his pickup at the end of the street has been sitting in his idling truck for over 1/2 hour now and counting.<br />
<br />
what's wrong with albertans?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-82558043069931034232012-08-13T19:00:00.001-06:002012-08-28T17:00:46.669-06:00Sean & Yoko on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon Sing "Don't Frack My Mother"from 07/13/2012<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/l8biW5v4k9k" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
Sean Lennon's op-ed in the New York Times 08-27-2012,<span style="font-size: small;"> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/opinion/sean-lennon-destroying-precious-land-for-gas.html">Destroying Precious Land for Gas</a></span>dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-53776942211467568072012-08-13T10:31:00.000-06:002012-08-14T00:01:48.947-06:00Imagine - John Lennon - Olympics Closing Ceremony - London 2012it was a beautiful rendition of imagine, exclusively remastered by yoko ono for the olympics closing ceremony in london. yet when yoko uploaded the video of her husband singing his song to her youtube channel so she could share that moment with the world...<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7EjQOFMsNs&feature=youtu.be"><span class="long-title" dir="ltr" id="eow-title" style="vertical-align: top;" title="John Lennon - IMAGINE at the London 2012 Olympic Games closing ceremony">John Lennon - IMAGINE at the London 2012 Olympic Games closing ceremony</span></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdjNHRxFotN88uKBHpZGmsztcA4LXMBXqfsgtcfhz_YL_CPgcu3IkZk_so8ckkFV8jzA-Bm3X6w6H9gyGGA0LCTFpirdi3wptJ8Xilz04qKKGQ6dEr4u_EnMEKAD_AJ10r_WQ3/s1600/imagine+03.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="295" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdjNHRxFotN88uKBHpZGmsztcA4LXMBXqfsgtcfhz_YL_CPgcu3IkZk_so8ckkFV8jzA-Bm3X6w6H9gyGGA0LCTFpirdi3wptJ8Xilz04qKKGQ6dEr4u_EnMEKAD_AJ10r_WQ3/s400/imagine+03.bmp" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
the fucking International Olympic Committee blocked it!</div>
<br />
it's all about property and profit, corporate sponsorship and advertising, isn't it IOC? imagine no possessions. i wonder if you can, y'cunts! come on now IOC, gimme some truth!<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">glimpse the truth behind the veil and watch <i>Olympic Goodwill Image Belied by Arrests, Censorship and Corporate Ties Behind London Games</i>, from Democracy Now! 07-31-2012</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="225" src="http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2012/7/31/goodwill_image_belied_by_arrests_censorship" width="400"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
below is yoko's husband singing his song <i><b>imagine</b></i>, that she uploaded to vimeo for all to see. right on yoko! fuck the IOC and the plutocratic corporatists! imagine all the people sharing all the world. the days of ayn rand's selfish individualism and milton friedman's disaster capitalism are numbered. a new era is dawning, and the world will live as one.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="300" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/47478945?color=20a7ff" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" width="400"></iframe>
dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-84839701169276568332012-08-03T19:16:00.002-06:002014-07-04T08:02:52.382-06:00No Mosquitoes For Heritage Days or the Edmonton Folk Festival - How About Cancer?heritage days is upon us in edmonton and cancer is in the air...but at least the mosquitoes won't be.<br />
<br />
according to the city of edmonton <a href="http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/pest_management/edmontons-mosquito-control-program.aspx">mosquito control program</a>,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Over a typical spring and summer season, our control methods achieve over 90% reduction of nuisance <i>Aedes </i>[<span class="pronset"><span class="show_spellpr" style="display: inline;"><span class="prondelim"></span><span class="pron">ey-<span class="boldface">ee</span>-deez</span><span class="prondelim"> - </span></span></span>the genus to which mosquitoes belong] which develop in the breeding sites we are able to treat. Proper treatment of <i>Aedes </i>breeding
sites with the conventional insecticide <b>Dursban® </b>reliably causes 100%
larval mortality under all known habitat conditions. </blockquote>
there was a story on cfrn today, one of the local news stations here, about mosquito spraying, and not a word was mentioned about the safety of the chemicals used. the only message conveyed to the viewer was that we need to keep the buzzing little buggers away for heritage days.<br />
<br />
and why? well let me guess, so people will spend lots of money? come on media, do your job! how safe are these chemicals?<br />
<br />
well let's find out.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5lewicGk1uj64h7DPCw3QvRx_CYzCxqFPF44Zvp-_47nGiIYWWKFNkNGYtQCCBeBiu2WURhALHSQF33MroHfQNk3-C1bBoY86oT5o-xwHpv0T-j_NQ4la94u_MPFNxrsAt2SM/s1600/dursban1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5lewicGk1uj64h7DPCw3QvRx_CYzCxqFPF44Zvp-_47nGiIYWWKFNkNGYtQCCBeBiu2WURhALHSQF33MroHfQNk3-C1bBoY86oT5o-xwHpv0T-j_NQ4la94u_MPFNxrsAt2SM/s1600/dursban1.jpg" /></a></div>
<i><b>what exactly is dursban?</b></i><br />
<br />
Dursban (also marketed as Lorsban) is the brand name for an <a href="http://npic.orst.edu/RMPP/rmpp_ch4.pdf">organophosphate pesticide</a> with the active ingredient <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorpyrifos">chlorpyrifos</a> (<i>chlor-</i> [Chlorine] + <i>pyri</i>dine [A colorless volatile liquid, C<sub>5</sub>H<sub>5</sub>N, with an unpleasant odor, present in coal tar and used chiefly as a solvent] + -<i>fos</i> [alteration of phosphorus]) that kills by attacking the nervous system. Organophosphates were first developed by Nazi scientists as chemical warfare agents in the 1930s. Dow sells US $500 million worth of Dursban every year worldwide. It is used for killing termites, cockroaches, ants, fleas, and of course mosquitoes.<br />
<br />
<i><b>is it safe? </b></i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bhopal.net/delhi-marchers/factsheets/Dursban.pdf">Dursban is extremely dangerous:</a><br />
• Dursban is a nerve toxin and suspected endocrine disruptor with the potential to alter and interfere with the hormonal systems of insects, wildlife, and people.<br />
• Dursban causes neurological damage to children and can result in blurred vision, fatigue, muscle weakness, memory loss and depression.<br />
• Dursban has been associated with carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and acute toxicity.<br />
• Dursban can cause multiple chemical sensitivity, neurobehavioral problems and peripheral neuropathy.<br />
• Exposure to Dursban during the first trimester of pregnancy has been associated with birth defects.<br />
• Dursban accounted for 7,000 accidental pesticide exposures reported to US Poison Control Centers in 1996 (the most recent year for which data is available).<br />
• On June 8, 2000 the U.S Environmental Protection Agency recommended a ban on virtually all uses of Dursban in residential and commercial buildings in the U.S. The ban was based on the reported chronic effects of Dursban and especially effects on the brains of growing children.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8kaKOGB8dWyB1rx-KTCT1iNyxyo35gXyh7fe2JpSS0dBeTDCl2c8rYWOTamFiX_QAMC6wXRi3Umf_aViO_VbEBJkhRhHP0mAd9B9XUAEoCoEGG6Lc0_5MA9c3mZ_QgtMe07xN/s1600/dursban.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8kaKOGB8dWyB1rx-KTCT1iNyxyo35gXyh7fe2JpSS0dBeTDCl2c8rYWOTamFiX_QAMC6wXRi3Umf_aViO_VbEBJkhRhHP0mAd9B9XUAEoCoEGG6Lc0_5MA9c3mZ_QgtMe07xN/s1600/dursban.jpg" /></a>it is <a href="http://www.getipm.com/articles/dursban-school.htm">children who will be most at risk</a> to the harmful effects of pesticides like dursban. after spraying this chemical on the grass at hawrelak park, who is going to be closest to the ground, playing and rolling around over this heritage day long weekend? the kids!<br />
<br />
parents, aren't you more concerned about the dangers these chemicals pose to your children than about some annoying mosquitoes? there are non-toxic, eco-friendly sprays you can buy to keep the bugs away, such as <i>Burt's Bees Herbal Insect Repellent</i> or <i>Great Outdoors Citronella Spray</i>, which are safe and not tested on animals. why would you allow your children to be poisoned by toxic sprays?<br />
<br />
in a story from bloomberg news dated april 30, 2012, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-30/pesticide-exposure-in-utero-linked-to-brain-concerns.html">Pesticide Exposure in Utero Linked to Brain Concerns</a>, it was reported that a study conducted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
prenatal exposure to the chemical, included in Dow Chemical Co. (DOW)’s pesticide Dursban, is linked to structural changes in the brain 5 to 10 years after exposure, said Virginia Rauh, the lead author.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Areas of the brain related to attention, language, reward systems, emotions and control may be affected by the chemical, the researchers found. The study also showed that high-exposure children didn’t have expected sex differences in their brains, which may affect their hormones and behavior as they get older, Rauh said .</blockquote>
Dursban<b> </b>and its Chlorpyrifos residues can remain in the environment for <a href="http://www.getipm.com/products/toxicology.htm">5-10 years after use</a>. a report by the <a href="http://www.isfae.org/scientficjournal/2011/issue1/pdf/environment/42.pdf">Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment</a> stated that,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
studies have shown that the common degradation pathway for chlorpyrifos involved the formation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,2,3-Trichloropropane">TCP</a> (<b>1,2,3-Trichloropropane</b>,
a chemical compound that is
commonly used as an industrial solvent. Although it is not currently
labeled as a contaminant by the United States federal government, new
research shows that it could have severe health effects. Currently, only
California has significant regulation on this compound). TCP has a
half-life ranging from 65 days to 360 days in the soil, so it is
relatively stable in various soils after formation. It was reported that
TCP is <i>more toxic</i> than chlorpyrifos, and TCP is more polar than
its parent compound chlorpyrifos, so TCP moves through the soil to
ground and surface water more easily than chlorpyrifos. </blockquote>
<i><b>but health canada says it's safe.</b></i><br />
<br />
yea well, health canada says a lot of things. on the <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_15YFggcXvYJ:www.edmonton.ca/city_government/news/2012/city-to-conduct-mosquito-treatment-at-gallagher-park.aspx+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk">city of edmonton website</a> it states,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All products used for the City's mosquito control program are approved
by Health Canada and deemed safe for their intended use.</blockquote>
safe? so safe that mosquito control staff must wear respirators and full-body protective clothing when spraying. here are some of the safety precautions from the <a href="http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDAS/dh_08f1/0901b803808f1d92.pdf?filepath=/uk/pdfs/noreg/011-01481.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc">dursban label</a>,<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtz1sq6i1xVdtJ4M_ujEVylKjXGxapd5nXUtg6T-kQkY94zG-gfVv1TkcfZS7mmzsFIU20R3y6ThPFdwMcmjBVoOIyZJytLt8nYWakFRETFTVT5vv2D0HTC0QVMuCY4EAz-EO2/s1600/what+some+people+do+just+to+make+a+buck.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtz1sq6i1xVdtJ4M_ujEVylKjXGxapd5nXUtg6T-kQkY94zG-gfVv1TkcfZS7mmzsFIU20R3y6ThPFdwMcmjBVoOIyZJytLt8nYWakFRETFTVT5vv2D0HTC0QVMuCY4EAz-EO2/s320/what+some+people+do+just+to+make+a+buck.JPG" height="209" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">a city worker spraying harmful toxins into the environment</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<ul>
<li>use suitable protective gloves when handling the concentrate </li>
<li>wear suitable protective clothing </li>
<li>when using do not eat, drink or smoke</li>
<li>do not breathe spray</li>
<li>wash hands and exposed skin before meals and after work</li>
<li>keep livestock out of treated areas for at least 14 days after treatment</li>
<li>dangerous to bees. do not apply to crops in flower or to those in which bees are actively foraging. do not apply when flowering weeds are present</li>
<li>do not allow direct spray from broadcast air-assisted sprayers to fall within 18 meters of the top of the bank of a static or flowing water body. aim spray away from water</li>
<li>do not allow direct spray from horizontal boom sprayers to fall within 5 meters of the top of the bank of a static or flowing water body or within one meter of the top of a ditch which is dry at the time of application</li>
<li>do not allow direct spray from hand-held sprayers to fall within 1 meter of the top of the bank of a static or flowing body of water. aim spray away from water</li>
</ul>
here is some of the risk and safety information,<span id="goog_469958876"></span><span id="goog_469958877"></span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgegGs1O7VF1E8_1V3IS-nOH5Wt5J4MEZ19nCMnmFs2AHOqdvJ4t1pBzK7YVOWo8FFtawLRkkakAFgk2eMgFhw2oEjXhx0IYU6joV9Dqbi6iAFFBJpRYI7oh51tCGOYlGJwPkO7/s1600/what+some+people+do+just+to+make+a+buck+02.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgegGs1O7VF1E8_1V3IS-nOH5Wt5J4MEZ19nCMnmFs2AHOqdvJ4t1pBzK7YVOWo8FFtawLRkkakAFgk2eMgFhw2oEjXhx0IYU6joV9Dqbi6iAFFBJpRYI7oh51tCGOYlGJwPkO7/s320/what+some+people+do+just+to+make+a+buck+02.JPG" height="187" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">two poor saps unwittingly get ready to poison themselves & others </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<ul>
<li>marine pollutant</li>
<li>harmful</li>
<li>dangerous for the environment</li>
<li>flammable</li>
<li>harmful by inhalation and if swallowed</li>
<li>irritating to eyes respiratory system and skin</li>
<li>harmful: may cause lung damage if swallowed </li>
<li>very toxic to aquatic organisms. may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment </li>
<li>keep away from food, drink and animal feeding stuffs</li>
<li>use appropriate containment to avoid environmental contamination<span id="goog_469958890"></span><span id="goog_469958891"></span></li>
</ul>
i don't know about you, but to me this doesn't sound like a very safe product. the city's website for mosquito control also boasts that,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The City of Edmonton is one of the few major cities in Canada to have a mosquito control program. </blockquote>
ooh, what vanguards! in fact, many other cities in <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/saynaytospray/">canada and the united states </a>used
to have mosquito control programs, but their citizens realized that the
dangers far outweighed any benefits and demanded chemical spraying be halted. in the bloomberg article mentioned above, it also stated that while the pesticide is still used in agricultural settings, it was banned for use in residential areas 12 years ago. not in edmonton however, where a good number of people still choose to remain in ignorance and in fact believe we need to spray more dursban because, "<span class="commentBody" data-jsid="text"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/OccupyEdmonton/posts/449816925063226">this mosquito season is ridiculous</a>". good grief!</span><br />
<br />
but let me give you just one illustration of why health canada can't be trusted to be an unbiased party when it comes to the health of canadians versus the well being of powerful corporations, like the oil and gas industry for example. according to <span style="font-size: small;">the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060017/">National Center for Biotechnology Information</a> t</span>here are more than 1,400 known pollutants emitted by oil sands operations. yet,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...the Royal Society of Canada panel’s conclusion of no serious current health problems caused
by oil sands operations, is [because of] the inadequacy of some current health
standards, says Dr. Kevin Timoney, an ecologist and principal investigator with Alberta-based Treeline Ecological Research. For instance, he says Health Canada’s guideline
for mercury in fish is <i>much higher</i> than that of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and there are <i>no guidelines</i><b> </b>for important pollutants
such as PAHs (<span class="ref-cit"><span class="element-citation" id="__element-citationid3349950">polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) </span></span>in sediment that can get into fish and drinking water. In
addition, he says that “standards and guidelines are only useful if they
are followed and enforced. Enforcement is the exception rather than the
rule.”</blockquote>
do your own investigative research into the safety of something before taking the government's word on it. you may just discover that your elected officials are not being entirely forthright with you.<br />
<br />
and further, what are the effects when dangerous chemicals like chlorpyrifos are combined with other harmful substances, for example vehicle exhaust or cigarette smoke? one study entitled <i><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/23/1781.full">Cancer Incidence Among Pesticide Applicators Exposed to Chlorpyrifos</a> </span></i><span style="font-size: small;">and published in the</span><i><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></i><span style="font-size: small;">oxford </span><span style="font-size: small;">journal of medicine found that,</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/23/1781/T5.expansion.html">In all cases</a>, the rate ratios [for lung cancer] associated with combined exposure were higher than the rate ratios for each individual agent.
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"></span>seems like an important factor to consider.<br />
<i><b> </b></i><br />
<i><b>should edmonton continue to spray this harmful chemical?</b></i><br />
<br />
no! but in a city located in a province with the biggest environmental disaster on the planet, the tar sands, spewing toxins into the air and athabasca river system every day; or in a city that refuses to implement a no idling bylaw for vehicles because according to the mayor it may "annoy people"; or in a city that has a perpetual pall of smog around refinery row choking those who live nearby with the stench of oil and gas; or in a city where huge gas guzzling pickup trucks seem to be the transportation of choice...<br />
i hardly think they will stop spraying a harmful chemical that can keep mosquitoes at bay for a while.<br />
<br />
don't we have a right to know exactly what is being sprayed into the air we breathe, when and where and in what quantities? show us the independent peer reviewed studies that have been done illustrating that these chemicals are not harmful to people or the environment. and i'm not talking about those done by monsanto or dow chemicals who clearly have a vested interest in keeping these products in use.<br />
<br />
the makers of these dangerous pesticides rely on our continued ignorance and apathy to keep their products on the market and to keep individuals and municipalities using them. their concern is not for the safety of people or the health of the ecosystem. their concern is for one thing and one thing only, to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders.<br />
<br />
sure dursban kills mosquitoes, but once the truth is revealed through hard facts and scientific evidence about the detrimental effects to the environment and people's health, it's time to put an end to it and say, "no more."<br />
<br />
in addition, when it comes to pesticide and herbicide usage, we discount natural selection at our peril. there will always be a few
stragglers left behind at one point or another who have an immunity and
pass those genes along to the next generation. soon we find that harsher
and harsher chemicals are required to kill these critters. and so it goes. it's the same with <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5DIWVmjy0I">antibiotics and bacteria</a>...but that's a story for another time.<br />
<br />
when we learned the truth about the harmful effects of DDT, we stopped using it. when we learned the danger CFCs posed to the integrity of earth's ozone layer, we took steps to phase them out. we have got to stop poisoning our planet with noxious chemicals that are killing wildlife and killing us in the name of convenience or protecting ourselves. because what we are doing is not protecting ourselves at all, we are destroying ourselves and many other living creatures besides.<br />
<br />
the public needs to be kept informed and safe. yes, it's important that an individual take responsibility for his own welfare and that of his family, but one's own health and safety is often only as good as the information he is presented with. we need a media that is willing to speak truth to power, and hold political representatives and companies accountable for actions that negatively impact the well-being of people, wildlife and natural ecosystems.<br />
<br />
is that too much to ask, cfrn?<br />
<br />
i hope all the people who go to the folk festival this year in gallagher park like the taste of dursban, because the ground will be covered in it as the city sprays the area. everyone can sing along as the carcinogenic chemical will be blowin' in the wind and breathed into their lungs...and into the wombs of all the expectant mothers, welcoming the next generation into our toxic-filled world.<br />
<br />
that's a fine how-do-you-do.<br />
<br />
in her book<span style="font-size: small;"> <i><span id="btAsinTitle">The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession with Stuff Is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, and Our Health - and a Vision for Change, </span></i><span id="btAsinTitle">author and environmental activist annie leonard writes,</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span id="btAsinTitle">In a study of umbilical cords, the Environmental Working Group found they contained an average of 287 agricultural and industrial chemicals each. And, in a shocking violation of the sanctity of human life, breast milk, which is at the top of the food chain, now has alarmingly high levels of toxic contamination. </span></span></blockquote>
ladies (and gentlemen) do you really want to add dursban to that list of deleterious substances poisoning you and your child?<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span id="btAsinTitle"><br /></span></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWYbTgPvzScyP1390fC1UPj1vBztMgVKNEw6ASiLMxDsFKZmFfvuViyiwQLoS0Zz_QCLp43qJu-QeNChRUUb0QX6LE4jNRWSbEyWXuqfewWbZH-0GOuK-canBipDCXxMff62D0/s1600/pregnant-women-protest-against.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWYbTgPvzScyP1390fC1UPj1vBztMgVKNEw6ASiLMxDsFKZmFfvuViyiwQLoS0Zz_QCLp43qJu-QeNChRUUb0QX6LE4jNRWSbEyWXuqfewWbZH-0GOuK-canBipDCXxMff62D0/s640/pregnant-women-protest-against.jpg" height="424" style="cursor: move;" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
contact the city of edmonton and let them know that you and your friends, family and neighbors no longer want to be put at risk by these noxious chemicals contaminating our air, water and soil.<br />
<br />
<b>contact: </b><br />
<a href="http://www.edmonton.ca/for_residents/pest_management/edmontons-mosquito-control-program.aspx">Chrystal Coleman, Corporate Communication</a><br />
Telephone: 780-868-7176<br />
or dial 311<br />
<br />
or email <a href="mailto:treebugs@edmonton.ca">treebugs@edmonton.ca</a><br />
fax: 780-496-4978<br />
<br />
there are far safer methods to keep annoying summertime mosquitoes away than spraying harmful neurotoxins into our surroundings that last for years to come.<br />
<br />
if we poison our environment, we poison ourselves.dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29219252.post-49959762098362351392012-08-01T13:22:00.000-06:002012-08-02T08:03:54.060-06:00Air Pollution in Alberta<b>Below is a pollution map of Canada from 2009</b><br />
<br />
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, methane leakage from oil & gas wells makes up <i>more than one quarter of the total methane emissions to the atmosphere</i>. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. There are more than 300,000 oil & gas wells in Alberta with some 60,000+ coal bed methane wells planned for the future. <br />
<br />
The total land area associated with past and present oil and gas development in Alberta is approximately <a href="http://environment.alberta.ca/02242.html">10,000 sq km.</a> or 1,000,000 ha (2,470,000 acres).<br />
<br />
Each year, 10,000 to 15,000 new wells are drilled in Alberta. The
current rate of land being developed for oil and gas production in this
province is approximately 120 ha (300 acres) a day.<br />
<br />
If Alberta (a province of 3.6 million) were a country it would have the highest carbon footprint of any other country in the world at <a href="http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/climate">69 tonnes/year per person</a>. The next highest is Qatar at 48.8 tonnes per person. This is largely due to the tar sands industry in the northeastern portion of the province, the phenomenal number of oil and gas wells, and in no small measure to the amount of huge gas guzzling pick up trucks and SUVs on Alberta roads.<br />
<br />
Albertans and their conservative government have clearly demonstrated time and again, that they are far more interested in making a buck destroying the environment and wringing whatever "resource" they can from the Earth, than they are in protecting and preserving clean air, water and soil from toxic pollutants for the sake of wildlife, people's health and those who will come after us. <br />
<br />
It should also come as no surprise that the leader of the popular ultra-rightwing Wildrose party in Alberta Danielle Smith, is a climate change denier.<br />
<br />
I think author William Marsden put it best in the title of his book about the tar sands, <span class="st"><i>"Stupid to the Last Drop</i>: How Alberta Is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada And Doesn't Seem to Care".</span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">In a <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pipeline+spills+exception+Alberta+they+oily+reality/6780124/story.html">story from the Vancouver Sun</a> dated June 14, 2012, Stephen Hume reports:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="st">Between 1990 and 2005, the Alberta Energy Utilities Board recorded more than 16,000 “releases” by pipelines, of which more than half involved hydrocarbons and roughly 30 per cent were “hydrocarbon liquid,” which would mean oil or distillates.<br /> </span><br />
<span class="st">Since 2006, pipeline ruptures number in the thousands and have spilled the equivalent of almost 28 million litres of oil.</span><br />
<span class="st"><br />In 2010 alone, pipelines in Alberta carrying either oil or some combination of oil, gas or<br />distillates failed on average every 1.4 days and they spilled roughly 3.4 million litres of oil. </span></blockquote>
Yet it was only 1/2 hour before the Edmonton chapter of Greenpeace showed photographs on the steps of the Alberta Legislature back on July 20, 2012, of the <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/is-this-really-what-an-oil-spill-clean-up-loo/blog/41481/">oily mess that remains on Rainbow Lake</a>, where last year 4.5 million litres of oil contaminated the region, that the province reluctantly agreed to a pipeline review. <br />
<br />
If our elected representatives in this province, and the oil and gas companies who reside in their back pockets, weren't so pathetic and environmentally destructive, perhaps I could see my way clear to crack a smile over their arrogant and ignorant attitudes. Stupid to the last drop indeed!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuuBbwrMc3f9zPD9I_TI2Tq1d6Jvcy9Es_OGQGFNUq-4zqIr857xjzuMXfFMopmke0dhoS3Ezwpub5UvqP2OTvnoRXZxzr2S74pyiJd4Sz3Lh1vyMwsiKHXF1RvAlWxdfZxjil/s1600/pollution+in+canada.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="432" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuuBbwrMc3f9zPD9I_TI2Tq1d6Jvcy9Es_OGQGFNUq-4zqIr857xjzuMXfFMopmke0dhoS3Ezwpub5UvqP2OTvnoRXZxzr2S74pyiJd4Sz3Lh1vyMwsiKHXF1RvAlWxdfZxjil/s640/pollution+in+canada.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">click to enlarge</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote>
The air pollutant emissions data was compiled in collaboration with provincial, territorial and regional environmental agencies using the latest emission estimation methodologies and statistics available, and data reported by facilities to the National Pollutant Release Inventory. It represents the most comprehensive information on emissions of key air pollutants available in Canada. ~ Environment Canada</blockquote>
<b>Here is a pollution map of North America from 2005</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga21yACGBZn6HeH1U6E3zs0zrbEaTwtKcJxFzyzDGMakuqiCK7HZkFe7Z-Y2_nlmoU0LdXc9ca6MANLeb3VeF5JPq_2AtWQwIzuFuS2QmMuP9WEu2HdDExnZMaJeqO2-U9snko/s1600/NA_Industrial_Facilities.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga21yACGBZn6HeH1U6E3zs0zrbEaTwtKcJxFzyzDGMakuqiCK7HZkFe7Z-Y2_nlmoU0LdXc9ca6MANLeb3VeF5JPq_2AtWQwIzuFuS2QmMuP9WEu2HdDExnZMaJeqO2-U9snko/s1600/NA_Industrial_Facilities.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
This map shows the locations of almost 35,000 industrial facilities in North America that reported on releases or transfers of pollutants in 2005. ~ Commission for Environmental Cooperation</blockquote>dwdeclarehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460146985520390155noreply@blogger.com0