A Word on Beach Erosion

So when I got home from work today I started a painting. It was nothing exciting; just a simple oil-based mock up of the ocean. As the work progressed, I decided that it would be worth my time to stroll down to the beach and snap a few pictures of said ocean. What I ended up with was several shots of a five-meter stretch of sand separating A1A from the angry sea herself. What once had been a long, lovely stretch of seashore was now a heavily eroded shadow of its former self. Where had all of my sand gone?
You see, I’m from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Lauderdale is more or less a slightly smaller version of Miami, with slightly better drivers, and even lovelier beaches. Besides feeding our largely tourism-based economy, the local sands serve as a home for a wide variety of native plant life. In addition to that, these delicate banks serve as the incubator for the native sea turtles. But where did we put those beaches?
The answer lies in the natural flow of the ocean. In Fort Lauderdale, As well as pretty much any other costal area, there exists a longshore current. It is aptly named, in that the current moves… along the shore.
One of the most important results of this natural phenomenon is a continuous influx of sand. Our beaches need this sand to replenish the coastline when the waves begin to take their toll. So then, what happens when we hinder that longshore drift? Bad things happen. The beaches go away, and with them the natural plant life and animal habitat. One little sliver of coastline, so very delicate, and so very evanescent.
So we ask ourselves, “Self, why has all of the sand stopped coming down to lovely South Florida?” And the answer can be summed up with this one, simple photograph:

Aerial view of Port Everglades, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
That photo is of Port Everglades, which is the heart of the Fort Lauderdale trade, yachting, fishing, and cruise ship industries, to name a few. What this picture illustrates is the effect of jetties on the flow of sand down the coastline. As you can see, the north (right-hand) side of the jetty has built up quite a beach, because it hinders the flow of the longshore current and has created a repository for the sand carried by it.
On the other hand, the south (left-hand) side of the jetty shows a clear and obvious lack of beach. This side of port everglades features one of the few coastal parks we have, and unfortunately erosion is taking its toll on John U. Lloyd state park. The location of the jetty is clearly responsible for the deteriorating state of the coastline, which has resulted in considerable strain on the rare dune flora that grows in close proximity to the ocean.
Throughout my high school days I volunteered at this park, and watched the delicate sands wash away with the tides, time, and hurricanes. When will a permanent solution be found for the troubles that ail this town’s seashore? I believe that as soon as the value of our environment begins to outweigh the cost of its upkeep, that day will come. Let’s hope that it is not too late. Let’s hope our grandchildren know what a sea turtle is, and can see the beauty of the dune grasses blowing in the wind, not in a picture, but before their very eyes.

Special thanks to:

David McRee and BeachHunter.net for the use of his photograph of the eroded shoreline. BeachHunter.net is an awesome site for anything and everything beach-related.

And SkyPic.com for allowing me to link to their wonderful aerial shot of Port Everglades. Check them out too!

Colors

This is a poem I wrote about racism:

COLORS:

“Paint a white door black, Paint a black door white, Use enough coats, The color comes out right.

Strike an ivory key, Listen to the sound. Strike an ebony key, Does one sound more profound?

Shake a hand that’s white When yours is colored black, Shake a hand that’s black When yours is colored white, It should be no surpise - The handshake feels alright.

Climb the highest mountain, Together black and white, Climb it hand in hand, Wait until the night. Stare into each other’s eyes, Color has no name. If night removes what we perceive Then can’t we do the same?

BC 3 Extradition Hearing

Canadians Marc Emery, Michelle Rainey and Greg Williams are currently facing an extradition trial slated for November 5th in Vancouver, British Columbia. The three (known as “the BC 3” or “Vancouver’s 3”) are under fire from American prosecutors for selling Marijuana seeds over the internet. Interestingly, Marc Emery is also known as “The Prince of Pot” in British Columbia and is thought to have made a small fortune from his ventures selling seeds on-line.

The move by American prosecutors to extradite these three Canadian citizens, is in my opinion, nothing more than a political power-play to fuel a similar war-on-drugs strategy here in Canada that has been used unsuccessfully for years south of the boarder. Oddly enough, despite the lack of supporting evidence for this American strategy, high ranking Canadian ministers are doing nothing to stop this extradition, despite never having prosecuted or investigated any of the BC 3 themselves. Yes, that's right folks - these three people have never been tried for this crime in Canada. Even more interesting, is that Mr. Prince of Pot Mark Emery is also the leader of the British Columbia Marijuana political party, which steadily gains public support in BC on almost a daily basis (and has close ties with the major BC New Democrats Party[NDP]). One has to wonder just how deep this conspiracy runs if in fact it is a move by the Harper administration to cozy up to the fledging Bush administration in the USA. In my personal opinion, this is nothing more than a clear example of the corruptness of our governments and a glaring example of a political persecution. Should Mark Emery and his co-accused not be extradited, there is a tremendous likelihood that they will quickly come into political power in British Columbia. The next provincial election in BC is scheduled for Tuesday May 12, 2009, less than two years away.

Furthermore, Simon Fraser University professor Alan Young is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying that the Vancouver 3 have been so openly practicing their business that, "until two years ago, the federal government was referring medical marijuana users to Emery's web site as a source for seeds" (The Toronto Star Sat 06 Aug 2005 Page: F8). Moreover, the only  precedent  in all of CANADA for a case like this came  from a trial in  1968 in Alberta when a farmer was tried for  having possession of a jar of hemp seeds. In the 40 year span since that time, there has not been another precedent setting case in Canada for this type of offence.

Thinking Critically About Animal Rights: What you need to know, What you need to question (Part 1)

Thinking Critically About Animal Rights:

What you need to know, what you need to question

Animal Rights: What it is, What it isn’t

This is an important starting point, as the term doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. For instance, the mainstream media seems to think that anyone who cares at all about animals is an “animal rights activist,” and that all animal rights activists are members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). But these characterizations belie the spectrum of people who are interested in improving the lives of nonhuman animals, and how that interest manifests itself. Let’s begin with two important definitions that are noticeably absent from-or unclear in-mainstream discussions about animal rights in America.

Animal Rights

No one is campaigning for their dog’s right to vote. When most animal rights advocates refer to animal rights, they’re talking about one right only: the right to not be used by another. Abolition is a nonviolent approach to animal rights that: (1) requires the abolition of animal exploitation and rejects the notion that animal use is acceptable if we treat animals “humanely;” (2) requires only that nonhumans be sentient in order to be full members of the moral community and to have the right not to be treated as human resources; and (3) regards veganism as its moral baseline. (Note that this definition is from Professor Gary Francione at www.abolitionistapproach.com. For a thorough explanation of abolition and the importance of the property status of nonhuman animals, check out his site. I’d start with his flash presentations, available in English, German, French, Portuguese and Spanish, under “Video”). Note also that nonviolence includes both the way activism is conducted (harming people physically is never an objective) as well as the way animals are treated (i.e., healthy animals, such as cats, dogs, geese, alligators, raccoons, and who are either experiencing an overpopulation crisis or deemed a nuisance for whatever reason, are not to be killed, even if that killing is called “euthanasia”). Both the theory and the goal of abolition are profoundly different from that of animal welfare/animal protection.

Animal welfare/Animal protection

Individuals and organizations that are interested in animal welfare or animal protection do not object to institutional uses of animals ( i.e., using them for food, clothing, experimentation, sports or entertainment). Instead, their priority is to decrease the suffering of the animals being used. Essentially, they seek to regulate the way we use animals rather than campaign for people to stop using them. They campaign for what they believe are “humane” practices when using animals. Animal welfarists may be vegans, but that’s certainly not necessary.

What do YOU want for animals? What do YOU believe about animals?

Over the next couple of weeks, I’m going to deconstruct some of the most common beliefs about our relationship with nonhuman animals, with the intention of clarifying popular misconceptions and helping you decide where you stand on the issues so you can align your actions with your beliefs.

Nonhuman animals aren’t people after all, so what’s the big deal about using them?

Two concepts are operating here; let’s address them one at a time. Animals are like us in some ways, and unlike us in other, more obvious ways. For people interested in animal rights, one trait we share with nonhuman animals is of paramount importance: sentience. Until the 20th century, many suspected that dogs, cows, chickens, cats and even fish have the capacity to experience pain, but the fact that these nonhumans are indeed sentient was not accepted or addressed by mainstream scientists. It’s 2007, and we now know that, just like human animals, nonhuman animals express not only pain, but other feelings such as: pleasure, fear, boredom and frustration. They play, they grieve, they cuddle, they deceive, and they have friendships, preferences, expectations and beliefs. Some even demonstrate that they have some degree of moral code. Animals lead lives rich in thought, emotion, culture and relationships. As such, they care about their well being and have an interest in living their lives free from subjugation by others, just like you do.

That last sentence addresses the second part of the original statement: the use of animals. Taking away someone’s freedom and using them for your gain (which includes using them for your palate) is unacceptable for animal rights advocates. Not only is it is a form of violence, and part of the foundation of animal rights is nonviolence, but it is also unjust, and another part of the foundation of animal rights is social justice.

I believe that as long as we don’t inflict unnecessary suffering, it’s okay to use animals. Unnecessary suffering is cruel, you don’t want any part of cruelty, and that’s admirable. In order to make an informed decision about whether you’re inflicting unnecessary suffering, however, you’d have to educate yourself about the current status of the suffering of animals first, right? Let’s examine some common notions regarding how animals are treated.

There is such a thing as “humane farming.”

If I control everything about your life including: what you eat and when, if, and how you procreate, (cows, chickens and pigs are not left to naturally mate; they are impregnated with the help people and often an apparatus referred to as a “rape rack”), and when and how your life is to end, and I slaughter you when I think the time is right, would you characterize that process as “humane?” Is that scenario acceptable to you? When you uncover all of the aspects of farming that are “necessary” (and that usually means “allegedly required in order to make a profit”), you quickly begin to see that although you may be able to decrease some suffering here and there, when the entire process is considered in toto, there’s simply no way to call it humane.

I know of a “free-range” farm where the animals run around and have wonderful lives and are very well cared for. I know this because I get my meat from them and I’ve visited their farm and seen it with my own eyes.

This brings up the topic of “humane slaughter.” At some smaller farms, such as family-run farms, the animals do indeed eat their natural diets, aren’t drugged or mutilated, and run free. Let’s talk about you again for a moment. Let’s say I treat you as well as I possibly can while you are alive, yet you cannot escape me, I continue to use you the way I wish, I decide when and how you will die, and I eventually kill you. Let’s say I shoot you in the head and you barely feel a thing. Would you consider that acceptable?

We’re on the same page! I’m a vegetarian and I only eat cage-free eggs and organic milk!

Most people think that eggs are about as cruelty-free an animal product as you can get, especially if they’re cage-free, and there’s a really good reason for that: we’re surrounded by messages that tell us cage-free products are humane. Even the Humane Society of the United States, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals promote cage-free eggs!

But did you know that no matter where the egg production facility is, or what the visible-to-the-public conditions are, the egg-laying hens are obtained from the same hatcheries that kill the baby rooster chicks at only one day old? Did you know that hens are generally considered spent by egg-laying facilities at one to two years and are then killed? And did you know that dairy cows are artificially inseminated over and over, often via “rape rack,” are genetically manipulated to produce an unnaturally enormous amount of milk, and are killed by the time they’re six-years old, when their normal life span is over 20 years? How do you feel about milk and eggs now?

And as for the farm near your home where you get your meat and eggs, ask the farmer what happens to the male chicks and the spent hens. Always question anyone who tells you that some process involving an animal is humane and decide for yourself if it is acceptable to you.

I’ve heard that people who advocate for animal rights don’t think we should be racing horses or dogs. That’s ridiculous! Horse and dogs love to run! They’re just doing what they love to do!

Thousands of horses and dogs are created each year for the purposes of racing, with the hope of making their owners a profit. Early in their lives, animals who do not show promise are killed, and as the training process progresses, there are further kills to narrow the group down to only the most competitive animals. Many injuries during training result in further kills, if the careers of the animals are no longer promising. When the few animals who make it to competition are injured, they are often killed if their injuries are too expensive to fix, or if the injuries will be career-ending even if they heal well. The lucky ones are delivered to rescue groups, who will often pay for their treatment and get them adopted, as in the case of greyhounds and mushing dogs (used most famously in the Iditarod and the Yukon Quest, both of which are over 1,000 miles), or sent to a sanctuary, as is often the case with horses. As of this writing, horses are still slaughtered here for human consumption elsewhere.

I’m sure much of the above is news to some people. And I’m also sure that you’ve heard or read plenty of material that contradicts it. Before you give any organization a penny, it behooves you to figure out where you stand. I welcome any questions or comments. Next time, I’ll address experimenting on animals, pets, and I’ll touch on religion.

The Race For the Arctic

The frozen tundra of the Arctic Circle is a place deemed one of the most hostile climates on the earth. Reaching temperatures that average about 40 degrees below zero during the winters, you will find nothing here but water, ice, snow and the occasional seal or polar bear living on the top of the world.

This once unwanted and unforgiving landscape has become one of the most contested pieces of landmass in the modern era. Russia, Canada, the United States, and Denmark are currently making an attempt to claim this new piece of real estate. However, the Arctic Circle contains nothing more then ocean water covered in thick ice. With no land actually present, the United Nations law of the sea becomes the ruling body. Stating that only boarding countries can access the Arctic but it has to be within 200 miles of their shores. But when the thoughts of making money enter the minds of world leaders, the rules become nonexistent and the heavy debate over the area begins.

Hydrocarbons are the lifeblood of the industrialized world. Everything revolves around oil in this generation. Oil headlines the daily news, it controls how people carry out their daily lives and wars are fought over oil to feed the world’s everlasting thirst for it. Hydrocarbons provide the world with transportation, energy, and synthetics. However, the very thing that runs our lives is destroying our only place to live. The excessive uses of hydrocarbons by humans are ruining our planets ecosystem causing the average temperature of the world to increase.

The Arctic is not immune to the greenhouse effect, being that Arctic temperatures are increasing twice as fast as the rest of the world. Experts are predicting that the Arctic will be ice free year round in about a century. Some experts are even estimating as soon as the year 2050, the once frozen Arctic tundra turns to nothing more then a free flowing ocean landscape.

Where there is a great environmental catastrophe, there comes a great commercial opportunity. The main reason these countries want stakes in the Arctic is that the area is presumed to be the resting place of the about 25 percent of the world’s remaining oil supply.

The use of hydrocarbons is causing the world to heat up, melting the Arctic Circle and making the once frozen wasteland accessible to humans. Since the Arctic is melted, world governments are now trying to exploit the land for its oil, which is the very thing that is causing the Arctic to melt.

The circle of hypocrisy of governments is all over this. All governments want is to make money anyway that they possibly can. And taking advantage of this environmental disaster is just another form of what they do.

The four countries that are trying to claim land in the Arctic are actually claiming land they have no right to claim. The land, for that matter, belongs not to Russia, Canada, Denmark or the United States for that matter. The land belongs to the indigenous people of the Arctic, the Inuits.

Inuit tribes have been living in the harsh environments of the Arctic Circle for multiple generations. If anyone should have the rights to the area around the North Pole it should be solely the Inuit people.

The Arctic being one of the most unforgivable places on the earth is still a rare habitat like the rain forests of Brazil and the Everglades of Florida. The Arctic should be protected in the same way, left undisturbed so that it can remain as it has been for the centuries to come.

Remember, there is plenty that anyone can do to help preserve this landscape and keep oil hungry countries out of the place:

Try to cut down on hydrocarbons as much as possible. Let the government know that the Arctic should be protected by international treaties allowing no countries to exploit the area for oil. Petition to make sure the land remains in the hands of its rightful owners.

And if countries start to claim rights on the Arctic, where else will governments start claiming territory…space.

Have you ever heard of Abya Yala?

Who is it? What is it? Where is it? What does it mean? You may have never heard of it. But if you live in the US, Canada or any other country in the western hemisphere that is where you live. Abya Yala means “land in its full maturity” in the language of the Kuna people of Colombia and Panama. It was Takir Mamani an indigenous Aymara leader who first suggested that Abya Yala should be used in place of America by the indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere. It may have been invented by European colonisers but the word America has itself become even further debased over the centuries. Today most US citizens refer to themselves as Americans, conveniently overlooking the fact that their country only occupies about one third of the northern continent of the western hemisphere. Do not citizens of Mexico, Brazil or any other country in the western hemisphere have an equally valid right to call themselves American citizens? The fact though is that every US administration over the last century or so has regarded the rest of the western hemisphere as its own backyard. So when US citizens describe themselves as American citizens that description in part at least is a reflection of the hegemonic role the US plays in the entire region.

What is so important about a name? In the words of Shakespeare a rose if it went by any other name would still smell just as sweet. Conquerors and colonisers of a country or territory though have invariably chosen new names for the lands they have occupied in order to obliterate and reinvent the past. The territory in the Middle East once known as Palestine today goes by the name of Israel. The reason for the name change being self evident. Using dubious references to Biblical history the name was chosen by the predominantly white European colonisers of the territory who expelled the majority of the Palestinians from Palestine. Similarly when it was ruled by a white colonial minority the African country of Zimbabwe was called Rhodesia, named after the white British colonial leader Cecil Rhodes. Rhodesia or Zimbabwe? Israel or Palestine? In each instance which name you choose symbolises which side you choose, the oppressor or the oppressed. America or Abya Yala? The name you choose may one day come to have the same symbolic meaning.

Takir Mamani argued that “placing foreign names on our villages, our cities, and our continents is equivalent to subjecting our identity to the will of our invaders and their heirs”. Accordingly it was widely agreed that Abya Yala should be used in place of America at an indigenous gathering in 1992. Most will not know as it was largely ignored by the mainstream media but a summit of the indigenous peoples of Abya Yala took place in March 2007 in Iximche’, Guatemala. Furthermore this summit which was attended by over two thousand activists was the third such event to take place in recent years. The summit agreed a final statement “From resistance to power”. The statement took an unambiguous position against US militarism. No doubt those attending the summit were mindful of the fact that what has happened in Iraq could just as easily happen to countries in the western hemisphere like Venezuela or Bolivia whose governments are considered troublesome. The statement also took an unambiguous position against the neoliberal policies of governments throughout the western hemisphere. Neoliberal policies have devastated indigenous communities in the western hemisphere considering many were already economically marginalized. In short “From resistance to power” is an anti imperialist statement even if it does not say so explicitly. Will we ever see the day when people living in the US and other countries in the western hemisphere describe themselves as inhabitants of Abya Yala rather than America? Quite possibly but probably not in the near future.

Los Angeles Darfur Divestment Rally

Monday October 15, 2007

Bunker Hill, Los Angeles

Donning the blue berets symbolizing the peace keeping mission of the United Nations, “Save Darfur”, and “Stop Genocide” T-shirts, about 50 activists came together for a peaceful demonstration in front of the Los Angeles Headquarters of the “Capital Group” today.

Led by the Reverend Howard Dotson, of the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, (http://www.fccla.org) we leafleted the plaza of the towering Bank of America building followed by a talk by Reverend Dotson and a candlelight vigil to support the men, women, and children of Darfur who are suffering so greatly.

With more than a thousand pages of on-line signatures supporting the divestment campaign, a small delegation attempted to enter the building to hand deliver the petitions to Capitol Group. Building security would not permit the delegation to enter but did contact executives from Capitol Group. Two top executives came down to plaza and received the petition from Reverend Dotson and quite politely listened to the pleas of the protesters to consider alternative investments than that of those who’s assets assist the Kartoum regime’s campaign of genocide. After listening they told us that they would make sure that the persons involved in making the investment decisions would receive the signatures and they thanked us for our time and concern.

The Darfur region of the western Sudan has been gripped in a humanitarian crisis of immense proportion. Climate change coupled with a ruthless campaign of government sponsored displacement and murder has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Sudanese people and the forced displacements of hundreds of thousands more.

Many thanks to everyone who showed up!

Reverend Dotson hands box of petition signatures to executives of the Capitol Group at demonstration in downtown Los Angeles. Photographs by Patricia Cadenas (http://www.livingwall.com)

Flooding Our Parched Earth

T.S. Eliot wrote more than a hundred years ago, these words: “Where is the life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”

When you think about it, knowledge is really the ability to obtain information, and wisdom is really the abundance of knowledge, and wisdom is ultimately acquired by life… Okay, I’ll stop there – but my point is this: we could all be more knowledgeable about our lives and the world we live in if we could just obtain more information, right?

Whether it’s broadcasting on TV, streaming through the radio waves, or “magically” online (the only way to explain how the internet really works), information is there. It’s everywhere. And, it’s seconds – no fractions of a second – away from the fingertips of anyone who really wants it.

I often wonder though, why so many people complain about not knowing what’s actually going on in the world around them? I hear complaints of the lack of information, like – what’s happening in Africa with the AIDS epidemic, or what are the people of Burma really fighting for, or even – how is that war over in Iraq truly going?

The issue is in the solution I’m afraid. Information is there for anyone who wants it. It’s easy to push the “power” button on your TV remote control or simply ask the Google gods what’s going on in the world, and then proceed to pay attention for the typical American attention span of oh…about seven seconds.

It’s a much harder – and more time consuming – thing to do your own research on a topic or issue, attempt to have an unbiased opinion, look at it from both sides, and maybe, just maybe – come up with your own answer. It’s a lofty concept, I know. But, forming your own opinion should be, right?

Speaking of which, I’d like to share a side note. Through the whole “friends of a friend of a friend” maze, I found a group of people who are doing just that. With an ever-lofty goal of showing anyone who will watch “a view of the world that they might not necessarily get from conventional media outlets, and ultimately inspire others to go explore the world around them” the folks at The World By Road are worth checking out.

The idea seemed to jump-start with two guys living in Colorado who have recently hit the “open road” this past January with plans to cross 90+ countries, six continents and two hemispheres – all in two years, traveling over 70,000 miles and (this is my favorite) all while driving two 4WD Toyota Trucks. I’ll leave you with that. Check out their view of the world at www.Theworldbyroad.com. I promise, it will make you jealous. It certainly did me at least.

Back to my original point…as a perpetual optimist, it is my utmost, genuine belief that we as humans are good at our very core…and that our world today revolves around our desperate thirst and hunger for that goodness.

It is also my belief that we would all obtain this “goodness” if we provoked ourselves a bit more – into hunting and gathering our own information, our own knowledge, our own wisdom, and in turn – our own lives – which, from my own experience…feels $$*$ good.

The writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his conclusion of Walden, “The life in us is like the water in a river. It may rise this year higher than man has ever known it and flood the parched uplands.”

Let’s flood this parched earth – with more information, more knowledge, more wisdom, and most importantly, more life.

Down with EcoElitism

About four months ago, I started my blog. Determined to subject the public to my rantings, rather than keeping it a personal journal type of blog, I’ve been promoting it rather vigorously, partly by participating in conversations on other blogs and forums. And in doing so, I’ve noticed a very disturbing trend: militant and elitist environmentalism.

I have yet to come across a forum that doesn’t have a thread to the effect of “What did you do for the environment today,” and invariably these threads go something like this:

“I put a water saver in my toilet.”

“I decided only to flush (my already low-flow toilet) when I do a number two.”

“I do my number two right in the compost pile.”

“I haven’t bought a new shirt in 10 years.”

“I haven’t washed my shirt in 10 years.”

“I haven’t washed myself in 10 years.”

Seriously? Come on people. Does anyone think this one-upmanship really gets us anywhere? It is possible to be an EcoCrusader without subjecting one’s neighbours to body-odour.

Or probably the best example I have is from a blog called “How do I Recycle This?” One woman wrote in that she was out for dinner with some friends and someone at the table ordered mussels. When they were finished, there was a bowl full of shells, and she was wondering if there was a way to reuse them, if she was ever in that situation again. One oh so helpful “eco-elitist” replied that, if she actually cared about the environment, she wouldn’t have eaten them in the first place.

Now, what did he think he was going to accomplish with this attitude? Here was a person who had not only considered recycling something that most people wouldn’t look at twice, she had actually followed up the thought by actively researching a solution to the problem. She was being proactive. She deserved a big fat high-five. Not a snarky ‘you-should-be-doing-more’ reply.

Because really, we could all be doing more. We could all forsake electricity entirely. We could move to caves and eat the organic lichen off the walls. We could hold in our farts to save the methane. We could do many things. But the one thing we absolutely MUST do, is support each other.

Being the eco-minded woman that I am, I love to imagine waking up in the morning to a world with six billion people who choose smaller cars, eat only in-season food, buy wind power, and keep a composter. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen until the physical evidence of what is happening to our planet blatantly stares all six billion of its inhabitants in the face. And that might not happen until it’s too late.

In the mean time, the future of the world essentially rests on our shoulders. It rests with those of us who educate ourselves, share our knowledge with others, and make better choices every day. But some (in fact, I fear many) of us, are determined to be EcoZealots, and in so being are systematically destroying the work the others do.

This behaviour accomplishes nothing but to guarantee that environmentalism never truly gains mainstream status. It guarantees the continuation of the “crazy hippie” stereotype. It guarantees the alienation of anyone not yet committed to mitigating the dangerous changes that our planet is undergoing.

Until my dreams come true and all six billion of us are on board, we can’t afford to lose anyone who signs up; no matter how small a registration fee they pay. We have to applaud every CFL, every roll of recycled toilet paper, every mussel shell recycled, because we have an infinitely better chance of getting this planet back in shape with millions making these meager changes, than if a select few of us move back to the lichen caves, live methane-neutral and lament the others not following.

Let’s not forget, it’s about the planet, not bragging rights. Down with EcoElitism!

Thinking Critically About Animal Rights: What you need to know, What you need to question (Part 2)

Thinking Critically About Animal Rights:

What you need to know, what you need to question

Animal Experimentation

In Part I of this series, I defined animal rights as being rooted in nonviolence. I explained that the one right animal activists-who are necessarily vegans-campaign for is the right of sentient beings not to be used by others. Animal rights really isn’t about animal abuse, as animals wouldn’t be in a position to be abused if they weren’t considered property and allowed to be used in the first place. (Again, Professor Gary Francione at www.abolitionistapproach.com developed the intricate theory of animal rights that vegans who are abolitionists-who want to abolish the use of and the property status of animals-most often subscribe to.)

The stand of the vegan regarding animal experimentation is simple: animals aren’t ours to experiment on. Period. Now, that’s not to say that we haven’t learned anything from animal experimentation. The point is that it is morally wrong to use another sentient being, against her will, for your purposes (whatever those purposes are).

Realistically, however, the discussion rarely ends there, with the person I’m speaking with saying, “Oh, I get it. And I agree. I hereby cease giving to organizations that test on animals, and I shall nevermore purchase a product that was tested on animals.” Instead, a series of questions or statements are posed that I am charged with responding to. They involve me explaining that testing for cosmetics and household products is wasteful, not to mention hideously cruel, as we already know what’s toxic and what’s not for those products. Inevitably, we come to:

Okay, but what about experimenting on animals for medical research? Isn’t that ethical as long as it is humane and necessary?

First, remember that to the animal rights advocate, use of an animal is tantamount to abuse, as you are taking that individual’s freedom from her and subjecting her to whatever you wish, whenever you wish. That use, which is abuse by it’s definition, is not acceptable.

Now, some people find it very difficult to wrap their heads around that one, so I expound. I’ll say that to responsibly address this question, you’d first have to define “humane” and “necessary.” Let’s begin at the beginning. Is it ethical to either breed an animal for the purpose of experimenting on her (e.g., dogs, such as Greyhounds, who are docile and rarely bark, apparently make great research subjects and are often used for heart disease research. Beagles are used often, as well.), or to seize animals from pounds or off the streets, for the purposes of caging them, cutting them open, or exposing them to hazardous substances, collecting data, and then killing them? If it were your dog being experimented on, would that be okay? Would it be ethical then? Most people say no, as they’re emotionally attached to their dogs and we Americans value our dogs.

The majority of animals used in research are rats, however. Given that rats have the same capacity for pleasure, pain and terror as your dog, is it humane to breed them with genetic defects and/or artificially inflict them with diseases, for the sole purpose of experimenting on them and killing them? Is it ethical to use the lives of sentient beings just because you can?

As far as “necessary” goes, it is never “necessary” to experiment on anyone. It is either a choice or it is dictated by a governing body such as the FDA. It might be a legal necessity, but certainly not a scientific one. In fact, a growing number of scientists now believe experimenting on animals in order to gain knowledge about humans is just plain bad science.

And they have history on their side. Tragically, there have been instances where animal tests have demonstrated a substance is not dangerous, and that has turned out to not be the case (e.g., Thalidomide and Vioxx, among others). In fact, adverse reactions to animal-modeled medicines are now the fourth largest cause of death in America. Think about it: Does it make sense to assume that a response you get in a nonhuman animal, whom you’ve inflicted with a disease (so it has not organically occurred, and might not ever have), will be the same you’d expect from a different species (humans), in individuals whose disease occurred over time, as a result of a certain behavior or exposure to certain toxic substances? Does extrapolating from one species to another, even with a close genetic relative such as a chimpanzee, make sense when each individual chimpanzee or human reacts differently to disease to begin with? Adding species into the mix only makes the results less reliable.

Fortunately, many alternatives to using animals have been developed, including computer models. The most responsible way to find cures and treatments for disease is to allocate research funds to the development of non-animal alternatives, such as human clinical and in vitro research, cell and tissue cultures, epidemiology and genetic research, all of which are more effective methods of studying disease and testing the effectiveness and toxicity of drugs. If you believe in animal rights, you believe that the potential of some kind of beneficial result is not a valid reason for using the life of a sentient being, without her consent, as a subject of an experiment.

Despite the inherent flaws in animal experimentation, there are political, economic (read: big business) and social reasons why the government as well as non-government organizations continue to fund research on animals. Meanwhile, people who are ill continue to be ill while, for instance, billions of dollars are being spent trying to inflict diseases in animals, as is the case with AIDS and chimpanzees (who can be successfully infected with HIV, but do not progress to AIDS). A helpful but short explanation of chimpanzee research that doesn’t apply to humans can be found at http://www.curedisease.com/president.html. For more, read Ray Greek, MD’s Sacred Cows & Golden Geese, which is a great mind-opener for someone who isn’t familiar with the reality that animal experimentation simply isn’t great science.

To recap, animal experimentation, for the animal rights activist, has a simple answer: we shouldn’t do it. It is morally unacceptable. And for everyone else, it has an answer that is a bit more complex, but ends at the same place: we shouldn’t do it. There are myriad reasons why it still exists (it makes lots of people lots of money doing the research, breeding the animals, transporting the animals, running the facilities, and keeping this business machine alive), and it’s time we ask questions of charities, research organizations, and the government. It’s time we ask the tough questions, withhold money where we can, and put an end to a practice that has long outlived its usefulness.

A day in the life: Cops, cell phones, and being a planeteer.

‘Local Action’: It’s the trendy catchphrase that you see all over any website that has even the most vague reference to environmental, social, and political subjects. But really, what is it?

The easiest answer is carrying a big sign and marching about. Perhaps, also, it is being involved in an organization that focuses on the problems around you, such as the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, or any of the multitudes of local action groups. But it seems that I stumbled upon a new (to me) means of getting stuff done. I have dubbed this method “Calling the Cops.” Please, allow me to explain.

I am a carpenter. This is, at times, not a particularly exciting job, and I have been known to occasionally not really care to work very industriously. In fact, I believe that the best part of work is when one is not doing it. It so happens that on one of these less-than-industrious occasions, I was casting my emergency back-up fishing rod in the direction of some elusive aquatic beasties in a canal behind one of my customer’s houses. Life couldn’t be more sublime.

Oh, wait. Yes it could.

When I retrieved my fishing lure, I noticed something odd: It was being drug through a particularly nasty cloud of dark blue silt. Now, understand that these are South Florida canals, and that they contain not exactly the clearest of water. However, clouds of dark blue silt are still an abnormality. When I scanned for the source of the cloud, what I found left me livid: a three-inch pipe dumping dark blue muck into the waterway. Further investigation revealed that the muck was the byproduct of a pool-resurfacing company’s grinding. Not okay.

So, what do I do? If I do nothing, I’m a hypocrite and I suck. Not an option. If I ask them to stop doing it, they don’t learn the lesson. If I politely recommend a place for them to stick that pipe, I get stabbed. Nothing is really looking good here.

Then it occurs to me: The cops! While I naturally lack trust for any authority figure, I realized that I might be able to take advantage of all of those tax dollars at work. At the very least they get a warning, right? Maybe if I’m lucky a fine, and it stings a little. What happened next has given me an exponentially deeper respect for the good ol’ FLPD. Here’s what went down:

Just before I have to leave work to go to class, I notice said cloud of sludge. I then call the Fort Lauderdale Police Department and tell them the address of the sludge cloud, and the operator lazily notifies me that a unit would be sent out to ‘take a look’. I leave for class, mildly discouraged.

When I get back the next day, the house-sitter informs me that they did, indeed, take a look. But they didn’t send one unit; they sent two Marine Patrol Cruisers down the canal, and two cars on the street side. Impressive. But here’s the important part: They didn’t just write them a hefty fine, they arrested five of them. I bet they got the point.

And I got the point too. The police are a more effective tool for deterring pollution than a sign is. Don’t get me wrong; signs do have their place. But when things need to stop, and stop now, your cell phone is much more useful.

So the moral of the story is this: Police can be nice, contributing members of society, but you have to help them by keeping your eyes open. Look for the crimes against the environment around you, and pick up your cell phone. Tell the people who can make an immediate difference what’s going on, and give them the chance to do something about it. You may be as surprised as I was.

Remember: People who are too lazy or too ignorant to care are the reason why things aren’t changing in this world. If we can make them pay attention, then we need to try it, even if it hurts. How many times do they have to get burnt to realize that touching the fire is a bad thing? Not many.

They’re making a mess of things, you know, and they’re doing it right next to you. Well, they were doing it next to me, at any rate. Sometimes making a social change is as easy as dialing a phone number. If you know this, then rock on. But this article is for people like myself, who didn’t think about the possibility of a cell phone saving the life of a sea grass bed, or a few of the coral polyps we have left around here.

Does America Throw Away Its Children?

Many times, America has been willing to stand alone against the world if necessary. Apparently, December 2006 was one of those times. The United Nations called for the abolition of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) for children and young teenagers. The final vote – 185 to 1. The long dissenter? The United States.

It’s an odd dichotomy. The US was one of the pioneers in the area of juvenile justice. At one time, we recognized that children are not small adults. They don’t think the same, they don’t act the same. But somewhere in the last hundred years, we’ve progressed in our thinking and determined that it makes perfect sense to sentence a 13 year old to die in prison.

Yes, 13 year olds. In 2005, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reported that there are more than 2200 prisoners in the US serving life without parole for crimes committed at age 17 or younger – compared to 12 such cases in the rest of the world. 59% of those children had never been convicted of a previous crime. 26% of them were convicted of felony murder – they were involved in a crime that led to murder but had not killed themselves.

The Equal Justice Initiative has taken the research a step further, and found something even more unsettling. There are 73 offenders serving life without parole for crimes committed when they were no older than 14. Almost all are a result of trying juveniles as adults for crimes carrying a mandatory life sentence. Pennsylvania, Florida, Nebraska, North Carolina and Washington have all sentenced 13 year olds to die in prison.

We don’t allow a child that age to drive a car. They cannot vote, or sign a contract. They cannot drink, or smoke a cigarette. For that matter, most schools won’t allow them to take an aspirin. Our society has decided that children are not capable of making decisions of that importance. But we think they’re adult enough to lock them up and throw away the key.

What kind of insanity is this? Does it really make sense to try children as adults and lock them up forever? Or would it make more sense to re-vamp the juvenile justice system and give it the tools to work with these young offenders?

Don’t we owe it to our children to at least make an effort to help them help themselves before we decide to warehouse them and forget them?

The American Political Party System

Democracy is referred to as majority rule in the government. The people of the country do a popular vote to elect representatives. The ones with the majority of the votes end up going into office and run the country the way that they claimed they would. The way these representatives get their ideals out to the public is by joining a political party that shares the same values that they do in order to mass campaign their ideals to the public.

However, a lot of comprise is made throughout these party systems. Two people will hardly ever agree completely on every little issue that comes up. In turn, these people make comprise after comprise on certain issues to give them the power of the masses.

The only way these parties can gain power is if the majority of people that they are supposed to be representing support them.

Here is where this democratic system in American starts to break down. Voting is a right given to all American citizens regardless of background, race, religion, etc. Simple ideal, get the majority of votes and get a seat in office.

The majority of votes, however, does not mean that you have the support of the majority of the population. This phenomenon happens from lack of voting turnouts that is becoming an epidemic throughout the younger generations.

There are explanations behind younger citizens and their lack of support behind this so-called democracy. The main issue is the effect of the development of the two party system in America, where if you are not a Democrat or a Republican you hold no chance in elections.

The main explanation of lack of voters is that the younger populations do not agree with either party, period. The Democrats are way too liberal for most people liking. In addition, they have this profound inability to make decisions on certain issues. On the other hand, you have the Republicans. They are beholders of conservatism and mass corruption. They have the ability to make decisions it is just that their decisions make them rich and the rest of the American population suffer.

These lack of choices for our leaders have lead voters to disregard voting, simply because of lack of available candidates. Democracy is supposed to be majority rule, right? This makes it interesting because less then 50 percent of the voting age actually votes. This means that the nation is ran by the few, making our government very similar to the one party system that Communist enact when they hold power, the only difference is the addition to one more party.

Hearing the phrase, you deserved no right to criticize the government if you do not vote; so many times it is absurd. I deserved all right to criticize the government even if I do not vote because why would I support a system in which I believe does not work properly. If I voted, it would be like fighting for higher oil prices and government monopolies. This is what the Democrat and Republican parties are monopolies. They oppress the little contender from competing in the market place.

In the end why support something that is not going to change on its own. How the government runs is not going to be change by the same corrupt political parties that are voted in year in and year out, they are going to be changed by the true majority of the population by direct voice and action.

Censored News: What’s Happening in Iraq Besides the War

Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, Perez Hilton, Lindsay Lohan…all familiar names to most of us who have turned on the television for two seconds or logged onto CNN (sadly) for a brief moment.

But is the name Rory Mayberry as familiar as Britney, Kelly or Perez? I’m fairly certain it’s not. If it is, the following will serve as a simple re-cap on what you already know, but I’m hoping to inform at least a few on an issue that’s been hidden – pretty well in fact.

Deep beneath the mainstream media lies an unknown layer – or the lesser known I should say, because it is definitely there. Recently, my local weekly newspaper published a lengthy, somewhat investigative article on the “top ten censored stories media ignored over the past year.”

I recognized the first two immediately – names we all know well – “Mr. habeas corpus” and “Mrs. martial law.” It wasn’t until about the fifth one down that I settled into my chair, propped my feet up and began to delve into the censored story of the U.S. Embassy construction scandal happening smack dab in the middle of, none other than, Iraq.

Back to this Rory Mayberry character – so, who is he? Glad you asked. Rory is the whistle blower of what has become a highly controversial issue. Amongst the other permanent infrastructure the U.S. is currently constructing in Iraq is what will soon become the largest embassy in the world.

Located in the Green Zone of Baghdad and adjacent to the Tigris River, the buildings (or complex I should say) are set for completion in 2008 and will measure near the size of Vatican City – all for the hefty price tag of about $592 million.

First Kuwaiti Trading and Contracting Company currently leads the construction where many Americans are employed. However, the majority of the employees are from smaller, more developing countries like Pakistan, the Philippines and South Korea – and thus the issues begin.

According to Rory Mayberry, a former medic for one of First Kuwaiti’s sub-contractors, most of these employees from the smaller countries were recruited under false pretenses and told at their departing airport that they were heading for work in Dubai. Their passports were even stamped Dubai. But oddly enough, they landed in Baghdad.

CorpWatch, an organization that focuses on exposing crime and corruption across the world, did more investigating on this topic and found that once the employees are taken to the project, they are sometimes beaten and paid only $10 to $30 a day. They also face the possibility of being banned from their home countries for working in Baghdad and portraying the perception of war support.

The Pentagon is apparently investigating the issues but has not yet released any information or shed light on whose to blame and the consequences they face.

The worst of it, in my opinion, is billions of dollars continue to go straight into the pockets of First Kuwaiti and the other companies there who should at the very least be investigated and penalized.

Also mentioned on the CorpWatch Web site and a probable explanation as to why we haven’t heard much about this – “No journalist has ever been allowed access to the sprawling 104-acre site.”

Maybe journalists should just book a plane ticket to Dubai and see where they end up…

Sources for this article and more information on this topic can be found at: www.corpwatch.org and the Guardian newspaper, www.sfbg.com. Picture source: thinkprogress.org.

Oil and Climate Change - You Can't Solve One without the Other

Our planes, trains, and automobiles all run on oil. When people think carbon emission, they instinctively think transportation, that to reduce emissions we must stop moving about so much. But oil enables far more than transportation. The fact is, just about everything around us has been made better or possible because of widespread energy availability. Oil use is ubiquitous. Oil is much more than the liquid that makes a car go; it is truly the lifeblood of the world. Transportation accounts for only 20 percent of carbon emissions, the bulk comes from power generation, 35 percent, and the commercial and public sector, 25 percent (Browne 26).We live in an oil-based world economy, it is the energy source for all we do; just as the human body needs certain nutrients to transform into usable energy and operate smoothly, so the world requires energy, and oil is intensely energy-packed, cheap to extract, and thus nearly impossible to stop using.

The supply of oil can only last so long. Every oil-producing region on Earth has peaked, with the exception of the Middle East. With China and India’s oil demands rising along with the United States’ already insatiable appetite, oil reserves will disappear faster and pollution will grow worse. Dr. Richard Smalley, the Nobel Laureate who discovered the “buckyball” which gave rise to the field of nanotechnology, frequently noted that currently mankind can only produce 15 terawatts of energy; by 2050 there will be 10 billion people and a quadrupled energy demand. Dr. Smalley also heavily advocated full use of solar energy, because energy from nuclear, wind, geothermal, biofuels, all simply cannot produce 60 terawatts of energy, so the Sun is the only option that makes sense. However, modern technology does not allow cost-effective use of solar energy. The development of efficient solar use is at the forefront of energy research. Energy is possibly the most essential form of wealth, and if even more widespread conflict is to be avoided the world will need 60 terawatts of energy, a demand far beyond current technological and structural capacity. Thus the need to find an alternative source of energy is mankind’s number one priority – despite anything, “skeptical environmentalist”, Bjorn Lomborg might say.

Greenhouse-gas reduction treaties are wildly different from CFC control treaties, such as the Montreal Protocol, because they get at a deep-seeded issue, the oil-based economy; it’s like asking someone to eat less food – it helps, but one can only eat so little. Finding alternative propellants isn’t the most monumental task, but creating an alternative energy source as effective as oil is a feat greater than setting foot on the moon. So, the United States should participate in reduction treaties, with a clause dictating that a state will contribute to alternative energy resource development at some proportion of oil consumption; this would have to apply to all participant states, not to limit consumption necessarily but to develop the, literally, world-saving technology as soon as possible. This should be the key to any greenhouse reduction treaty; the problem is countries compete with one another for new technology development. International coordination would expedite the process, but the rewards for a country that succeeds alone are absolutely enormous – a monopoly on revolutionary technology is always favorable. However, this technology, if it is to be used to yield its maximum public benefit, must be implemented in every country. Thus a contract for mutual development of alternative energy is in order. The agreement must also carry tangible means to get the developing world up to speed in environmental care by creating environmentally sound wealth, and working to eliminate wealth destroying factors like malaria and HIV/AIDS. Reduction should indeed take place, so an optimal distribution of resources between reduction/efficiency and revolutionary technology development will have to be found.

To carry the human analogy, imagine 60% of a person’s organs failing. A group of 1,300 scientists concluded that 15 of 24 ecosystems necessary for maintaining life as we know it are being exploited at unsustainable levels (Pope/Lomborg 67). Most of the problem comes from the developing world, from outdated energy producing technology, and an increasing need for energy. Priorities would dictate then that the next step would be to focus on enriching the impoverished so they can take care of their own environment, just as the rich countries are attempting to do (Lomborg/Pope 68). While it is certainly true that the impoverished, meaning nearly half the world, should have a greater share of resources, if Lomborg’s system of priorities is enacted ultimately the overriding priority will become mere survival; he can forget his economic priorities analysis. His priorities are too shortsighted because they are based on a faltering energy source. He focuses on indoor pollution, indeed an important issue, but if he wants to discuss priorities, climate-change-causing pollution should dominate his list. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, while flawed, gets at least one thing right – humans need all basic survival tools available before to dealing with any other issue. So, Lomborg is definitely right to say developing countries need more wealth to adequately deal with pollution. But wealth distribution and pollution removal are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact with the need for alternative energy, and more efficient energy use the two almost go hand in hand (Pope/Lomborg 69/73). An effective way to create wealth while simultaneously ensuring proper environmental care for the developing world might be to eliminate a substantial part of its debt to be used towards responsible insulation projects, and alternative sources of energy, like wind turbines and solar panels. This could go a long way in developing a more technologically capable developing world, ready for the 21st century.

It’s clear the economics of technological cooperation have to work out right. That is, the marginal costs must not exceed the marginal benefits. However, an individual country’s marginal benefit for technology production far outweighs the benefits of collective cooperation. Compare revolutionary energy technology to nuclear weapons. The technology could be held as a leverage tool against countries that did not possess the technology, so a monopoly was highly attractive. The same could be said about a viable alternative to oil. Every country knows the supply will run out sooner or later, and that if man is to continue on the technological energy-dependent path on which it is set, a new alternative will have to be implemented. The country that develops this viable alternative will have a patent on the resource that will transition mankind into a new era, and so, the race is on. But imagine a race that must be finished by at least one participant in 2 hours time before all racers are annihilated, and nobody wins. If the racers cooperate they won’t all finish first, but at least someone will within the 2 hours, and everyone will keep their lives. This would be a tough situation, and if no one is willing to abate their pride, everyone will die (pride revealing itself for the deadly sin it is). Ultimately though, it must be realized this is not a conventional race at all. It is not all against all, but all against the clock, pushing the most capable to the finish. So how can a negotiation be reached? First the fastest racer would have to be found, to maximize the odds of survival. This will have to be a realistic, honest process, effectively deciding who would win the race if the insane restrictions were not set. It is assumed that everyone wants to live, so the helpers and the fastest each need each other equally, and have little room to bargain. In this race the winner gets glorious prizes and benefits. Each needing each other equally, they will have to agree to split the winner’s spoils equally. Thus they all forge ahead; someone crosses the finish line in 1 hour and 58 minutes, and all narrowly avoid destruction. The analog to the current situation is obvious. Everyone wants to be the first to develop the world-saving technology, but the world is running out of time, and quite possibly the only way to reach the summit is to all forge ahead together. Luckily, with states, the conditions aren’t as tightly-wound as in the hypothetical death race. Instead of one country being decided as the most capable, the most capable from each country can coalesce and develop the technology. The benefits will of course still be spread equally, because optimal use of the technology occurs when every country implements it. It will be hard for the capable countries, such as the United States, Japan, China, etc. to forgo their individual chances of glory, but if the future is as ominous as predicted, pride must be swallowed. Unlike nuclear weapons, the entire globe benefits from alternative energy proliferation. The world’s nations are too often caught up in competition based on nationalism; this present challenge must be met with internationalism. If the cost of inaction is untold catastrophe, which threatens the continuance of civilization as we know it, then the benefits become contrastingly clear.

Each country should contribute a certain amount to the mutual development fund proportional to oil use. After all, if you go out to dinner and your friends purchase the finest wine and drink it all, it would hardly be fair to split the tab equally. The best route to a solution is suggested by Bell. Powerful NGO’s in India, and laws allowing people to indict polluters in the Philippines, give people effective tools for action (Bell 113). Common citizens must be educated in the costs and benefits regarding them directly and future generations. Polls often show most people like to see international cooperation – if states aren’t willing to cooperate in revolutionary technology development, then the citizenry will have to speak loudly, and armed with the knowledge of possible impending destruction, will have every incentive to push, even shove, for an internationalist approach, that at the very least guarantees the continuation of modern life. Either the United States government will participate on its own, or the populace will have to exercise its democratic rights and force the issue, either way, it is clear the race against the clock is on.

Works Cited Barrett, Scott. 1999. Montreal vs. Kyoto: International Cooperation and the Global Environment. In Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, eds. Inge Kaul, Isabelle

Bell, Ruth Greenspan. 2006. What To Do About Climate Change. Foreign Affairs 85 (3): 105-113.

Browne, John. 2004. Beyond Kyoto. Foreign Affairs 83 (4): 20-32.

Pope, Carl and Bjorn Lomborg. 2005. The State of Nature. Foreign Policy 149: 67-73.

Digging deep for capitalism

Mining and particularly the mining of precious metals is one of the most environmentally destructive industries. For example mining operations for gold and other precious metals often use sodium cyanide (as in the stuff you poison people with!) to extract the metal from the ore. Not surprisingly the cyanide can and very often does leak into the ground and the local water supply with disastrous consequences. This is just one case, the mining and metal production industries can affect the environment in countless ways. The waste created by the metal smelting can equally be a source of pollution. Unlike their counterparts in the oil industry mining companies also have the advantage of being almost invisible to the public. We all use objects made partially or wholly from metal in our everyday life. But we have no way of knowing the level of environmental destruction caused or hazardous working practices endured in the mining and manufacture of the metal we use. Furthermore we have no way of knowing where such metal was mined or by which company. Mining companies in other words are more or less are immune to consumer boycotts. The following represent just a few of the innumerable cases of environmental and other devastation caused by the mining and metal production companies.

Spelter, West Virginia, United States

In a class action lawsuit The US multinational DuPont was recently ordered by a jury to finance a medical monitoring plan to detect cancers and other diseases for the residents of Spelter, Virginia over the next forty years. DuPont had dumped waste from a smelter on an industrial site in the town over a number of years. The company though had taken far from adequate care in preventing the escape of toxic gases and liquids emanating from the waste into the surrounding environment.

San Miguel Ixtahuacán, Guatemala

Communities in the area are in conflict with the Canadian mining multinational Goldcorp which owns the recently constructed Marlin mine through a subsidiary. This conflict goes beyond Goldcorp as the mine was built with the aid of a US$45 million loan from the World Bank. Other “aid” has been given to Goldcorp as a sweetener for developing the mine including an exemption from Value Added Tax in Guatemala. The grievances of the local communities against Goldcorp and the World Bank are many and varied but centers around minimal consultation they were given concerning the construction of the mine – consultation that was anyway mere window dressing. Things came to a head in January when local protestors carried out a successful blockade of all the routes to the Marlin mine for over a week. For its part, the World Bank has denounced international and national NGOs for “inciting” the local communities against the mine.

Didipio, The Philippines

The Australian mining company OceanaGold has been accused by Oxfam Australia of resorting to harassment and strong arm tactics against members of local communities living in the vicinity of the Didipio gold and copper mine. Oxfam recently went public and published a report based on a five year long investigation into the Didipio mine after OceanaGold failed to give any meaningful or adequate responses to the concerns raised on behalf of the local communities. These included threats of legal action against illiterate local farmers who refused to sell their land to OceanaGold and the attempted bribery of elected officials in local government. The criticisms of OceanaGold have been summarized by Oxfam Australia in the words that it “refuses to accept that many of the people of Didipio do not want a mine in their front yard”.

This article was published in the November 2007 edition of Socialist Resistance.

'Critical Mass' Acts to Promote Urban Bicycle Transporation

It’s almost seven p.m. Friday night. It is getting dark as I exit the Red Line at Vermont and Wilshire. I have serious doubts about whether I will make it before the others depart. I grab my newly repaired, basement-junk ten-speed bicycle from the rack on the bus and peddle frantically down Wilshire Boulevard chasing the setting sun to the appointed place for my first ride with “Critical Mass”, an organization created for the sole purpose of meeting at a predetermined place and time and traveling by self propulsion through city streets en mass.

All around me I can see, feel, and hear the exodus of millions of tons of fossil burning cars and trucks as they choke the narrow corridors of access to the city center. The streets and avenues are insufficient to accommodate the volume of traffic unforeseen by their architects. This domain of fuel burning speeds and heavy metal momentum dwarfs me and I feel afraid and I imagine that I am the annoying and completely un-cool little brother, slowing down the older kids and getting in their way. My “big brothers’” frustration is palpable. They jeer their horns at me. I choke on their smoke and diesel. Finally I arrive at the Western Avenue metro station. I am half an hour late. But the bicyclists are still here.

Tucked into the pedestrian vestibule like so many hanging bats in a cave waiting to disperse, they are fat and skinny, boys and girls, tall and short young and old. Each one sits casually poised upon a two-wheeled, two-peddled traveling machine. No one leads or organizes. Our bicycles connect us. The idea of the bicycle leads us.

A whistle blows and one of the riders starts north on Western. A few bikes follow and I hear a couple of voices crying “let’s go”. Our group becomes a single organism and occupies the whole of north-bound Western Avenue. I no longer feel the inferiority which had washed over me when riding solo. I am now a part of a greater whole, a single cell of a larger being, protected in the bosom of our collective. Now it is we who set the pace on the street. Almost no manifest resentment comes from our gas burning brothers and sisters. They seem to submit to our dominant synergy. Horns honk, but not in anger. They sound the ‘beep beep’ of joyfully approving surprise instead.

Some of the more experienced participants “cork” major intersections as we pass. This involves holding the streets open after the light has turned red in order that the entire “critical mass” can make it through together. It is this behavior which has garnered the irritation of some municipal officials who feel strongly that Critical Mass should stop breaking traffic laws as this, they argue, reduces public safety. Critical Mass has no hierarchy and therefore no one available to reply to this criticism. Some participants explain to me, that the act of “corking” civilly disobeys a vehicular infrastructure which exalts the automobile over alternative transportation methods such as cycling. Participants hope to raise awareness by the temporary re-acquisition and occupation of city streets and by acting directly to disobey the very laws which have relegated cycling to a dangerous vehicular afterthought.

Our ride takes us to Sunset Blvd where we co-mingle with the Friday night Hollywood elite. Every twenty something hipster and his emaciated trophy date turns to regard us in awe. ‘What’s going on?” they cry to us in desperate paroxysms of envy. Perhaps they fear being upstaged by such a group of singular nobodies who have morphed into a monster collective celebrity. As we pass the chi-chi clubs, the paparazzi attending the entrances and exits of the Paris Hiltons and Brttany Spears focus their lenses on us. We are so “the happening thing”.

The greatest moment comes as we fly past the Chinese and Kodak Theatres on Hollywood Boulevard. The sites of the Oscars and the cemented footprints of stars cannot compete with us. The tourists, stuffed with the artifice and contrivance of Disneyland and Universal Studios applaud and roar with approval….and we are just ordinary mortals riding our ordinary bikes. But as ensemble we are movie stars!

As I ride home on the red line train I meditate on my Friday night with Critical Mass. Again I am alone in a sea of humanity who regard me and my bike with a mixture of indifference and contempt. It seems a strange shunning after an almost universal approval.

Critical Mass is a direct action flash-mob on wheels. We ride to be together and have fun and to remind people that physical stasis is not the inevitable result of being without a car. It teaches community and unity of people and of purpose; even here in L.A. where you are considered to be nobody if you don’t have “wheels”; even here where a walk to the store just a couple of blocks away is considered unthinkable; even here where the geographic city limits stretch for hundreds of square miles in all directions; even here where we once boasted the most efficient and ubiquitous public transportation system anywhere until the likes of General Motors and Firestone Rubber tore up the tracks and consigned us to our four-wheeled coffins.

We are a critical mass of people. We find each other by leveraging the power of cyberspace to meet at a time and place in the physical world to do what we enjoy and to breathe and peddle and to thereby teach peace, community and ecology. It really doesn’t get much better than that.

A critical essay in reply to Ian Wooden's article re: Inequality and Capitalism

RE: http://www.rethos.com/news/view/309-Capitalism-and-Inequality-If-Only-Time-Could-Tell-

I have a number of problems with this article.

The author’s central thesis is apparently that “inequality” is a global problem that cannot be met with a single solution and that no solution(s) have apparently been found and therefore since this heretofore unattainable panacea is currently unavailable, the author proposes to brainstorm for possible solutions and to speculate as to what state we would find ourselves in if “we tackle[d] the topic of creating a more level playing field.” Then he utterly fails to do as he proposes.

I would point out that “tackling a topic” is a lot different than tackling a problem especially that of “inequality”. Inequality takes many forms in our societies. Some of them are organic (Weight, height etc.) Some are geographic (The residents of Kansas City, Missouri are no doubt unequal in surfing opportunities to their counterparts in say La Jolla, California.) Still others are socio-economic such as race, class, poverty, opportunity, literacy, health and welfare to name a few.

If the author purports to speculate as to a vision of the world where the “problem” of these latter inequalities is met by efforts to solve them, then he not only fails to do so in this piece, he fails to recognize that mankind has sought solutions for such inequalities for centuries arguably with very poor results.

Next we are invited to consider that capitalism is perhaps not the sole cause of poverty. Does the author now equate “inequality” with “poverty”? If so, then his conjecture is by definition erroneous. He then speculates that perhaps it is educational systems that create poverty. How they create poverty, he does not address.

Next we are treated to a bit of historical criticism and as readers we are chastised for viewing the “essence” of capitalism by looking at the polar extremities of capitalism and then speculating “on these elements”. What is the end result of this speculation which affords us this “wrong light”? The author never tells us but does next assert that “the rich suppress the poor for their own personal gain”. Does the author agree with this assertion or rather is this an example of the “wrong light” we have been told to expect in previous sentences? We are afforded a clue in his next utterance wherein this “suppression” is considered to be possibly true in the past but is not ‘sustainable”.

With a bit of judicious editing, lets assume that the author means to say that the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy has some true historical antecedents but cannot survive the present day “corporate world” (or at least tomorrow’s corporate world). How this modern day corporate model with its “seek talent” mandate will somehow embrace the illiterate masses of oppressed and impoverished peoples everywhere is conveniently omitted.

Next we get: “Truly smart leaders realize that the only way to grow ones (sic) business and become successful is to make sure that your people are successful too (sic). With proliferation of competition in the business world, people have choices (though it may not always seem that way). If you take advantage of your talent, you will quickly find them scrambling out the door.”

I can only speculate that the point here is that since there is competition, inequality will be worked out naturally by market forces. This is a philosophy of capitalism first proffered by Adam Smith who wrote of an “invisible hand” as the great equalizer. To his credit, Mr. Smith recognized that market equilibrium can only be found where the participants come to the table on an equal footing. For the last century or so, exploitative capitalists have borrowed the nomenclature of Mr. Smith with none of the substance. This author appears poised to do the same.

Finally, as an apparent exit strategy, the author seeks refuge in the time honored truism that equality of education is a corner stone of potential future socio-economic equality. How his reasoning and argument have brought us to this well heeled conclusion is anybody’s guess. Ironically, his parting shot is a cry for patience (one presumes with the status quo) and to ask us to appreciate what we have (or in other words, what the other guy doesn’t have.)

All in all the thesis presented is poorly constructed, argued, and articulated and hardly constitutes a stirring call to reform the wretched inequalities of the world which maim, kill and leave in perpetual agonizing despair, so many millions of our sisters and brothers and children around the world.

A short story on racism

“You’ve got to be taught to hate and to fear You’ve got to be carefully taught from year to year It’s got to be drummed into your dear little ear You’ve got to be..taught to be afraid…...”

(woman looks up from contemplation…. pause )

Well, I was taught not to say the bad words ..you know and I won’t say them now even though its a kinda a new sort of freedom to throw them around like they have no particular weight .. like their meaning’s lost somewhere in outer space – lost to the newly cruel/cool..I said cruel oh, well my father taught us not to say these words because he was a guinea and he’d heard ‘em all “Wop do wop de doh” and all..greaseball.

Anyway,like the other biggie myths generated by suburban parents ,the strange man who’d show up uninvited , crash the party with his dirty yellow cigarette some generalities stuck. About the “colored ” boys which I later felt was a misrepresentation expecting when I was young , very and living in in an all white BLIZZARD WHITE ZONE and had not actually seen one in person- colored -I imagined that they’d all spill out pink, puce, yellow and orange some huge crayola box of flesh human shaped…

To the point.. They told us black men smelt differently. (SIGH) Well experience informed me number one .. that the dirty yellow cigarette was white and that black men do smell different. Better . Intoxicatingly good after ..um..ah you know an intimate experience. Especially after that. I’m so enamored of that particular fragrance I’ve crept up often behind some dusky man in an elevator or paused at a street crossing , eyes closed and sniffed . Inhaled. I’ve been frightening. Yes I admit it. There are so many betters we neutralize by calling “differences ” So many betters ,size, and color and scent which is what all the other lies are made up from -FOR ..to cover the fear, the fear of the powerful that its rights might be challenged give the “others” some betters .

So is this racism? Oh, ugly word. Is it racism sniffing strangers because they’re delicious after all and different is not a dirty word, Smell not pejorative. But how can I come out to the world and admit I’ve smelt enough men of all colors in myriad situations to approximate a scientific study. Yes , its true – a representative sample – Well I did I do and I can testify testify as to why I go stalking the world for more ..eyes closed sucking up close – forcing frightened brothers off elevators two floors below their original destination.

Dutch government bans cultural identity

With this article I want to achieve two things. Firstly, I want to give foreigners a look into the national affairs of the Netherlands regarding the public freedoms we enjoy and the recent political trends. Secondly, I hope to inspire Dutch citizens to ACT, to change something and to turn current trends around.

Being a Dutchman living abroad gives me a different scope or perspective on current events in the Netherlands. The Netherlands are changing from the liberal country it used to be and losing more and more of its identity. This, for me, is signified by two events in political decision making:

• The parliament moving to ban the use of psilocybin mushrooms;
• The parliament moving to ban squatting.

In recent years, Dutch populist politicians have been trying to win votes by claiming they want to win back the “Dutch identity”. Charismatic politician Pim Fortuyn, who was assassinated by an animal rights activist before the elections, started this trend by saying Holland is full – a politically sensitive statement that had until that point always been dismissed as right-wing extremism. Through his wit and charisma, Pim Fortuyn prevented this from happening, also having a left-wing history, fighting for student rights in his younger years. After the 2002 elections, more politicians stepped through the door which had long been closed. They want tougher rules for immigration, illegal immigrants, foreign cultures ‘invading’ Holland and influencing our norms and values, et cetera. Now, being a Dutchmen, I don’t know what the Dutch identity is they’re talking about. Holland has always been an internationalised country and that is our identity; we are people of the world. Recent events caused me to change my mind.

Holland is an international country as I said, and internationally, the Dutch identity is a liberal one. The same politicians that want to protect the Dutch identity are the ones that want to ban psilocybin mushrooms and squatting. Two of the things that separate us more from the rest of the world, give us more of a distinction – an identity – than any wooden shoes, tulips or watered down village-traditions have done in the last 60 years.

In the 1960’s, a counterculture movement called the Provo’s, provoked society and politics to review their standards by provoking violent responses from authority, through the use of non-violence. The most famous event of theirs being when in 1966 Dutch Queen Beatrix married Prince Claus (former Wehrmacht-soldier). Amongst the rumours they spread were that the drinking water would be containing hallucinogens or that the sugar cubes given to the horses would contain LSD. These claims turned out to be false, but they got attention from the world press through setting off a smokebomb while the couple was riding their horses with golden carriage through the streets. The police, by Dutch standards, responded very violently and the Provo’s welcomed this to make their point to the whole world.

The Provo-movement eventually disbanded and dissolved into the hippie-movement of the seventies, which later grew into the squatting movement of the 1980’s. The economical climate was definitely not at its best time, there was a shortage of residential buildings in the main cities, but (because of the economical climate) there were also a lot of buildings which were empty. The squatters then started inhabiting these and a movement was formed with a rather distinctive anarchistic accent. Some of these places are homes to give-away-stores, illegal radio stations, vegan restaurants, or have expositions or free parties.

The Netherlands is one of the few countries where squatting is not banned by law. If a building is empty for more than 12 months and the owner cannot show that it will be used in the near future, it’s legal for the squatters to live there. The only obstacles are the breaking and entering, but the law for this can only be enforced when caught red-handed (the idea is to get a bed, table and chair in as fast as possible so that they can show they live there, which makes them squatters and not burglars). The other obstacle is a law that states one cannot live in buildings which are not defined as residential buildings.

In recent events, the residents of one squatted building in Amsterdam that was to be evicted put up a trap which was supposed to let the roof collapse on top of whoever would enter the building. This led to politicians having a second look at squatting and moving to ban it. A majority of parliament is currently for a ban. Those who oppose the parliament’s reaction say that this is a matter of law and not politics. The perpetrators should be tried, not the law. These reactionary politics are typical of the current political climate in the Netherlands. Another example of this is the current discussion on psilocybin mushrooms.

On the 24th of March, 2007, a French tourist killed herself by jumping from a bridge. It is said she had used mushrooms when she jumped. A spokesman for the opium-affairs department of the ministry of Public Health, commented that “They say she used mushrooms, but there has been no section or toxicological research.” The Coördinationpoint for the Assessment and Monitoring of new drugs (CAM) stated that this was not the girl’s first attempt to kill herself. Reacting to this event, the Dutch government, as well as the parliament, has proposed the banning of all psilocybin mushrooms.

Since this event with the French tourist, more events have taken place with tourists reacting badly to mushrooms, usually combining it with alcohol or other drugs (something which is strongly advised against). By request of the minister of Public Health, the CAM research into the dangers of mushrooms. They concluded that these are the risks involving mushrooms:

• Health of the individual: no risk.
• Public health / society: minimal risk.
• Public order / safety: minimal risk.
• Criminal involvement: no risk.

The CAM advised against a ban on mushrooms for the following reasons:

• The smartshops selling the mushrooms might replace them by substances which carry more risk;
• It will lead to shrooms being sold in tablet-form, like XTC pills;
• Users would pick mushrooms in nature, which could lead to serious problems if they mistake the wrong type of mushrooms for the ones they are looking for;
• Users might switch to other drugs, which might be more interesting from a criminal perspective and possibly carry more risk for usage… Leading to more danger to the public;
• The banning of mushrooms is a rather tough sanction given the current problems its causing;
• Maintaining a ban would bring costs.

According to the national organization of smartshops (VLOS), its research showed that it’s mainly tourists causing the problems and incidents. The reason why a rising trend has occurred since 2005 with regard to these incidents, according to them, is a 30% increase in tourists in Amsterdam and a change in the composition of the tourists, due to low-budget airlines, cheap citytrips, etc. These tourists are often there for just a weekend and are in a ‘rush’ to take the mushrooms before they leave. This leads to irresponsible behaviour and a higher number of incidents. They also claim that this is almost completely limited to Amsterdam, the main attraction for drug tourists. The mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, has proposed to sell mushrooms only after a certain waiting time (2 days for example), so that it can’t be a hasty decision and consumers have the time to find out more about taking mushrooms in a safe environment. The Dutch minister of Public Health however has proposed to ban the sales of mushrooms altogether and will confer with his colleague, the minister of Justice, to turn mushrooms into harddrugs – making them equal to cocaine, heroin and crack.

Now I’m going to ask some questions here, because why did he ask the CAM for advice in the first place, if he was going to go along with moving to ban it anyway? The CAM has labelled his decision as a political one, not an informed one based on the facts their research showed. Since this announcement an organisation called Red De Paddo (Save The Shroom) has started to get people active. Through their website over 40.000 people sent emails to the parliament calling for a more informed decision regarding the ban of mushrooms. They also organized a protest on the main square in Amsterdam (‘de Dam’) which was attended by a few hundred people. One of the speakers there, Peter Bronkhorst, was a Provo-activist who actually threw the smokebomb at the royal wedding in 1966. I’m sad to report that he passed away not even a week after the demonstration on the 2nd of November.

Now I personally cannot understand that everyone’s acting so surprised regarding the illegalisation of squatting and psilocybin mushrooms. I cannot understand why there were only a few hundred people at the demonstration. I cannot understand why there has only been one demonstration so far. I cannot understand why there were no 24/7 demonstrations outside the ministry of Public Health or the parliament.

What has happened to the squatting spirit, the hippie spirit, the Provo spirit? We have gotten lazy in our position of luxury and are not willing to fight for what we have. Why do we choose to become active after we have lost it? Are we lazy, scared, both? Why even ban mushrooms altogether if it’s not the Dutch, but the tourists causing the problems? Surely there must be ways to avoid this. Why are politicians that claim they want to protect the Dutch identity actually the ones most out to destroy it? The legality of psilocybin mushrooms and squatting are signs of our freedom, signs of our ‘Dutchness’. Freedom is a cause worth fighting for and this has often been said. Stop listening to the politicians who ban things in the name of cultural identity, freedom or safety. Wouldn’t it be more dangerous to give up freedom for safety, than the security that would provide could save us from? Why are freedom and safety even polarized? Why is it a choice between either one of them, we can surely create a world in which we have both… My point is that this is not just about kids wanting to trip, kids wanting to live in buildings for free, besides this squatting offers a high cultural value and mushrooms a spiritual one. It’s not even about that though; it’s about protecting ourselves in a more and more controlling-political climate. We are not safer or better off this way. Look at the most glorious years of the nation post-World War II (and maybe even predating the World War) – they were the most liberal times.

With the passing away of the older generations, it is time for a new generation of activists to step up and to show that we will not give up our rights to politicians who act on anything but facts.

It’s time to organise, it’s time to act and it’s time NOW. Because if we don’t…

Recap

• The Dutch Provo-movement in the 60s, hippies in the 70s, and squatters in the 80s, have fought for rights which are now being taken away by a lack of action throughout the mid-90s until now;
• All research, including government research, has shown that making mushrooms illegal will cause more danger, not less;
• Where is the logic in a complete ban of mushrooms nationwide, based solely on incidents with tourists who act irresponsibly, impulsively and combine these with other drugs;
• The government and parliament actually going against advice from independent research shows that they do not respect science nor the rights of the individual, this must be stopped NOW;
• We must get organised and start acting to prevent these bans from happening, as well as other attacks on our rights, through creating understanding and support throughout society and the media;
• Stop voting for politicians who solely react to events instead of doing their job properly and treating the cause, not the symptoms. Get others to do the same; no matter their political orientation.

I have absolute faith that these repressive actions of the government will create a new movement like the Provo’s from the 60s or the squatters from the 80s. It would be in Holland’s best interest if this came sooner, rather than later. So we can prevent things from being made illegal, because it’s harder to get something legalised.

Don’t be surprised when you see the government proposing to ban cannabis also. They’re already attacking coffeeshops with the EU imposed smoking bans and under the denominator of ‘preventing drugtourism’. They will increase their pressure and become more blatant about it in the next 4 years. I myself expect them to use situations in which drugged people act crazy or OD in public (caused by their repression of safe drugs) and they will link these situations to cannabis. Likely saying that the use of cannabis has lead these people to use whatever caused the trouble. The cause in the great majority of the cases is, of course, alcohol, but they’ll prefer to tax that more heavily instead of banning it altogether. Mark my words.

Act NOW.