Journal

Draft of Questions for David G. Irving

2012-01-23T21:20:00.026-05:00

In Ch 24 of your book, the Protein Myth, you talk about how our diet pertains to issues beyond the physical health of ourselves and our friends and family such as to world poverty, the suffering of billions of farmed animals, and damage to the planet. This seems to contrast to how food in public discourse is often framed in terms of individual or family health, with little attention paid to the broader community and to the world in general. Any thoughts on how we've developed such a narrow public discourse when it comes to food ?

You write on page 291 of your book, the Protein Myth, "the meat industrialists...are reaching out to expand the consumption of animal protein in the developing world. There they are busily at work promoting the same process of feedlot production (Confined Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs)) to increase meat output that has been successfully employed in the West.

"Food corporations marketing meat can only profit when people eat meat, and so they advertise everywhere to encourage people to eat as much meat as possible. Rifkin points out that sales campaigns equate grain-fed 'feedlot' cows (in contradistinction to grass-fed 'pasturage' cows) to a country’s prestige
where consuming animal protein has increasingly become 'the
mark of success' in the developing countries."

To what extent does this parallel the apparent fact that many people in 'developing' nations see hyper-consumerism and and otherwise energy-intensive ways of life as key measure of success or 'living the good life?' For example, many people in 'developing' countries are also acquiring washing machines and other appliances as well as abandoning their bicycles for automobiles.

So, perhaps, the marketing of animal products is not the ONLY factor behind a rise in animal products consumption among some people in 'developing' countries. As bad as corporate abuses of power may be, a deeper issue may be a value system in which we define 'success' and 'progress' in ecologically destructive ways.

Please talk about how a diet high in animal products not only exploits farmed animals but also worsens world hunger. Actually, in the Protein Myth, you say that the diet of wealthy nations--lots of meat, dairy, and eggs,---CAUSES world hunger, right ?

On pg 305, you write about "drug companies which create nonexistent diseases to get the public to buy their drugs." What are your referring to here ?

On pg 306, you write that, "Some of our major nonprofit health organizations and government healthcare agencies have recommended drugs not because they legitimately solved a healthcare problem, but because some of their officials were tied to the drug industry through personal connections that padded their wallets or created wealth for their institutions." Please name names. Or does that expose you to the risk of lawsuits? Perhaps, one option I have as someone with close to no financial assets is to speak out against corporate and governmental abuse of power without fear of being sued, though a media outlet I work for could be sued.

In some ways,some of us live in separate universes, when it comes to being vegan. One the one hand, are people who wonder whether we can get adequate nourishment without animal products; while, on the other hand, are people who claim that a vegan diet is a sort of magic bullet. To what extent could the truth be some combination of these two competing viewpoints ?

One of the points in your book, the Protein Myth, that stands out in its contrast to the conventional wisdom is that milk is NOT a healthful drink, and that dairy products are a type of junk food. Please say more about that.

I myself am reluctant to paint all dairy as a bad thing. That's because I would like to help farmed animals by finding common cause with organic farmers. Here in Central Ohio, there is Snowville Creamery, which seems to be doing things much better than the factory farms. Speaking for myself, I don't want to shut people out. Many people might oppose factory farming, yet---unlike you, me, and other vegan---don't think that consuming animal products, per se, is bad.

Someone might say that your concerns are not well founded, given that the life expectancy of people in 'developed nations' is much higher than it is in other parts of the world where much less animal products are consumed.

Are those life expectancy figures misleading ? Perhaps people in 'developed' nations would live even longer with less of us getting the many chronic illnesses you talk about if we ceased consuming animal products ?

In your book, the Protein Myth, you write about how 'the dairy industry', to perhaps overgeneralize, `exerts its influence thru, among other means, instructional materials in our nation's class rooms. Say more about that.

In your book, The Protein Myth, you write about how the general public trusts a medical establishment that is giving dangerously false info about cholesterol. Please say more about that.

You also mention flawed studies with which some researchers have claimed to debunk the idea that saturated fats are a cause for heart disease (and cancer ?) Say more about that.

It might be worth noting that even if a plant-based diet doesn't improve human health, it's still better for farmed animals and for the rest of the natural environment.

Even if we assume there has been and can continue to be benefits for humans that result from inflicting pain and death on animals, perhaps it's the case that there would be a NET benefit to human beings as well as other animals, if we were to cease viewing them as part of an order of living beings that is inferior to humans?

I ask this because many of the social and environmental problems that confront humanity may stem from our view of ourselves as separate from other species and the natural environment in general.

What about the polio vaccine. It's estimated that at least a million monkey's were "used" in the lab work the led to a vaccine. Should that have not been done? To what extent is there ever a situation in which it's moral to inflict suffering on an animal so as to promote human welfare and/or prevent human suffering ?

If I read what you wrote in your book correctly, you're saying that to a significant degree the process of universities and private researchers getting tax payer money to do animal research is more or less a scam. I don't want to exaggerate or otherwise distort what you wrote, so, how would you describe the situation ?

Is animal research somehow more prone to such corruption than research that does not involve the use of animals ?

Talk about how, in your opinion, officials at universities are not willing to engage in public debate regarding how animals are treated in their research facilities.

The Ohio State University, the main campus, is right here in Columbus. So, say more about how, in your opinion, animals are being abused at research facilities of the Ohio State University. You mention in your book, the Protein Myth, that there is a researcher here that experiments on dogs, inducing heart attacks by having them run on a treadmill.

So, who's making money off of abusing animals in the name of research ? This is funded by taxpayers right ? Please name names when it comes to getting NIH money and other research money from government entities.

What can we do to reduce, if not eliminate the abuse of animals in research facilities ? When it comes to food, drink, clothing, and accessories, one of the things we can do is the so-called voting with our dollars,that is withdrawing our financial support for exploitative industries. But I'm not sure what to do about, for example, getting OSU to stop abusing animals in its research facilities.

Do you advocate a ban on all testing on animals ? You mention in your book that clinical drug trials on animals have limited usefulness for testing whether the drug will be safe for humans to use.

One might ask the question of why there are so many pharmaceuticals being tested in the first place. Pharmaceuticals are there place, but perhaps the focus on pharmacology has gone too far ? Perhaps our society would be better to focus more on diet, a healthy environment, and natural remedies ?

Critics might say that would be anti-modern and unscientific. But perhaps moving forward is a matter of using our scientific knowledge of, for example, chemistry, and applying it in ways more beneficial to the well-being of humans and other animals ? It's NOT about romanticizing the past, right ?

In your book, the Protein Myth, you write " Computer technology already
exists capable of putting an end to animal testing for drugs, so
what is the necessity of testing for drugs on millions of animals
other than to take billions of tax dollars from the public?"

In the Protein Myth, you write, "n the year 2005 three Nobel Prize winners and 500 eminent academics including 250 professors signed a collective statement that read “Virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly on research with animals.” Say more about that.

A significant portion of your book addresses the immorality of using animals for scientific research. So, why is the title of your book, The Protein Myth ?

In your book, you say we can ELIMINATE (?) our risks for some cancers, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis,macular degeneration, and multiple sclerosis.

That's a long list of health problems you claim we can solve by not consuming animal products. Is it perhaps a matter of REDUCING those risks, but not eliminating them ?

You wrote in your book " one of the premier government healthcare agencies,
the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, set the upper level for protein intake in its 2002 annual report at 35% (as a percentage of calories). That was 25% higher than the amount recommended
the previous 50 years. No explanation accompanied the new FNB recommendation."

Say more about that.

Menu code ---copy and paste from EDIT view

2012-01-21T17:59:00.000-05:00

/*********************Navigation Menu 1**********************/
.access{margin:auto;width:960px;display:block;float:left;}
.access .menu ul{list-style:none;margin:0;}
.access .menu li{float:left;position:relative; font-weight:bold;}
.access a{display:block;text-decoration:none;font-size:14px; text-transform:uppercase; padding:0 15px;line-height:34px; }
.access .menu li.current_page_item a {background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access ul ul{display:none;position:absolute;top:34px;left:0;float:left;-webkit-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);-moz-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);z-index:99999;}
.access ul ul ul{left:100%;top:0;}
.access ul ul a{height:auto;line-height:1em;padding:10px;width:160px; font-size:11px;}
.access li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access ul ul li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}

/*********************Navigation Menu 2**********************/
.access2{margin:auto;width:960px;display:block;float:left;}
.access2 .menu2 ul{list-style:none;margin:0;}
.access2 .menu2 ul li{float:left;position:relative;}
.access2 a{display:block;text-decoration:none;font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; padding:0 15px;line-height:34px;background:url(images/divider.png) right no-repeat; text-shadow:1px 1px #000;}
.access2 ul ul{display:none;position:absolute;top:34px;left:0;float:left;-webkit-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);-moz-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);z-index:99999; }
.access2 ul ul ul{left:100%;top:0;}
.access2 ul ul a{height:auto;line-height:1em;padding:10px;width:160px; color:#FFF;}
.access2 li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access2 .menu2 ul ul li a {background-image:none;}
.access2 ul ul li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}

Occupy the Courts material

2012-01-18T21:12:00.000-05:00

Doug Todd is a full-time state employee who is involved with the Central Ohio Green Education Fund as well as Move to Amend Central Ohio.

Todd said giving corporations the rights of natural persons is the result of a long string of Supreme Court decisions going back to the 19th Century.

"The Citizens United Supreme Court decision of two years ago was the straw that broke the camel's back, because it grants corporations unlimited power to influence elections... It opens the floodgate to money in elections. But even before Citizens United, there was already too much money in elections."

The Citizens United ruling has made it easier for super PACs to spend money on media.

"In other words, what they're doing is buying advertising spots. Back to the Media Reform Caucus we had back in 2004, one of the big issues there was that local stations are not covering local politics anymore. A local politician doesn't get on the airwaves unless they're buying advertising because the local media---newspapers sometimes cover it, the Dispatch is better than most, believe it or not. But local TV and radio stations do not cover local elections anymore, or they do very little of it."

Getting air time requires a lot of money. Todd said some politicians complain they have to spend a very large percentage of their time raising money. But he said big corporations are happy with this arrangement.

" I can't remember who made the quote but some business person said the highest return on investment is the money spent on campaigns, because you can change laws in your favor. These guys are spending the money and they get what they want. The media organizations are in business to make money. Local media does well during political campaigns. That their profitable season because everybody has to buy ads, even though the stations are supposed to be operating in the public interest."

Bob Krasen works with Move to Amend in Columbus.

“The word is out to a pretty good number of organization, including Occupy, to come and participate in this. Nobody really knows how many are going to come, but we’re hoping for a crowd of a couple hundred people.”

He said Move to Amend has been established in across the US with affiliate groups in each state.

Occupy the Courts takes place on third anniversary of the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United V. the Federal Elections Commission case.

“It’s a demonstration against the Citizens United decision but you might say it’s a celebration of what it is we’re trying to accomplish. A demonstration is not necessarily just an anti-thing. It can be a celebration of coming together to try to do something,” Krasen said.

He said Move to Amend has crafted language that makes its amendment to the US Constitution the best among as many as seven other proposals.

“Some of them will not really exclude corporations from participating in the political system and will continue to allow corporate money to filter thru to all sorts of things. I think the wording of the constitutional amendment that Move to Amend is doing really cuts thru those loop holes and is pretty straight forward about what they (corporations) are and are not, and allows local and state entities to legislate against what level anybody can participate in elections.”

Some US cities and states are making efforts to abolish corporate personhood. For a list visit http://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map

As for Columbus, "I’ve tried to approach Andy Ginther about that, but they’re in the middle of budget hearings, so I haven’t heard back from him,” said Krasen.

Krasen said the proposed Constitutional amendment is not against corporations, per se.

“Move to Amend has essentially said ‘we like what corporations do---the goods and services that they provide; that’s valuable to us and to the American people, and we’re not opposed to that at all.’"

Krasen said he and fellow activists oppose corporations in so far as they use their money to drown out the voice of ordinary Americans by funding campaigns and lobbying for bills.

“Right now, if a candidate will oppose something that a corporation wants, they can flood his district or his area with tons of money to prevent him from getting elected. That’s the kind of thing we want to stop.”

He suggests Paul Krugman’s blog

“He (Krugman) is on the side of Occupy and has said Republican proposals on economics are wrong and will be the undoing of the country.”

Krasen also recommends Reader Supported News.

Michael Greenman is _____________

"Most of the major issues today that are a detriment to society, to quality of life, to freedom, to democracy, to the environment, and to education, come back sooner or later to corporate influence or corporate money."

Krasen said our political system is at an impasse.

"There is no way for our elected representatives to go against the significant wishes of the corporate will."

He said Congresspersons have to spend a great deal of their time every day getting money to get reelected.

" A lot of the money comes from Super PACs or wealthy individuals. Nobody gives anything. There is always the expectation---even if it isn't stated or specified---that there will be quid pro quo for donations," said Greenman.

He said as a result, a small percentage of the population has a lot of say over how our country is run.

"In today's environment, with Citizens United, as we just saw, interestingly enough, within the Republican Party, enormous expenditure of money by a wealthy person on behalf of Newt Gingrich against Mitt Romney. I've heard numbers of $5 million for a 29 min television piece...It's not you and me or other individuals or even unions that have the level of money available to do that."

2012-01-12T16:46:00.001-05:00

.
I venture some food growers who use organic or 'chemical free' polyculture methods are beyond subsistence. That is, they might be selling what they and their families don't eat. But I got to check that out. Perhaps other users of this forum can support or detract from that claim.

Getting our hands (and clothes) dirty by growing food, instead of/in addition to, for example, working in a cubicle might be one of many ways to revitalize our economy. Why allow ourselves as a society to be stuck in a rut, unimaginatively and complacently, given how some of us have faced increased risks of losing our corporate jobs ?

But, since you mentioned it, let's consider subsistence farming--that is, growing just enough to live off of. As a last resort, it might be better than starvation, which is what the majority of people in this country--including myself---MIGHT face without petroleum.

I say that because (relatively eco-benign) substitutes such as geothermal, wind, and solar seem more applicable to electricity generation, transportation, and heating than they do to agriculture.

The claims of food and chemical companies such as Monsanto, Dow, or ADM about feeding the world might make sense if we overlook the uncertain future for petroleum and natural gas. Also, to those big companies that say thru their high-price PR firms "We feed the world", we might want consider whether it's better if the world is instead able to feed itself, as opposed to relying on big companies that literally wield the power of life or death.

But as for peak oil (and climate change for that matter), even if concerns about them are overblown or just plain false, our current systems are problematic for other reasons. For the sake of brevity (if it's not too late for that) let's just consider our food system for the time being.

Industrialized agriculture involves many challenges, irrespective of peak oil and climate change :

(1) eutrophication of waterways;

(2) salinization of soil;

(3) draw-down of aquifers;

(4) loss of topsoil;

(5) loss of micro-nutrients;

(6) loss of biodiversity;

(7) loss of nutrient density in food;

(8) public health problems such as obesity, BSE, MRSA, H1N1, and lowered resistance to antibiotics;

(9) concentrated control over seeds;

(10) monopolies in the dairy and livestock industries;

(11)abuse and neglect of farmed animals;

(12)exploitation of migrant and other workers at the bottom of our food supply chain.

But let's again pan our conceptional lens wider, not limiting our focus to our food system. Brevity be damned! Whether it pertains to food (petroleum, natural gas); transport (petroleum, coal-fired electricity); electricity generation (coal and nuclear); or heating and cooling (coal, natural gas, and nuclear); I suggest a more accurate accounting of the 'costs.'

Apply to your understanding of 'cost' the same degree of systemic thinking you applied in order to challenge the way people use the word 'renewable' when we talk about energy sources. http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/eliminate-tax-subsidies-for-big-oil-companies#post-404439

The key term is 'throughput,' so as to account for NET usage of energy and materials, and NET gains vs. cost to human well-being. (I used an anthropocentric framework for the sake of a possibly more constructive discourse with you.)

So, I suggest we consider the net costs and benefits of pursuing alternatives to our current systems for agriculture, transportation, and power generation versus the net costs and benefits of sticking with (or trying to stick with) things as they are.

----------------------

As for the US being a net fuel exporter, (1) does this necessarily negate the value of reducing absolute demand ?

As for the DoD's innovations with alternative fuels and energy sources, I'm not sure if you mentioned this to bate Pilsner, given his anti-war posts. But it calls to mind the conservative stance that government should spend money and resources on 'national defense' and little else.

Having said all of that, I would add the broad commercial and noncommercial applications of technological innovation that resulted from the Cold War space race to your example of the internet resulting from a DARPA program. This raises a possibly useful line of inquiry:

(2) to what extent has government-sponsored R&D focused on military applications
resulted in benefits to society and the world in general;

(3) to what extent has non-military government-sponsored R&D benefited society and the world in general;

(4) what do our answers---in comparing (2) and (3)--- mean regarding citizens right now pushing our political leaders to invest in government-sponsored R&D;

(5) and will the money for this come from keeping taxes low for the super rich and big corporations that send jobs and manufacturing know-how overseas ?

Notes and questions regarding systems theory/living systems

2012-01-12T13:26:00.002-05:00

For Fritjof Capra : why not us both analytical and systemic thinking ?

Questions for Jonathan Meier

2012-01-02T00:53:00.001-05:00

To what extent should people address concerns about shingles on the roof contaminating water that runs off, causing contamination of soil where food is grown.

refer to interview in Metroprenuer

Notes on factory farming

2011-12-23T00:32:00.000-05:00

If relevant, inquire further into the causal relationship the following has to factory farming and industrial ag:

the obesity epidemic among Americans consuming large amounts of processed foods;

and billions of dollars of lost property values in rural areas.

This is still an incomplete list of the problems factory farming and industrial agriculture cause. But these multiple problems with our food system lead to multiple approaches at addressing them, leading to the local, the organic, and the animal rights movements as well as the permaculture and fair trade movements.

It's not about every person growing 100 percent of the food she or he consumes. The issue is that the decisions that affect our food system should be made with more input from the public.

Here is a far-from-complete list of the corporate bullying going in the food sector:

factory farming companies intimidating locals who might complain about the stink and other pollution, with the threat of costly lawsuits (SLAPP);

Monsanto suing hundreds of farmers in North America for 'copyright infringement';

Monsanto charging farmers in India royalties for crops they've been cultivating there for hundreds of years;

federal subsidies for commodity crops used for making food materials such as high fructose corn syrup which negatively impacts public health;

federal subsidies for factory farms, whose owners already are in DC and state capitals dumping millions of dollars to buy our government, while externalizing the costs of factory farming in terms of air and water pollution;

state governments, including Ohio, taking away local control, so that state and federal regulatory bodies--ie departments of agriculture---easily overrule county boards of health and other local officials who tend to represent citizens fighting against the pollution of their air and water from factory farms;

As for Occupy, the message---for those willing to hear it---is that big corporations have bought our government, undermining the will of the people concerning just about every issue---healthcare, finance, food, water, prisons, war, communications, transportation, and energy.

You name it. Any issue that affects people's lives, big money in politics has caused our government--especially at the state and federal levels---to promote the interests of giant corporations and the uber-rich at the expense of everybody else.

Like that TV reporter who said "There seems to be no message here" while in view of the camera was a protestor holding a sign that read "get the money out of politics," your point was that Occupy has no message.

Grappling with complexity regarding common ground among animal rights activists and animal welfare activists

2011-12-22T16:55:00.002-05:00

The article calls to mind the idea that creating alternatives to factory farming might be a basis for common-cause among those focused on animal rights, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, those focused on animal welfare.

I don't speak for other vegans, but I don't see how I am going to improve the lives of animals by refusing to work with those who strive toward being conscientious omnivores. I can't help build alliances if I refuse to work with anyone except for the minority of people who believe in animal rights (as distinguished from simple animal welfare).

Yet the Devil is in the details. I don't know if anyone here is calling herself or himself an 'enlightened omnivore,' but does being one actually mean boycotting factory farmed animal products, barring cases of nutritional emergency ?

About 99 percent of the meat, eggs, and dairy available in the restaurants and stores in this country do not come from the farming methods the people in the Atlantic article extoll.

So, casting with our dollars a vote against factory farming would turn most of us into situational vegans, well into the foreseeable future, given our dependence on our industrial food system.

As that Atlantic article says, all of us accept doing some harm to humans or to other animals just to stay alive. For example, people in very cold climates use natural gas and other polluting and carbon emitting fuels to keep from freezing to death.

But who can make the case that he or she must consume (factory farmed) animal products in order to stay healthy, not to mention to stay alive ? Perhaps a poor person living off of food from dumpsters and soup kitchens might answer yes.

In some ways, this article misses the point. It's not about whether humans should kill or hurt other animals (or even other humans) in some situations. As it pertains to factory farming, the issue is whether our current system of inflicting suffering on billions of animals every year is necessary for human health and survival.

Interestingly, in the Atlantic article itself, the Johns Hopkins study is cited. That study concludes that factory farming is bad not only for animals but for human health and the natural environmental in general.

Its authors likely didn't intend to make this point, but given that about 99 percent of available animal products in the US is factory farmed, the virtues that the butcher, the hunter, and the rancher present, don't exactly make the case that continuing to eat meat, eggs, and dairy is the ethical choice. That type of food is out of reach for the majority of Americans.

Stories like this lean heavily on anecdote, holding a few individuals up as shining examples, when actually they are exceptions that prove the general rule : if you want to reduce your complicity in the torture of billions of animals and the self-destruction of our national environment, you then in most cases have to reduce your consumption of animal products.

Half-seriously, some of these I-used-to-be-a-vegan-now-I-eat-meat stories kind of remind of the 'ex-gay' movement.

Notes on the animal liberation and the local food movements

2011-12-15T19:15:00.000-05:00

(Deleted from draft of email to Vasile Stanescu)

I agree; there are plenty of ways for animal liberationists to further build our alliances with people working on other causes such--- as you say---- ending food deserts, ending subsidies for monoculture and factory farming, as well as ( I would add ) supporting farmers doing their best to grow food without pesticides and chemical fertilizers.

How do you feel about buying produce from, or voicing support for an organic farmer who is taking better care of the soil and water but is still raising animals for meat, dairy, or eggs, which would likely, if not certainly, entail at least some remnants of speciesist abuses ?

Also, in your critique of the local food movement, you seem to be saying we're ethically required to do a better job of accounting for energy and resource throughput, as well as taking a more holistic or global view of how our choices of food (as well as many other goods and services) pertain to justice, fairness, empathy, and compassion.

Your critique of the local food movement seems to involve an argument for action based on holistic thinking, and an argument against compartmentalization. Perhaps thinking of issues in silos occurs when not-for-profits and others in the cause imitate big corporations---whether intentionally or subconsciously----by trying to sell the general public on their cause by way of branding.

It's a process that inevitably leads to over-simplification and other counter-productive misunderstandings. Your article points out some of those distortions when it comes to the local food movement.

That's one of the reasons I try as a journalist to avoid cheer leading any cause, even animal liberation. Dealing with the devil in the details brings to light possible complications and contradictions that often aren't compatible with PR campaigns.

But my guess is that dealing honestly with seemingly inconvenient complexity is a way to help the animal liberation movement---and other movements----reach its long term triumph.

I ask you these questions in order to help build alliances by coming to terms with complexity. I want to help identify obstacles so as to help overcome them, rather than viewing obstacles as something that cause movements cancel each other out, and thereby promote the status quo by default.

Whether it concerns alternative energy, animal liberation, civil rights for Queer Folk, or addressing the concentration of political and economic power, the issue of obstacles comes up repeatedly. I sometimes am adroit enough to ask people ---including myself---whether we are citing obstacles in order to overcome them or to have an excuse for not trying.

Building a pedicab

2011-12-13T23:49:00.001-05:00

Interview response from Sarah Von Alt of MFA

2011-12-13T18:20:00.015-05:00

Again, my framework overall, which is the theme of my site http://herenowandbeyond.net is survival and quality of life thru better relations (1) among people; (2) between people and animals; and (3) between people and the natural environment.

I include more specific questions but could you say in your own words how your work as an animal rights activist pertains to (1) (2) and (3) above?

VON ALT : " Mercy For Animals is a national non-profit organization dedicated to preventing cruelty to farmed animals and promoting compassionate food choices and policies. We encourage consumers to open their hearts and minds, and widen their circle of compassion beyond family, friends and their beloved companion animals to include all animals.

Unfortunately, more than 99 percent of animal exploitation and abuse in this country is at the hands of the meat, dairy and egg industries. Farmed animals may not be as cute or fluffy as our dogs and cats at home, but they have the same capacity to feel love, joy, and happiness, as well as sorrow, fear and pain. The best way to help end the needless suffering of cows, pigs, chickens and other farmed animals is simply to not eat them.

While MFA’s primary focus is on the animals themselves, transitioning to a plant based diet has shown benefits to human health, as well as our environment. Currently, the leading causes of death in the United States, including heart disease, some forms of cancer, stroke and diabetes have been conclusively linked to diets high in meat, dairy, eggs and other animal products.

As if that isn’t bad enough, the United Nations, Pew Charitable Trusts and other independent organizations have concluded that animal agriculture is a leading cause of every environmental problem we face – from global greenhouse gas emissions to deforestation to air and water pollution. By transitioning to a healthy and humane vegan lifestyle, we can spare animals lives of immeasurable suffering and protect human health and the health of the planet." ----Von Alt

Here are the more specific questions.

I'm aware MFA leaflets at events, but how about other tactics such as

(1) Boycotts?

Von Alt : "Choosing cruelty-free, plant-based alternatives to meat, dairy and eggs is a powerful way to put your ethics on the table and vote for a kinder world every time you sit down to eat. If you don’t like that animals are made to suffer and die for your dinner – good news! You have options. Leave the meat at the supermarket. You don’t have to continue to financially support an industry that hurts animals, the planet and your health. You can now find vegan versions of almost all your favorite foods– including veggie burgers, soymilk, and dairy-free ice cream – at nearly every grocery store and restaurant. It’s never been easier to adopt a healthy and compassionate vegan diet." Von Alt

(2) Marches?

Von Alt : "MFA volunteers around the country routinely take part in parades, street fairs and festivals to raise awareness about the plights of farmed animals. This was MFA's sixth year marching in Pride Parades around the country, and as in years past, the crowd response has been amazing. In fact, since MFA's inception more than a decade ago, the parallels between the gay rights, animal rights and other social justice movements has been an important theme in our philosophy and message. [[[[WHAT DOES CHRISTOPHER HAYES OF OUTLOOK HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS ? ]]]] As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'No one is free when others are oppressed.'

In addition to marching in Pride Parades, MFA seeks to create positive social change by raising awareness about the plights of farmed animals and talking to consumers about the power of their food choices. In 2011, MFA conducted more than 1,500 public outreach events including vegan feed-ins, tabling events, leafletings and Paid-Per-View screenings. At Paid-Per-View screenings we pay people a dollar to watch a 4-minute clip from Farm to Fridge, an eye-opening exploration behind the closed doors of the nation’s largest industrial poultry, pig, dairy and fish farms, hatcheries, and slaughter plants. Exposing consumers to the realities of modern animal agriculture is a powerful way to inspire change.

(3) Leafleting to inform people about what specific local businesses are better and are worse in terms of how animals that end up as meat and dairy they sell are treated?
After learning about the cruelty involved in factory-farmed products, many people think "free-range," "cage-free" or "organic" meat, eggs and dairy products are the solution. While these products may be less cruel than the typical factory farm products, they still involve needless violence, suffering and death and should not be mistaken for cruelty-free.

Any time an animal, even a free-range animal, is used as a commodity to be consumed -- or treated as a piece of property -- corners are cut and the animals lose. Animals on “free range” farms are still often forced to live in overcrowded conditions, are mutilated without painkillers (castration, tail docking, debeaking etc.), denied veterinary care and ultimately shipped to slaughter to have their throats cut open. [[[[THIS MAY INDICATE THE CHALLENGE OF FORMING ALLIANCES BETWEEN ANIMAL LIBERATIONISTS AND ADVOCATES OF SO-CALLED HUMANE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY. THIS ALSO CALLS TO MIND HOW ANIMAL LIBERATION GETS RELATIVELY LITTLE ATTENTION IN MAINSTREAM AND NONMAINSTREAM PROGRESSIVE MEDIA OUTLETS NOT TO MENTION NON-PROGRESSIVE MEDIA OUTLETS.]]]]

At Mercy For Animals, we encourage people to remember that the only meaningful difference between a dog or a cat and a cow, pig or chicken is the way that we treat them. If you wouldn't eat your free-range dog or cat, why would you eat any other animal who has the same passion for life?

If a person feels they are not quite willing or able to stop eating animals yet, it is more productive to begin by reducing the amount of meat, diary and eggs one consumes instead of falling for clever marketing schemes designed to make people feel better about paying more for some of the same types of cruelties. [[[COULD SARAH SAY MORE ABOUT THESE CLEVER MARKETING SCHEMES AND/OR REFER ME TO BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND PEOPLE TO TALK WITH REGARDING THIS ? ]]]]

(4) Civil disobedience?
Once people become aware of the scale of violence and suffering being routinely inflicted on animals in name of commerce and greed, some understandably turn to civil disobedience to express their outrage and to garner attention on the issue – particularly when the mainstream media seems unwilling to cover these issues otherwise. While we neither condone nor condemn non-violent actions to help animals, MFA continues to work within the law to bring its message of compassion to the masses.

(5-8) Can you or someone else offer ideas about saving or improving farm animals' lives by engaging with government?
While removing our financial support from the meat, dairy and egg industries is an easy and powerful way for individual consumers to put their ethics on the table, we shouldn’t stop there. Concerned citizens can also push their local, state and federal representatives to ban some of the cruelest factory farming practices.

For example, MFA volunteers were instrumental in getting California proposition 2 passed a couple years ago to outlaw veal crates for baby calves, gestation crates for mother pigs and battery cages for egg-laying hens. These types of intensive confinement systems, which don’t even allow the animals to freely move or lie down comfortably for nearly their entire lives, are perhaps the cruelest forms of institutionalized animal abuse in existence. But by raising awareness among the voting public, Prop 2 passed by a landslide and became the most popular ballot initiative in California history.

MFA also worked with concerned citizens in Ohio to collect signatures to outlaw similarly cruel practices in that state. When it became obvious to the industry that the measure may be as popular as the one in California, they decided to come to the table and negotiated a deal with the governor and the animal protection movement to phase out veal crates and gestation crates, place a moratorium on building new battery cage egg facilities and outlawed strangulation as a form of euthanasia. [[[[WHAT'S GOING ON W/ THIS CURRENTLY IN TERMS OF FOLLOW THRU ? ]]]

While it is important to remember that outlawing some cruel practices doesn’t make these industries cruelty-free, it does help to alleviate the suffering of literally hundreds of millions of animals each year. That’s important. And it is because of citizens who care enough to lobby their elected representatives, to write letters and make phone calls and collect signatures, that these types of initiatives have been so successful.

(9) What do you think about the distinction between groups that work for animal rights from those that work for animal welfare?

Animal welfare and animal rights are not mutually exclusive. MFA believes non-human animals are irreplaceable individuals with morally significant interests and hence rights. This includes the right to live free from unnecessary suffering and exploitation. We can work toward improving the lives of animals and alleviating their suffering while at the same time being clear that animals should not be exploited at all.

(10) As an animal rights activist, and not necessarily as a spokesperson for MFA, what has been your involvement with Occupy, whether in Columbus or somewhere else?
MFA stands in solidarity with anyone who works to help animals, and appreciate that the Occupy movement has included animals in its Official Declaration of the Occupation of New York City – specifically that corporate interests have "profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices."

As the Occupy movement continues to gain momentum, it is becoming more obvious that Americans have grown weary of corporate power in politics and the resulting abuses of humans and nonhuman animals. While taking to the streets and participating in peaceful protests is one way to raise awareness about these important issues, each of us can start to remove our financial support from Big Ag by transitioning to a healthier, more sustainable plant-based diet. Since cows, pigs and chickens make up 99 out of every 100 animals exploited and killed in this country, in a very real way, they are the 99%."

Calendar

2011-12-04T17:23:00.035-05:00

Also check Nationwide Arena schedule

****ONGOING : ADDRESS RECEDING GUM LINE, ESPECIALLY ALONG LOWER FRONT TEETH.
******BIKE CHAIN STRETCHED TOO FAR YET ? ************

Tues: Court
Weds, Occupy General Assembly/ 2.1 Disney on Ice @ Nationwide 7

Thurs, 2.1 Disney on Ice @ Nationwide 7

Fri, Feb 3 : OSU v Mich Hockey Schott 7

Sat, Feb 4 : OSU v Mich Hockey Schott 7

Tues, 2.7 ----(1) Protest and Rally at State of the State - Feb 7 - 11 am - Steubenville, OHBJ 7, (2) OSU @ Schott 9p

Thurs, 2.9 B J 7

Fri, 2.10 Columbus Bicentennial Party, 6-11:30 @ Convention Center

Sat, 2.11 OSU @ Schott 6p

Sun, 2.12 B J 6

Tues, 2.14 B J 7

Fri, 2.17 Blake Sheldon @ N W 7:30

Sat, 2.18 BJ 2 / Drake Concert @ Schott 8p

Tues, 2.21 OSU @ Schott 7p / BJ 7

Fri, 2.24 BJ 7

Sat, 2.25 OSU Hockey Schott 7

Tue, 2.28 BJ 7

Thur, 3.1 Arnold Classic begins

Sun, 3.4 Black Keys @ Schott 7:30, Arnold Classic ends

Tue, 3.6 BJ 7

Thur, 3.8 BJ 7

Sun, 3.11 BJ 6

Fri, 3.16 @ N W , NCAA Div. 1 Men's Basketball Championships---call for times

Sun, 3.18 OSU Commencement 2p @ Schott

Sun, 3.18 @ N W, NCAA Div. 1 what time ?

Tue, 3.20 BJ 7

Fri, 3.23 BJ 7

Sun, 3.25 BJ 3

Wed, 3.28 BJ 7:30

Fri, 3.30 BJ 7

Sat, 4.7 BJ 7

Sat, 4.14 Monster Truck @ Schott 7

Sun, 4.15 Nickleback Schott 6

Sat, 4.21 Manilow Schott 7:30

Thurs, 4.26 Eric Church, Nationwide 7:30

Thurs 5.10 Ringling Bros Schott 7

Fri 5.11 Ringling Bros Schott 7

Sat, 5.12 Ringling Bros Schott 11a

Sun, 5.13 Ringling Bros Schott 12:30

Sat, 6.9 Cirque de Soleil @ Schott 8

Sun, 6.10 Cirque @ Schott 4

Material for reporting on alliances between animal rights activists and animal welfare activists

2011-12-02T02:22:00.001-05:00

Hi Tom,

Thanks for this thoughtful and helpful note. I hadn't known the Occupation had endorsed animal liberation, which is terrific. Regarding the relationship between the AR movement and the Left, I recently edited a volume on just that subject, "Critical Theory and Animal Liberation" (available at an exorbitant price from Rowman and Littlefield Press, http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Theory-Liberation-Natures-Meaning/dp/1442205806).

In terms of your main question, I feel more and more strongly that pragmatic alliances with farmers is a big mistake. I know this has been the Humane Society's approach under Wayne Pacelle, and I think it's a dangerous move. Basically, so long as the underlying *premise* isn't challenged--that dominating and killing other animals is unnecessary and wrong, period--then I don't think we're going to make much of a dent in meat consumption. And make no mistake, animal agriculture is driven as much by demand as by supply. If we maintain the public fiction that killing animals is morally all right so long as it's done in Joel Salatin fashion, then people will *not* be forced to question the basic human relationship with other animals, will *not* give up eating meat, and will *not* give up dairy and eggs.
How do we challenge the underlying 'premise' while assisting family farmers in their fight against corporate bullying ?

Jonathan Safran Foer put it perfectly in his introduction to, "Eating Meat," namely (to paraphrase), "My wife and I only ate meat when we were out with friends, or once in a while, or if there wasn't anything else available..etc. In other words, pretty much whenever we felt like it." My perception of the locavore and "humane farming" movements is that both want to eat their meat and have it: they believe that we can continue to supply MEAT ON DEMAND to anyone who wants it, forever. Obviously, the only way to do that with 7 billion people on the planet is to do it with concentration camps. Otherwise there is no possible way to meet the demand (which as you know is rising in China and elsewhere).
<<<>>>>

I personally think that it's time to raise the stakes and force the issue of animal rights as a coherent systemic critique of human society qua society. For 25 years, like many other animal liberationists and vegans, I've felt shy and intimidated about speaking out and demanding that people stop participating in this cycle of violence. But I'm tired of it. People know what factory farms are like, at least in the abstract. But so far the movement's emphasis on "factory farms" has completely displaced the much more fundamental issue, which is that we have no right to kill other animals, except in cases perhaps of necessity (i.e. sheer survival).
<<<>>>>>>>

Until and unless that critique gets heard, I doubt very much that factory farms are ever going to go away.

John

John Sanbonmatsu, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Department of Humanities and Arts
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, MA 01609
Office: 508-831-5226
js@wpi.edu
________________________________________
From: Tom Over [tomover@ymail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 6:25 PM
To: Sanbonmatsu, John
Subject: Media request from comment regarding "Blood and Soil"/ The Trouble With Locavore Politics

Mr. Sanbonmatsu,

I have no firm deadline. I write for the Columbus Free Press and do radio work with a local radio outlet WCRS as well as Free Speech Radio News. http://fsrn.org/audio/ohio-residents-fight-regulation-factory-farms/7533

What do you think of building popular opposition to factory farming by way of building alliances that include animal liberation groups, animal welfare groups, along with farmers who we can verify as taking better 'care' of animals than do industrial operators ?

As a vegan, I myself am in agreement with what you write, assuming I understood your article which is , by the way, satisfyingly challenging to read. But I don't expect our perspective to become the so-called conventional wisdom anytime soon.

So, I'm interested in what you think about aiming to save and improve the lives of animals by pragmatically forming alliances with those we don't agree with us when it comes to the question of whether using animals for human purposes is intrinsically immoral.

Those of us who are vegan, should not, of course, confuse being pragmatic or strategic, on the one hand; with, on the other hand, kowtowing to those with anthropocentric perspectives, whether in its 'soft' or 'hard' forms.

I share your concerns about hatred of vegans being one of the things that replaces or supplements antisemitism as a fool's socialism. But to what extent do you see animal liberation as one of many aspects of grassroots justice movements against corporate, oligarchic control as it pertains to virtually all aspects of our lives---food, water, housing, finance, communications, education, public safety, public health---you name it ?

Animal liberation is, happily, part of the stated agenda of Occupy Wall Street http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Activism/OccupyWallStreet.htm

Bob Linden of Go Vegan Radio explores the connection the Animal Liberation Movement may have with the Occupy Movement during an interview with Will Potter, author of Green Is The New Red--An Insider's Account of a Social Movement Under Siege. http://goveganradio.com/veg/1003/Listen_to_Past_Shows.htm

As for the Local Food Movement, it can be co opted and used in ways that conflict with its core issues---like any other cause---- such as when people approach it with an attitude of consumerist snobbery, or, as you say in your article, nativism.

Though a less- than- careful reading of your article might lead to someone thinking you're dismissing the moral relevance of the local food movement, it's safe to assume that's not your intention.

If we are to avoid stepping further into the trap of compartmentalizing our social movements and of otherwise setting ourselves up for being divided and conquered amidst corporate, oligarchic pressures on our society --(as well as perhaps strains on social bonds that may arise due to ecological crises)---further understanding how animal liberation may factor in to whatever else is going on makes sense.

Thanks,
Tom Over

Flawed thinking among some on the political left or among the radical left

2011-12-01T02:58:00.000-05:00

One example may be Lierre Keith's book the Vegetarian Myth Blood and Soil-Lierre Keith-Michael Pollen and the Trouble w/ locavore politics

Interview questions -- Sarah MFA Columbus

2011-11-29T15:35:00.000-05:00

Hi Sarah,

by the way, I seem to be moving away from audio recorded interviews and toward using pen and paper and shooting a photo or two while talking in person.

But can we start by exchanging some emails ?

I would like to write an article and post it to Columbus Free Press, Op Ed News, Columbus Underground, Here Now And Beyond, and maybe some other sites.

The article would be based on the framework I use for Here Now and Beyond : how we can promote our survival and quality of life thru better relationships It would be about what people in Central Ohio can do (1) to improve the lives of cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, and animals that are used for food; (2) improve human health as it pertains to a vegan way of life;

I hope you don't mind if I number the answers.

I'm aware MFA leaflets at events, but how about other tactics such as

(1) boycotts ?

(2) marches ?

(3) leafleting to inform people about what specific local businesses are better and are worse in terms of how animals that end up as meat and dairy they sell are treated ?

(4) civil disobedience ?

Can you or someone else offer ideas about saving or improving farm animals' lives by engaging with government:

(5) at the local level ?

(6) at the state level ?

(7) at the federal level ?

(8) internationally ?

(9)What do you think about the distinction between groups that work for animal rights from those that work for animal welfare ?

(10) As an animal rights activist, and not necessarily as a spokesperson for MFA, what has been your involvement with Occupy, whether in Columbus or somewhere else ?

(Draft) Activism : how much does it really matter ?

2011-09-29T02:26:00.002-04:00

yeah...a big part of my mentality seems based on trying to rally and join with others to help mitigate, if not prevent catastrophe. Another approach is to work w/ others to cope and adapt to those catastrophes once we think we can't do much to stop them from happening.

The former and latter are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems a good idea to know when preventing the catastrophe is a lost cause, and therefore, when our energy is better spent on adaptation than prevention. The latter view is emerging among some concerned about peak oil, climate change and the uncertain future of our political freedoms.

Some people have gone some distance in preparing themselves, their families and small intentional communities. Richard Heinberg refers to this as life boat communities.

But me ? I've done very little of this. Yeah, I bike wherever I go around town, and grow some food. But I'd starve, freeze to death or die of cholera w/o the amenities of modern life.

What you say about government and activism not being there to help me amid crisis reminds me of what some of my anarchist and self-described 'radical' friends tell me.

But I'm undecided on this. When they say government can't and won't help, I wonder whether their perspective amounts to brutal realism or just glorified apathy. Sometimes, I suspect the latter when it seems we can still do some good with activism.

It's good---to say the least---to be prepared for disasters--- natural or economic or political. But ideally, doing that would involve (1) a survivalist, life-boat community mentality somehow combined with (2) continuing to engage via our political systems while we still have them.

When it comes to being prepared, the hardcore survivalist crowd can tend to seem focused too much on their small groups. Yet, people putting their energies into activism, such as me, can tend to have our heads in the clouds too much, paying inadequate attention to the practical details that enable us to be alive.

But perhaps I'm not totally oblivious. Regarding activism, it seems its success requires participants to engage our heads, our hearts, and our hands. That is, we have to apply ourselves intellectually, socially, and practically to the issues we're working on or fighting for.

As I've said before, a good example of engaging heads, hearts and hands is growing one's own food as an attempt at a rational response to concerns about peak oil, corporate power, climate change, and so on.

What I get from your comments Jon is not a basis for refuting the legitimacy of activism. Instead, you're calling attention to the fact that activism has to connect with people's daily lives in a hands-on and otherwise practical way. That could be putting food into people's stomachs; providing housing; creating safer streets and safer drinking water; helping people to feel less lonely and isolated.

Building a mass movement

2011-09-26T01:40:00.000-04:00

Contact organizations from issues A to Z about this question, if I think they may be interested in this.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://peoplesworld.org/uaw-delegates-vow-to-build-mass-movement/

---------------------------------------------------------

"If such a mass movement is to succeed, it must not allow itself to be contained within the black community. But that’s where it has to begin, around the core political demands of the Black Consensus."--from The Black Commentator http://www.blackcommentator.com/144/144_cover_movement.html

-------------------------------------------
Building the mass movement we need

-----------------------------------

"Environmentalists lost sight of just how big a movement that would need to be. Too many groups convinced themselves that they could slide some legislation through Congress, make deals with industry, get things going without a fight. It was worth a try, but it didn’t work—the fossil fuel industry, the most profitable enterprise known to man, beat us. And they will beat us again and again until there’s a real, broad-based, popular, noisy movement underway in this country, a movement that can provide a currency (bodies, passion) equal to the currency the billionaire Koch Brothers can pony up to defeat climate legislation.

Some of that movement will go on at the local level, as we transform cities and towns and show what can be done. Some will be done on college campuses like Unity College, or Middlebury where I teach, which are showing the way forward. Some of it will be done in jails—I’d be very surprised if civil disobedience doesn’t become a bigger part of this battle in the years ahead, if only because it’s the tool we use to show our society how urgent, morally and practically, this crisis really is.

But some of it must be done symbolically. And there’s no more symbolic piece of real estate on this continent than the White House. Let’s hope that on the 10th of October it, at least, is transformed. It’s been a long, hot summer, in the capitol as in much of the northern hemisphere. Let’s make sure that next year that heat is put to some purpose—heating the Obamas’ bathtub, and helping power up a movement."-- Bill McKibben, from http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_symbolic_solar_road_trip_to_reignite_a_climate_movement/2317/

--------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the following article in The Nation by Katrina vanden Heuvel and Robert Borosage Can a movement save the American Dream ?

I'm not sure if thinking of 'saving the American Dream' is a good strategy long-term, or if it is even morally sound, given the ecological costs of our way of life to the planet as well as its most vulnerable inhabitants.

But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Van Jones seems to be helping with putting together a useful framework for heading in a better direction by building upon the legacy of the many movements referenced in the article.

Possibly ceasing WCRS reporting so as to focus on reporting for The Columbus Free Press, The Columbus Activist and other print-based outlets

2011-09-19T18:59:00.004-04:00

9-20-11

An alternative approach would be to write out questions and tell people that I need to keep the audio recordings within 3 minutes.

9-20-11

My friendships and working relationships with people in the community will continue. In fact, I suspect my focus on writing and photo stills will improve my community involvement.

I now feel better about ceasing my audio reporting, given that I've recognized and rejected the idea that, by focusing on writing, I'm hurting my friends.

9-19-11

I think of this in a positive way. I'm not ceasing my audio based reporting out of anger or hurt feelings or because of feeling ignored...

I'm not running away from anyway. Instead, I'm moving toward something : doing what I think will---all else being the same--result in me having more of a positive effect in our communities. Here are my reasons for thinking that.

(1) Timeliness of my reports: My guess is that if I use pen, paper, and still camera as my media tools, there will be less time between doing the interviews and posting my reports to The Columbus Free Press, The Columbus Activist, Columbus Underground, and national sites such as Op Ed News.

(2) As a medium, written reporting lends itself more to intellectual rigor. Whether it's reporting for WCRS or the Columbus Free Press, there is labor intensiveness involved. But my guess is that focusing on written reports involves a greater degree of intellectual labor intensiveness.

Come to think of it, as I look back on my WCRS reporting, I recall sort of straddling focusing on writing, on the one hand, with, putting together the audio on the other hand.

I intend to move toward focusing more on improving my writing as well as improving my philosophical and political perspective.

(3) After having tried to focus on 'food issues,' I now think I might be wise to accept that my personality is such that I tend to prefer involvement with a wide variety of issues. My guess is that I can report on a greater variety of issues via written reports.

(4) I expect that my interview process using pen, paper, and still camera will be more focused on the intellectually rigorous type of reporting I want to do. In the past I had thought that writing down what people say is much more difficult than audio recording it.

But if I'm focused on the themes I want to write about, I will have a sense of what to ask people I interview. Then, writing down quotes--while still a challenge---will be manageable once I get used to it. But I won't let the awkwardness of this transition discourage me.

What is keeping me from ceasing my WCRS reporting ? (1) my rental situation with Eugene; and (2) staying in practice w/ audio reporting so as to make money pitching for FSRN; and (3) hanging on to WCRS just in case it turns out to become more effective as a movement building tool.

(1) I likely can continue to rent from Eugene if he understands that I am not doing this out of ill-will, but that I've tried to make things work and that I have ended up doing good work for WCRS, but that now I am come to a point at which I honestly think I can be more effective in terms of helping with movement building if I focus on written reports and using a still camera.

(2) So far, I have gotten paid for one FSRN story. And while doing that story, I spend an inordinate amount of time on the story--perhaps as much as 100 hrs. And I don't seem to be doing so well in terms of pitching and getting stories commissioned. And, those story assignments likely would only be a few times per year. Also, it may be the case that if I focus on writing and taking still photos, my writing have improve and I may thereby get paid work for articles. For example, I may be able to get at least some money for 614 Magazine articles. And, I'm more likely to get steady work from 614---all else being equal---than from FSRN.

(3) I shouldn't hang on to WCRS just to be part of the limelight, if the outlet 'makes it big.'

Building a movement requires activists to come to terms w/ our disagreements

2011-09-19T03:20:00.000-04:00

I want people to help me become more aware of apparent contradiction. By grappling w/ those and other issues, we improve how we take action, so long as we avoid self-defeating drama within our groups as well as long discussions and meetings that don't seem to lead anywhere.

But as for movement building, activists sort out their differences to strengthen working relationships. Consider the grappling with strategy Black Civil Rights activists did in the decades before (and during) the movements of the 50's and 60s.

That's going on right now among those who want to defeat corporatism for the sake of the environment, human rights, and justice. For example, deep ecologists disagree w/ mainstream environmentalists. The former has much less faith in technology and much more emphasis on the interests of nonhuman animals. (The protestors against the tar sands projects seem to involve a mix.)

Similarly, anarchists and revolutionary socialists disagree with the majority of progressives. Anarchists want to get rid of all hierarchical systems and the revolutionary socialists want to end capitalism.

But most progressives seem to be reformists who strive to make government and capitalism more responsive to the interests of ordinary people and the environment.

Ignoring these differences in perspectives among those resisting corporatism would at best create a fragile and short-lived unified front. That's why I'm fine w/ fellow activists asking me tough questions and pointing out possible contradictions in my behavior. I treat it as a gift when I'm mindful of what's good for me.

But as for our recent discourse, I'm not saying you're being hypocritical. Instead I'm comparing notes on how to come to terms w/ our limitations. Acknowledging possible obstacles so as to overcome them and achieve our goals is obviously not the same as pointing out obstacles as a reason for giving up.

I do see a possible inconsistency in that I and other activists organize on behalf of human rights, yet the gadgets we use such as our cell phones, require tin oxite which is mined by enslaved children.

So, what do we do ? Your answer may differ from mine.

But I agree; compromises and unintentional contradictions don't necessarily render illegitimate the causes we work or fight for.

More notes on activism versus journalism

2011-09-16T17:18:00.001-04:00

If you want my opinion, it shouldn't.

The idea of unbiased, objective reporting seems to be most vigorously defended by established reporters of mainstream outlets defending their insider status against bloggers and others reporting on things they're overlooking.

Claims of unbiased objectivity distinguishing journalists from activists are dubious, given that mainstream outlets present as 'news' the views of those who want to amass more wealth and power at the expense of our democracy, our communities and the planet.

As I see it, my job is to use communication tools to help build a movement comprised of alliances among people working on a wide variety of human rights, social justice, and environmental causes.

FSRN fits perfectly into that process. That's the trail that Democracy Now! has blazed. Well, any way, if I must consider myself a 'reporter', then I'm a reporter that focuses on activism so as to help build a movement to defeat corporatism and address other problems.

Thanks,
Tom

Improving audio quality of my WCRS/FSRN reports

2011-09-16T14:17:00.002-04:00

Eugene,

this is info to share with others who may come along. There is no mystery to the improvement of the audio quality in some of my reports. Using the good mic you're lending me, the gain of the Zoom H-2 is set to high. That works best w/ an external mic, though not so with the internal mic.

When I do it right, I can amplify just a little the entire file within 4 secs, as opposed to surgically amplifying segments that are too low.

Unfortunately, I accidentally had the gain on medium during the second to last interview of this week's show--the lady talking about education and reaching out to low income communities. When the gain is set to medium using the external mic, we have to go thru a time consuming process of amplifying various segments, still ending up with inferior sound quality.

Just I thought we'd document this for learning purposes,
Tom

Talk With Congressman Tim Ryan

2011-09-15T23:56:00.000-04:00

Congressman Tim Ryan was at the Short North Tavern earlier this evening as a part of helping with the fight against Ohio SB 5 and Ohio HB 194. After speaking with him I'm surprised and confused.

I'm surprised he said fracking (if done right) is a way to address Global Warming. I'm confused by his support for a flat tax that is progressive. I didn't know the two were compatible.

First, the congressman's remarks about taxes, then on to fracking and rebuilding US manufacturing.

Tom Over : What is your opinion on raising taxes on big corporations and the super wealthy. 1 percent of the US population controls 40 percent of the wealth. Meanwhile we're hearing about cuts to education and union busting affecting cops and firefighters. What's your opinion on progressive taxation ?

Congressman Ryan: I've been one of the few voices in Congress over the past couple of years making sure we do ask the top 1 percent to pay more. I don't think we have anything to be ashamed of.

If you look at the income that was controlled by the top 1 percent in the late 70s, it was about 9 percent of all the income in the country. Now the top 1 percent controls about 25 percent of real income in the country.

So I think it's only fair that they pay a greater percentage to help us reinvest that money back into the country for roads and bridges, teachers and education, Pell Grants and in National Science Foundation and NIH.

That's how we're going to stay competitive as a country. So we have to ask them to pay a little bit more. Now, I will say in a down economy--in the short term--I don't think anyone's taxes should be raised.

I think we need a bigger stimulus actually than what we're getting from the president. I wish it were bigger (with) more (money for) transportation and infrastructure, and more money going into the economy to directly hire people to get them back to work. But over the next 10 years we definitely need to ask those folks that are at the top end of the pay scale to help us pay for this.

Tom Over : What type of increases are you thinking of ? Way back in the 1940s, the marginal tax rate may have been up around 90 percent. What are you thinking of ?

Congressman Ryan: Well, it was that high, but I don't think they were paying all of that either. The corporate tax rate now is high but people don't pay the whole thing. So, what I would like to actually see is a complete transformation of the tax code. I think it needs to be simpler. It needs to be fairer, but it definitely needs to be progressive.

We need to get rid of all these loopholes. Everyone's rates are higher because we're subsidizing people who have enough money to get lobbyists who are going to D.C. to put loopholes in. So that burden gets spread around the rest of society. Basically, (he supports ) a flatter tax for everybody (that is) simpler but progressive.

The high end, quite frankly, should be at Clinton era levels. We had great investments going on then and we had economic expansion.

Tom Over: Why do you support fracking ?

Congressman Ryan : First and foremost, we got to make sure the technology is right. I have no interest in polluting anybody's water. My environmental record I will put up against anybody in the Congress. So, I'm very concerned we got to do it the right way.

If people own the property and have (water) wells, we've got to be concerned about that and we got to make sure the regulations are in place before we do anything on this.

But there is great opportunity now because the number 1 threat to our world is global warming. Having clean, accessible natural gas can transform our economy and reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which we are doing now.

It's a clean fuel. It's jobs here in the United States and it reduces our dependency on foreign oil, so we an wind these wars down and get out of Afghanistan and get out of Iraq, and use that money to invest back into the United States.

Tom Over: You're from Youngstown. So you see first-hand the loss of the manufacturing capacity of the United States. What are you working on to do something about that ?

Congressman Ryan : A lot of what we've been able to do in the past year that President Obama put on was a tariff on a lot of these Chinese goods that are dumped into our country.

That helped us with a couple of major steel investments. One was a Russian company. Then another one was a French company that came in and expanded. It was almost a $700 million expansion in Youngstown and Girard, Ohio.

They make steel tubing, and in part because China was dumping their products. They're cheating. They're manipulating their currency which gives them anywhere from a 25 percent to a 40 percent advantage on the products they are shipping in. So, we were able to combat some of that and it lead to almost $2 billion of investments in facilities in the United States just since that tariff went on. So, now we're creating jobs in the United States because of it.

D. C. Trip Logistics

2011-09-14T13:56:00.002-04:00

St. Stephen’s Church
Address: Newton and 16th NW, Washington D.C. 20010
Contact Person: Brian Best (Parish Coordinator)
Telephone: (202) 232-0900
Email Address: brian.best@saintstephensdc.org
Website: www.saintstephensdc.org
Fee: $5/person per night
Capacity: No limit on guests, but may be limited by the number of bathrooms
Description: St. Stephen’s is a great meeting and housing space, which caters frequently to activist organizations and non-profit groups. No beds available, groups will require sleeping bags, blankets, pillows, etc. No showers available.

William Penn House
Address: 515 East Capitol Street SE, Washington D.C. 20003
Contact Person: Byron Sanford (Executive Director)
Telephone: (202) 543-5560
Email Address: info@williampennhouse.org
Website: www.williampennhouse.org
Fee: Individual Rate – $40/night
Group Rates – Up to 14 persons, $40/night per person. 15-19 persons, $35/night per person. 20-26 persons, $30/night per person. More than 26 persons should consider booking the whole house for $850 a night.
Capacity: Can hold up to 30 people
Description: William Penn House is a Quaker center for exploring and making visible the Quaker testimonies of peace, community, simplicity, equality, and truth. House is complete with 30 available beds in shared rooms, and linens, towels, and a simple daily breakfast are provided. 7 showers and 5 bathrooms are available.

Shalom Place, St. Luke’s United Methodist Church
Address: 3655 Calvert Street NW, Washington D.C. 20007
Telephone: (202) 333-4949
Email Address: office@saintlukesmethodist.org
Website: www.shalomplacedc.org
Fee: 25 dollars per person per night
Capacity: Can house 10-24 person groups
Description: Shalom Place seeks to provide economical hospitality and service-learning opportunities to groups who want to further their understanding and experiences of social justice. It is complete with 2 bathrooms with showers, and has two large shared-living bedrooms with 24 beds total. Also comes complete with functioning kitchen, and a computer with internet. Bring your own linens, no food is provided.

Adams Inn
Address: 1746 Lanier Pl NW, Washington D.C. 20009
Contact Person: Ann Owens
Telephone: (202) 745-3600
Email Address: adamsinn@adamsinn.com
Website: www.adamsinn.com
Fee: Shared Bathroom Rates: $99-$119/night per person, $600-$700/week per person Private Bathroom Rates: $129-$149/night per person, $800-$910/week per person
Capacity: 26 rooms available, 1-3 beds in each room
Description: Services provided include shared and private bathrooms with showers, a small continental breakfast, wireless internet connections (limited availability), free computer usage with internet, laundry services, and linens (towels, sheets, pillows, etc).

American Guest House B&B
Address: 2005 Columbia Road NW, Washington D.C. 20009
Contact Person: Lucia Rosan
Telephone: (703) 768-0335
Email Address: info@americanguesthouse.com
Website: www.americanguesthouse.com
Fee: $160-$280/night per room (some rooms can house 2 people)
Capacity: (9 rooms can house up to 2 people and 3 rooms can house up to 1 person each
Description: The American Guest House provides guests with linens, beds, free wireless internet service, refrigerators, private bathrooms complete with showers, free computer usage, FAX machines, and multiple other benefits and amenities.

Capitol City Hostel
Address: 2411 Benning Rd NE, Washington D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 387-1328
Website: http://www.hostelhandbook.com/capitalcity/
Fee: $15 to $20/person per night
Description: Capitol City Hostel is an environmentally friendly, co-ed housing option, and comes complete with beds, linens, computer service with free internet, two bathrooms with showers, full kitchen, and a TV room.

Center for Educational Design and Communication
Address: 821 Varum St. NE, Washington D.C. 20017
Contact Person: Daniel Frascella
Telephone: (202) 635-7987
Email Address: Daniel@cedc.org
Website: http://www.cedc.org/
Fee: $30/person per night
Capacity: Up to 20 people
Description: The Center for Educational Design and Communication caters to small groups and organizations, and provides 19 single rooms and 1 double room for overnight accommodations. Each room is equipped with beds, linens, towels, a sink, and there are numerous bathrooms with showers available. Some food services are available upon request and planning, and it comes complete with a garden and grill.

Hostelling International
Address: 1009 11th Street, NW, Washington, DC
Telephone: 202-737-2333
Email Address: reserve@hiwashingtondc.org
Website: http://www.hiwashingtondc.org/
Fee: $25 - $40 / person / night (also have private rooms for more). Breakfast is $2/ person extra
Description: Near chinatown / metro center / mt. vernon square and is an Eco Hostel (they're energy star certified).

Washington International Student Center
Address: 2451 18th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: 1-800-567-4150
Website: http://www.dchostel.com/
Fee: $24 / night, includes breakfast
Description: First night of parking free / free pickup from Union Station and Greyhound

Participation in online forums at news/opinion sites

2011-09-08T13:24:00.000-04:00

Alternet (using Disqus)

Coalition of Immokalee Workers Kroger campaign

2011-09-02T01:45:00.000-04:00

Wendy Ake works with the recently formed Central Ohio Immigrant Justice (COIJ)

She expects more groups will get involved in the demos in front of various Kroger stores in Columbus.

"The Kroger headquarters is located in Westerville. So Columbus is probably going to be more and more of an active hub for this movement."

Ake said demos are planned for Kroger stores in urban areas as well as suburbs.

Increasingly, people in wealthy nations such as the US are interested in local and organic food. But she said labor and human rights issues often are not prominent in those movements.

"People are mainly engaged with health issues and maybe chemical inputs into their food but not so much with the labor and human rights issues involved with their food."

Delete[[[[[She said when the "Early on when the food movement started contemporaneous w/ the environmental movement back in the 70s, all of these issues were looked at. But when the FDA began to articulate its standards for the organic movement, it looked specifically at the chemical inputs ...and so the human rights issues and standards began to be marginalized." ]]] Delete

She and other activists are working on changing that. She agreed people's hearts and minds can be engaged by way of their palates and stomachs, connecting a wide variety of social justice and environmental causes for a mass movement to defeat corporatism. She said human rights and environmentalism are inseparable.

"When we have global warming, for instance, the people most impacted are the most marginalized populations, globally and in our own backyards."

She agreed that what is has happened to US farmers and US factory workers connects with what has happened to people in other parts of the world.

"The boundary that sometimes gets drawn between what's a domestic or local issue and what's a global issue is really fictitious. So, for instance, what sometimes gets described as a local 'immigration problem' is not really a local problem or a domestic problem...It's a global migration problem, rooted in international, structural issues like trade relationships that are set by the IMF and the WTO."

To be or not to be a 'progressive' : reflection on a somewhat deeper level

2011-08-29T18:09:00.000-04:00

There is a bit a gallows humor among liberals or progressives in which we joke about being a circular firing squad, splintering the political left by spending all of our time and energy on arguing w/ one another. I would like to think the following contributes to grassroots movement building, instead of fragmentation.

My perspective has much more in common w/ people who identify as progressives than w/ people who identify as conservatives on cultural, economic, and environmental issues.

But for me at least, the term 'progressive' is incomplete and perhaps even constraining. Most if not all of my disagreements w/ progressives stem from deep ecology, in that I suspect taking better care of our planet can not be reconciled w/ economic growth or capitalism as we know it.

I'd like to see more progressives openly talk about steady state economics. Many progressives talk about growing the economy by creating green jobs. I believe in the green jobs part of it, but not in promoting economic growth.

Further, there is a revolutionary socialist critique in which progressive policies are viewed as merely softening the sharp edges of capitalism, when the focus ought to be---according to them--- doing away w/ capitalism in the first place.

To me at least, that critique shouldn't be dismissed, even though I have no clue as to how to put into practice that sort of philosophical purity presented by revolutionary socialists, or for that matter, the striving for purity presented by anarchists (whose reasons differ from the socialists) .

I not only don't know how to apply revolutionary socialist or anarchist ideas, but I'm also not sure I'd want to carry out those ideas in the first place, though I'm keeping an open mind.

Consequently, my pragmatism allies me w/ the progressive movement in the vast majority of cases. But I honestly think the progressive movement--at least as we now know it--- is inadequate for meeting our social and environmental challenges. Likely, new ways of promoting justice and fairness, as well as survival and quality of life will emerge. Maybe few if any of us have a word for that paradigm of the future.

Put it this way: the progressive movement is a sort of conduit that my activism flows thru, but it doesn't constrain it from flowing into new ways to promote justice, fairness, survival and quality of life.

To refer back to deep ecology---- it's a perspective that involves the idea that taking better care of the environment should not be limited to the interests of human beings. To my knowledge many progressives don't seem so far ahead of conservatives--- if they are ahead at all--- when it comes to animal rights and pursuing alternatives to economic growth.

On top of this, there are times when it seems to me that if I embrace the label 'progressive' too much, I end up being an unthinking foot-soldier fighting an unthinking conservative foot- soldier in a war waged by progressive and conservative elites.

Regarding elites, I can't imagine a mass movement that counters the power of the 1 percent who control 40 percent of our country's wealth getting very far w/o having at least some degree of common cause among rank-and-file conservatives and rank-in-file progressives---'ordinary' or 'non-elite' being the operative distinction.

So, yeah, there are times when I can really relate to that average Joe or average Jane reciting something he or she heard Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck say( though in the vast majority of cases I disagree with them.)

And that also applies to my empathy for the more educated/ more indoctrinated Joe or Jane passing along the ideas coming from conservative think tanks such as the CATO Institute or the American Enterprise Institute, or maybe something she or he read in National Review.

How do we build a grassroots movement to defeat right-wing extremism ?

2011-08-27T14:48:00.229-04:00

Rev. Kujenga Eliyah Ashe and K. Lanai Ashe.

Ashe is the executive director of Community Organization for Abundant Life (COAL. I asked him what he thought of the environmental movement.

"The Earth is being raped by multinational corporations. They're polluting the Earth. Instead of using the solar power and wind power that they could be using...they're using fossil fuels. They're doing that because there's so much profit in it."

Ashe said he and fellow activists are pushing for an economic rights movement.
"The civil rights movement which Dr. King led has done great things. We even have a president w/ brown skin. So his dream has come true in terms of civil rights. But Dr. King, before he was killed, was starting to push for economics. He was boycotting different corporations and was planning a poor people's march on Washington, just like up in Chicago. They still have the Poor People's Campaign headed by Jerry Robinson."

Ashe said an economic rights movement lends itself to being broadly inclusive.

"The Civil Rights Movement helped all people-- black, white, red, yellow, gays, women. Everybody piggybacked on the Civil Rights Movement. Now we have our civil rights. We can vote. We have the franchise and (Black) mayors, congresspeople, senators, and even the president of the United States...Now we need our economic rights."

Ashe said the first program of that economic rights movement is repatriation and reparations for all descendants of slavery.

"We want gold, silver, and land, not just from the federal government but also from the monopoly finance, capitalist, multinational corporations--the Wall Street Investment bankers. We want to have a march on Wall Street, July 4, 2012, to tie it up and to demand reparations for all the people. New York was built and Wall Street was built on the labor of slaves. They used to sell slaves on Wall Street. "

He said building a mass movement requires spirituality.

"We need something that will inspire people, that will get their hearts, not just their minds. We can't just get them to read the ABC of Communism by (Nikolai) Bukharin (and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky)...We got to reach people at their hearts, not (just) their heads. The Civil Rights Movement got people at their hearts. Dr. King got people at their hearts. All people, black, yellow, brown, and Native American came together. That's what we need now."

Unlike Kimberly Jackson Morris who suggested White middle class activists within the environmental movement reach out to churches in Black communities, Ashe--himself a minister--- said that's not the place to start.

"The churches are not really going to move until they see the progressive organizations moving. The churches are always the last ones on board. They're pretty much the gatekeepers of society. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. came to Columbus, Ohio back in 1964, he only preached at one church, Union Grove Baptist. All of the other churches wouldn't let him preach because he was talking about a movement and they were saying, 'oh, well, we're doing alright like it is.' So I wouldn't suggest anybody run to the churches right now. Go to the progressive organizations (within Black communities). Find the progressive people. We're on Facebook and we have websites."

In addition to that Ashe said:

" You got to then push the issues that help people of color...The welfare programs have been cut out by Governor Kasich here, by Governor Snyder in Michigan and Governor Walker in Wisconsin. You got to go to them (Black folk) and say 'we understand your issues, and your issues tie with our issues.' You got to go to the progressive organizations."

Kimberly Jackson Morris

We spoke during President Obama's visit to Columbus on Sept 13. Most of the protestors who had been there to tell Obama to not approve the Keystone XL Pipeline project had left. Keystone XL would carry tar sands oil from Canada to Texas where it would be refined and shipped to other countries.

There were no people of color in the protest, though a Black elder sat nearby on a lawn chair so as to stay in the shade during that hot September day.

Morris said the under-representation of people of color in the environmental movement is a case in point on the importance of education.

"We're not educated on those facts...When you go into lower economic areas, there's no one standing there giving us information about a pipeline."

Morris said white middle class, environmental activists should spend time in Black and low-income parts of town.

"Go into those communities and talk to people. There are people who aren't too busy to listen. But the information isn't there. Do you go into these communities and speak w/ people about these things that you're protesting ? I'm talking about urban communities."

Morris said standing in the streets holding signs won't necessarily engage people who aren't currently involved with environmental and other causes.

" It's not personable enough. When you address me---me individually, or my community, then I see that you care. I don't want someone standing on a corner yelling some important information that I'm not going to listen to. If I'm on my way to work, or if I'm on my way to pick up a child, no, I'm not going to stop and listen to you. But if you're in my community and I happen to be walking to the community grocer, then yes, you're giving me some information and I'll stop and speak w/ you."

She said activists such as those fighting Keystone XL need to listen to and learn from people in the communities we go into, instead of assuming we're there only to talk and teach what we know.

Morris suggested the Eastside near downtown as a specific place for engaging w/ Black and low-income communities.

"When you get close to Columbus State and Fort Hayes, really lower economic areas, people don't mind listening. If they know you're there for a reason, they'll stop and talk w/you---if you're there."

Morris agreed urban farming and community gardening are ways to form bridges between the mostly white and middle class environmental movement and people living in historically under-served communities.

"My daughters and I are building a garden. We believe in organic food...I don't like chemical pesticides and fertilizers. But if you go into the poor areas, this is all we're eating. Everything is loaded w/ chemicals. Everything is processed. We don't have the information though to know any better. Until we get the information to know any better, how can we do any better ? "

She said churches are an important venue for forming new ties among activists and community organizers.

"Churches are number 1 in Black communities. You get on board w/ the ministers and pastors and they'll help you. You have to inform them as well. But they will get the word out to their church members."

Participants at last week's Stand Up For Ohio festival share their thoughts

Mary Jo Kilroy said, “We have to offer ideas to people that matter to them and their lives. The biggest thing we need to be talking about is how to improve the economy and bring jobs to our cities and to our towns and rural communities, jobs that allow people to have a middle class standard of living.”

Kilroy said she doesn’t want to talk w/ people about Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.
“I want to talk to people about where they’re at, what matters in their lives, not the lunacy that some of these right-wing, divisive figures peddle in this country.”

Kilroy acknowledged the risk of that sort of lunacy taking over our country if voters become desperate amid hard times and if a grass-roots movement isn't strong enough to stop it. But she does not focus on those right-wing personalities when she engages w/ communities.

“ I don’t want to ignore them(people such as Bachmann), I just don’t want to talk to people about them all the time. I want to talk to people about what matters to them, so they see there are other people, other ideas out there that are going to address their real needs so those other crazy things don’t have currency w/ them.”

Kilroy said if people are not side-tracked by hot-button issues such as evolution or global warming, they can take a stand for fairness for the vast majority of Americans.
“They don’t have to settle for politicians that are only concerned w/ 1 percent of the country.”

Hutchinson Persons, OSU Chapter of the International Socialist Organization:
“Working people should not be afraid to work together and call it what it is : a class war.”

People on the left often complain about fragmentation. Regarding that Hutchinson said, "there’s a lack of theoretical background for a lot of organizations where they focus on one issue, but they don’t see the entire picture.”

Persons said the International Socialist Organization helps people to have a broader picture.

“ We work in solidarity with every issue, but we realize that without the entire picture, we’re not going to get real change. If we can work for more theoretical backing w/ other organizations and work together that way, there would be a more efficient left coalition.”

The OSU chapter of the International Socialist Organization is comprised mostly of students and faculty, but is open to the public. It works w/ Jobs With Justice and labor unions here in Central Ohio, as well as immigrant rights groups and queer advocacy groups such as Equality Ohio.

To those democrats and progressives wary of being associated w/ avowed socialists, Persons said, “Socialists have been on the ground from the beginning. In every grassroots movement, you’ll find socialists. You can’t avoid us. We’re going to be there to struggle w/ people.”

The pavilion at the Ohio State Fair Grounds where groups had booths and tables resembled a small political bazaar. But Pat Marida of the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club said there is a common theme.

“It’s the takeover of America by large monetary interests, corporate interests. We think it’s the takeover also by a few greedy political interests that are working in concert w/ multinational corporations. They want to pollute. They don’t want to hire union people and they don’t want the democratic process to work.”

Marida said social justice and environmental groups should work together to further build a movement to oppose and defeat the corporate takeover of our political process.

Her colleague at the Ohio Sierra Club, Ben Wickizer, also said environmental and social justice issues are linked.
“We’re seeing attacks on and plundering of our environment, while we’re also seeing attacks on organized labor and the basic needs of individuals in the middle class and working class. So it’s great we can come together and unite and work together on some of these issues.”

Christine Kozobarich also said connecting environmentalism and social justice is a basis for building alliances among a diversity of activist groups. She recently joined Ohio Communities United as a lead organizer.

“That’s a very good way to come together for people who care about progressive issues. Sometimes we get so entrenched in our own issue that we’re working on at the moment that we don’t step back and see how it’s connected to things other people are working on.”

Kozobarich said building alliances that bring together a variety of causes reflects the reality of every day life.
“As Ohioans, we all need healthcare. We all need good jobs. We all need safe, secure communities. We all need a healthy environment to live in and raise our children in…We’re not one-issue communities.”

She said events such as the Stand Up For Ohio festival are ways for people to find common cause w/ one another, instead of being divided and conquered w/ wedge issues.

Deb Steele, former Outreach Director at Jennifer Brunner for Senate and currently an organizer w/ Columbus Jobs With Justice, said some politicians have been presenting divisive and false choices to us on many issues.

"We can have jobs and a strong, healthy environment but they want to pretend it’s one or the other... As far as building our coalitions and trying to fight more than one of these fires at once, I think it’s fairly natural and easy.”

Common Cause: rank-and-file progressives and rank-and-file conservatives ?

2011-08-25T16:46:00.001-04:00

To what extent does countering the power of the 1 to 2 percent who control much of our nation's wealth require rank-and-file liberals and progressives to find common cause w/ rank-and-file conservatives ?

This question has occurred to me as I've gotten involved w/ local food issues. As an agnostic, progressive, and queer person, I've found at least some degree of common cause w/ faithful, socially conservative people in our shared attempt to promote the interests of small holder farmers.

Also, consider this, Deb. What we have in this country is what both the political left and the political right warn against: virtually unchecked corporate power combined w/ expansive governmental power. For example consider how powerful federal agencies such as USDA and FDA are in bed w/ the corporations the supposedly regulate.

It's good to have a sense of continuity in terms of how what we do now is a part of the history of the progressive movement. But should we assume what worked in the past will necessarily work now ?

OSU becoming less of a public university ?

2011-08-25T15:00:00.004-04:00

Rachel Radina is a graduate student working w/ Miami University Defend Ohio

“We’re concerned about the push to privatize our public universities in Ohio. Chancellor (Jim ) Petro put out a report last week or a plan to create charter-- or what they’re calling ‘enterprise universities’, ” said Radina.

She said universities would get less state funding in exchange for less regulations from the state. She said this would hurt economically vulnerable people.

“So they (Ohio Board of Regents) would have the ability to increase tuition and increase class size. That means less quality education. But it’s going to cost more money. So it’s kind of like a backdoor tax on Ohio families,” Radina said.

She said the report also calls for the university to have even greater ability to partner w/ corporate entities; and that this will worsen the situation in which university faculty do research for corporate interests which may not exactly jibe w/ the public good.

"We don’t really know what the final plan will look like. But we want to be included in the conversation. That’s why we're here today(at the Stand Up For Ohio festival) to let the public know these talks are going on behind closed doors, and if we don’t do something about it, our universities will be private and less accessible to working families,” said Radina.

In an email two days after the festival, Radina said constituents should stress to one another and to politicians the importance of keeping education public and accessible to everyone. She said the Enterprise University plan is bad for students and workers, and communities in general.

"Public education provides a public good and if it is taken away it will impact communities in many ways. Privatization leads to less regulation, which in turn leads to less accountability to the public and--- in the case of the Enterprise University---public tax dollars would still be used," Radina said.

She said this is happening or has happened in other states.

"Chancellor Petro's plan seems to contain some of the same ideas as legislation enacted in Colorado and Virginia. Under the charter university model, Virginia Commonwealth University increased its tuition by 24 percent in one year," said Radina.

Last Saturday, it was an unseasonably cold day in August when we spoke w/ Deb Steele, an organizer w/ Columbus Jobs With Justice, and former Outreach Director at Jennifer Brunner for US Senate.

Steele said money is going to charter universities when it should be going to public universities; and that OSU president Gordon Gee's ties to corporations conflict w/ his responsibility to lead a public university.

“There are murmurs of him wanting to privatize Ohio State University in the near future,” said Steele.

"I wouldn't be surprised--- if we did nothing---in a year and a half you would see some kind of OSU wing that’s a charter school. I’ve heard the chief medical center lobbyist say ‘we’re revisiting our mission statement; maybe we won’t always be a land grant university.’"

To find out more : http://ocaaup.org/charter_toolkit Ohio Conference/American Association of University Professors

http://www.ohiohighered.org/enterprise-university-plan
The Enterprise University Plan

To what extend is 'wealth redistribution' a misused term ?

2011-08-22T00:38:00.000-04:00

From discussion on Facebook

Wealth wouldn't be 'redistributed' for it's own sake, but for the sake of our democracy and our national interest. And wealth 'redistribution' is a misused term : (1) private profits have relied on government help (welfare for the rich and corporations), and (2) private wealth is created using public resources such as land and water. In other words, much of the wealth of corporations and the super rich is not theirs to begin with.

Drafts of material from Stand Up For Ohio festival on 8-20-11

2011-08-21T17:41:00.057-04:00

Deb Steele spoke w/ us at the Stand Up For Ohio Festival on Aug 20, though this picture of her was taken in February.

A ‘disorientation guide’ for incoming OSU freshmen (and freshwomen)

She is helping Ohio State University students form a chapter of the Progressive Student Coalition.

“We just sort of need more progressive groups coming together. The Progressive Student Coalition is the feminists, the environmentalists, the worker rights student groups coming together to get more bang for our activism energy.”

Those students did an event at OSU on May 5 of this year called Live Against Five, at which they gathered about 300 signatures to add to the petition drive that put the repeal of Ohio House Bill 5 up to a vote this fall.

The OSU Progressive Student Alliance currently is working on the ‘Disorientation Guide’ to give to incoming freshman.

“It’s about the realities of the politics of the city we live in and the reality of Gordon Gee acting pretty cushy w/ corporations.”

Privatizing our land grant university ?

“There are murmurs of him wanting to privatize Ohio State University in the near future,” said Steele.

She said there is currently money going to charter universities that should be going to public universities.

“ I wouldn’t be surprised-- if we did nothing--in a year and a half you would see some kind of OSU wing that’s a charter school. I’ve heard the chief medical center lobbyist say ‘we’re revisiting our mission statement; maybe we won’t always be a land grant university.’ So, we have a whole lot of fires to put out, here and now. But the greed doesn’t end. Privatize everything!”

Making the expansion of OSU’s medical center more accountable to the community

Steele is also involved w/ efforts to get a Community Benefit Agreement w/ the university, as it expands its medical center. Project One

“ It’s the largest construction project Columbus has ever seen. It’s gong to impact the Near Eastside a lot.”

Steele said OSU is probably going to buy half of Poindexter Village. It’s a 22 acre site and one of the first public housing units ever opened in the country.

“So, this is prime real estate in an important neighborhood that has a lot of history. If we can get a community Benefit Agreement the community can grow w/ OSU.”

Steele said a CBA makes sense given that developers have received a combination of tax breaks and grants at the federal, state, and city levels, amounting to at least $300 million.

“What we want are things like a local hiring provision, a career ladder, and more assurances that people are going to be receiving family-sustaining wages and benefits.”

Expelling Sodexo from school ?
Steele is also involved w/ efforts to kick Sodexo out of Columbus Public Schools as a near-term goal, though getting them out of OSU is a longer term project. Sodexo is a food vender at the Ohio Stadium and at the Schottenstein Center/Value City Arena.

“They have a contract w/ OSU and they have a bigger contract w/ Columbus Public Schools. This summer, the Columbus Public School Board at some point--- I think they can drag it out to the fall---could renew their contract w/ Sodexo. We don’t want them to do that."

Steele said Sodexo is a known human rights violator across the world. She said both the university and the city’s public school system could dump Sodexo for US-based, if not Ohio-based companies that treat their employees better.

Voter suppression

Steele is involved w/ the petition drive that, if successful, will put the repeal of Ohio House Bill 194 on the ballot for Nov 2012, as well as prevent the bill from applying to voting this fall.

“It (HB 194) restricts the early voting window. They didn’t keep the photo ID thing in there. That’s not on the table right now, thank goodness. But if House Bill 194 stays in place, it makes voting harder. 2004 should have shown us early voting is a great thing. Even in 2008 (which had a 35 day early voting period) we had a line out the door (at the Veterans Memorial Center.) And they want to restrict voting ? The people who want to restrict voting seem to have a problem w/ democracy.”

Steele said efforts to restrict voting are taking place across the country. She said requiring all 9 digits of a person’s social security number is one way of discouraging people from voting.

“It’s identity theft. The last four digits of my social security and my autograph don’t work? It scares people out of voting…Our country runs better when people vote.”

She said voter fraud is rare and whatever cases do exist are grossly exaggerated.

Building alliances

“People across the country are connecting the dots. (They realize there is) a well-orchestrated attack on the working class. This is an attack on people voting. (It’s based on) driving the environment for profit, rather than the environment for people, in the long run. We can have jobs and a strong, healthy environment but they want to pretend it’s one or the other.”

Steele said some politicians have been presenting divisive and false choices to us on many issues.

“As far as building our coalitions and trying to fight more than one of these fires at once, I think it’s fairly natural and easy.”

It remains to be seen whether this movement will be strong enough to defeat right-wing extremism which might rule over us if the middle-class, the working class, and the poor turn on each other, focusing on issues of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality and other things that can divide us, instead of the things that unite us.

Christine Kozobarich recently joined Ohio Communities United as a lead organizer.

She agreed that environmentalism and social justice activism should be combined in order to build a bigger movement.
“That’s a very good way to come together for people who care about progressive issues. Sometimes we get so entrenched in our own issue that we’re working on at the moment that we don’t step back and see how it’s connected to things other people are working on.”

Kozobarich said building alliances that bring together a variety of causes reflects the reality of every day life.
“As Ohioans, we all need healthcare. We all need good jobs. We all need safe, secure communities. We all need a healthy environment to live in and raise our children in…We’re not one-issue communities.”

She said events such as the Stand Up For Ohio festival are ways for people to find common cause w/ one another, instead of being divided and conquered w/ wedge issues.

We spoke w/ former US Representative Mary Jo Kilroy at the Stand Up For Ohio festival. Here is what she had to say about building alliances to counter right wing extremism.

“We have to offer ideas to people that matter to them and their lives. The biggest thing we need to be talking about is how to improve the economy and bring jobs to our cities and to our towns and rural communities, jobs that allow people to have a middle class standard of living.”

Kilroy said she doesn’t want to talk w/ people about Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann.
“I want to talk to people about where they’re at, what matters in their lives, not the lunacy that some of these right-wing, divisive figures peddle in this country.”

Kilroy acknowledged the risk of that sort of lunacy taking over our country if voters become desperate amid hard times. But she does not focus on those right-wing personalities when she engages w/ communities.

“ I don’t want to ignore them(people such as Bachmann), I just don’t want to talk to people about them all the time. I want to talk to people about what matters to them, so they see that there are other people, other ideas out there that are going to address their real needs so that those other crazy things…don’t have currency w/ them.”

Kilroy said if people are not side-tracked by hot-button issues such as evolution or global warming, they can take a stand for fairness for the vast majority of Americans.
“They don’t have to settle for politicians that are only concerned w/ 1 percent of the country.”

Fighting for the repeal of Ohio Senate Bill 5 as well as the repeal of Ohio House Bill 194 are some of the things Kilroy has been doing since being out of office. She is also working w/Sisters on the Planet, an Oxfam America program and w/River Network

Hutchinson Persons

“ There’s a lack of theoretical background for a lot of organizations where they focus on one issue, but they don’t see the entire picture.”

Persons, who heads an OSU student chapter of the International Socialist Organization, emphasizes the broader picture.

“ We work in solidarity with every issue, but we realize that without the entire picture, we’re not going to get real change. If we can work for more theoretical backing w/ other organizations and work together that way, there would be a more efficient left coalition.”

Getting to what he regards as the heart of the matter, Persons said “working people should not be afraid to work together and call it what it is : a class war.”

The OSU chapter of the International Socialist Organization is comprised mostly of students and faculty, but is open to the public. It works w/ Jobs With Justice and labor unions here in Central Ohio, as well as immigrant rights groups and queer advocacy groups such as Equality Ohio.

To those democrats and progressives wary of being associated w/ avowed socialists, Persons said, “Socialists have been on the ground from the beginning. In every grassroots movement, you’ll find socialists. You can’t avoid us. We’re going to be there to struggle w/ people.”

Avishek Konar is as student at the Ohio State University who is working w/ the chapter of the International Socialist Organization there. He said struggles for the rights of workers and the poor in the United States link w/ similar struggles in India.

“ The basic problem or crisis that we’re facing is that of capitalism. So, that stays constant across countries. Even in India, there’s been a lot of state oppression and people have stood up. There’s been a lot of fragmented resistance going on in different parts of the country.”

Konar said many of India’s poor are resisting the takeover of their land, water, and other resources by multi-national corporations.

“These are poor people who have access to no resources…all they have is access to common property and resources like the forests, the rivers, or the land on which they live, or water.”

Konar said the Indian government is allowing this so multinational corporations can mine bauxite and aluminum.

“But the people from which the government is taking away land, they do not stand to benefit at all. If you have industry, it’s going to benefit the rich and the middle class--the middle class who are going to get professional jobs like engineers.”

Konar said the mass media in India is part of the process of overlooking the interests of poor people there.

“If you turn on a TV channel , these (middle class professionals) are the people who speak in English that you see. And that’s the way that the whole (resistance) movement is being highlighted, as if these Maoists or these people are all terrorists, and they do not want development, or they’re Luddites. That’s not the true picture.”

I asked Konar if he thought activists in the United States are more privileged than their Indian counterparts, and should therefore put our civil liberties to better use to further the cause of justice.

Konar said he has not yet been involved with activism in India. Though he didn't comment on how activists might put whatever privileges we have to better use, he did suggest commonalities between the two countries.

“ People in India who are from the cities--- like myself--- who can speak English are also very privileged. If people like me get involved in activism it’s not very likely that the state is---I’m sure if I go a long way, then the state will repress me.

"But if I am from a tribal area, a poor person …who cannot speak English, who cannot get access to the media, then I would get a much rawer deal compared to someone in the cities... It’s similar here in the USA. If you’re a US citizen and you’re arrested for civil disobedience, you get a completely different treatment from, say, if you are an immigrant who is not a citizen. I think you can make that parallel.”

As for another comparison between India and the US, Konar said socialism is more of a bad word here than it is in his home country.

Konar personally thinks thatSanhati.com is an excellent place where you will get a ton of resources to get acquainted with the ongoing struggle of the Indian people against the state of India.

From left, Humphrey Wireco and Dwayne Pickett of Ohio Young Black Democrats, which meets every third Wednesday of the month at the Ohio Democratic Party headquarters in Columbus where they organize and meet w/ elected officials.

Pickett said one of the biggest issues for his organization this year is voter suppression.

“You see it all over the right wing across the United States. They’re talking about voter fraud …but they got no evidence that it’s ever taken place.”

His group is working w/ other groups on a petition effort to repeal Ohio HB 194 which Governor John Kasich signed into law in July.

According to Ohio Daily Blog there is just a little over five weeks to collect the 231,000 valid signatures needed to qualify the repeal for the November 2012 ballot, thereby preventing HB 194 from going into effect until after that election, (if it’s not repealed.)

If the petition effort doesn’t meet that goal, Ohio HB 194 will affect people’s ability to vote this fall on matters such as the repeal of Ohio Senate Bill 5.

In addition to helping w/ the fight to repeal HB 194, Ohio Young Black Democrats is talking at college campuses to help people plan ahead so as to overcome the possible restrictions on voting.

Pickett said Ohio Young Black Democrats works on a variety of issues important to some of the most vulnerable people in society, such as children of low-income households.

“ Head Start is under attack right now. They talk about Head Start, ‘oh, this is discretionary spending.’ To them (Republicans), Head Start is pork, more fat to help democrats get reelected . But it’s not about reelection. It’s about kids---actual lives.”

Lives in historically under-served communities are also affected by food deserts, said Pickett.

Pickett describes local grocery stores as not having anything fresh. He said what wholesome food those stores have is often too expensive for many of the low-income people who shop there.

“I don’t know enough about urban farming---if it’s a reality or just a political reality, but I think we need to address the problem of food deserts …People who live in impoverished communities in America don’t have access to fresh fruits and vegetables.”

Rachel Radina is a graduate student working w/ Miami University Defend Ohio

“We’re concerned about the push to privatize our public universities in Ohio. Chancellor (Jim ) Petro put out a report last week or a plan to create charter or what they’re calling ‘enterprise universities’ now,” said Radina.

Here is what that plan would do, according to Radina.

“In exchange for less state funding, they would get less state regulations, which we know is not good for vulnerable populations such as students and workers. So they’d have the ability to increase tuition and increase class size. That means less quality education, but it’s going to cost more money. So it’s kind of like a backdoor tax on Ohio families.”

Radina said the report also calls for the ability to partner w/ corporate entities.
“That could create a situation where professors have to do research for corporate interests instead of for the public good. So, we’re concerned about all of these issues and we don’t really know what the final plan will look like. But we want to be included in the conversation. That’s why we here today to let the public know that these talks are going on behind closed doors, and that if we don’t do something about it, our universities will be private and less accessible to working families.”

Radina said legislators are going to be forming committees to change Petro’s plan and then create legislation. <<>>>

“It’s in the process. He (Petro) has created a plan. Now it’s in legislators’ hands. Legislators will make changes and that will be sent out to be made into legislation. We’re not really sure what it will look like. At this point, we just have Petro’s plan which you can access online.”

Ohiohighered.org Once there, go to ‘Enterprise University Plan’

Pat Marida of the Ohio Sierra Club said the organization is working with other groups in opposition to hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’.

“They’ve been using hydraulic fracturing for obtaining natural gas for years. However, this new process is much deeper. It’s going down more than a mile. It’s going down into shale bedrock, well below the water table. They’re actually putting in much water down below our fresh water. They’re adding some of 596 chemicals we’ve found they are using.”

Marida said natural gas companies are exempt from the Clean Water Act, as well as the . Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. But added to those environmental issues are labor issues.
‘These natural gas companies, they’re not hiring union members. They’re hiring non-union truckers. Many trucks are used in this process to haul the water, the drilling rigs, and then haul away the toxic water. What once was fresh water is now toxic They’re able to extract about half of it from the ground. The rest is left in the ground.. The people who know about this process know that they gas companies are lying about the safety of it.”

Marida said if people are interested in getting involved, they can email Matt Trokan. His email address is matt.trokan@sierraclub.org

The pavilion at the Ohio State Fair Grounds reminded me of a small bizarre where various organizations had their booths and tables. Marida said there is a common cause that could ally the groups.

“It’s the takeover of America by large monetary interests, corporate interests. We think it’s the takeover also by a few greedy political interests that are working in concert w/ multinational corporations. They want to pollute. They don’t want to hire union people and they don’t want the democratic process to work.”

Marida said social justice and environmental groups should work together to further build a movement to oppose and defeat the corporate takeover of our political process.

Columbus will be part of an international event called Bike to the Future, http://biketothefuture.org/ . The ride involves a festival at Franklin Park from noon to 4 on Sept 24.

“Please come out and celebrate w/ us and recognize the importance of this issue,” said Ben Wickizer who works w/ the Ohio chapter of the Sierra Club.

And on Sept 12, the film Contested Streets will be shown at 7:30 at the South Campus Gateway, followed by a discussion led by local transportation experts.

“Transportation choice is what we’d like to see more of in this state. We’d like to see municipalities and the state in general adopt Compete Streets policies.” http://www.completestreets.org/

Wickizer agreed environmental and social justice issues are linked.
“We’re seeing attacks on and plundering of our environment, while we’re also seeing attacks on organized labor and the basic needs of individuals in the middle class and working class…So it’s great we can come together and unite and work together on some of these issues.”

James Lunsford works with The Help Project.
“Basically, what we do is we try to help guys who have a criminal background record find relevant employment. So, whether that’s helping them w/ their driving situation or getting some of their cases expunged, we try to do those certain things that help them make it to that job.”

Lunsford said The Help Project is involved in advocacy, in addition to offering services.
“On a lot of these different issues and policies you got going on in Ohio or wherever it may be, we attack those issues.”

The Help Project partners w/ the Amos Project, the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, and other organizations

Do the adverse effects of energy constraints outweigh the risks of nuclear energy ?

2011-08-18T16:55:00.003-04:00

5:44

Many people may reconsider and make changes to their environmental concerns, but they're not likely to abandon them.

To what extent have you considered that concerns about energy and concerns about the 'environment' are inextricably linked ?

4:44
If I'm not mistaken, some people involved with issues such as Climate Change and Peak Oil have concluded that the adverse affects of energy constraints outweigh the risks of nuclear power.

I'll admit that, at least to some degree, people's positions--- including my own--- sometimes stem from acting as if the human condition doesn't involve trade-offs. As for nuclear energy, I myself don't have a firm position on that. And policy makers don't seem to be waiting for me to decide on the matter.

But as someone who relates to 'deep ecology', I'm fairly certain our environmental and energy problems require us to reconsider many of our assumptions about 'progress,' as we go about weighing the pros and cons of the trade-offs we as a society will likely be making in our lifetimes and beyond.

Notes on building The Columbus Activist

2011-08-18T16:52:00.020-04:00

From Walker Evans regarding modifying bbp press which is what CU forum runs on :
modification via CSS, HTML and PHP editing.

9-17-11

That general philosophy involves the idea that a mass movement of currently latent alliances is not a panacea but it may be a way to defeat corporatism, and address other problems.

We expect a variety of views on The Columbus Activist; helping to build a movement involves a process of dialogue, experimentation, and sometimes broken-then-mended working relationships over time. If it's done right, it leads to stronger alliances, instead of the fragmentation we've seen among 'the left' .

To answer your question about the Columbus Activist, bringing together locals on a wide variety of global issues is the purpose of the site. Therefore, it has a general philosophy---that is, more community and political involvement is needed--- but not necessarily definitive stances on any of a wide range of issues.

As for what prospective sources may think about interview requests from The Columbus Activist, I take to heart the statement in FSRN's Reporter's Guide and Training Manual about not having and not wanting the level of access to the powerful that mainstream media has.

Sorry if I'm answering my own question, but the term 'activist' so far has elicited good responses from the people I'm most interested in working with.

Better url and names for our site ? cbus.org

9-5-11 10:20 pm

I've cc'd Robb Ebright. He's helped me to accept I probably should pay at least some attention to communication tools, and not focus entirely on communication content.

As for The Columbus Activist (and WCRS for that matter), some of the people who collaborate w/ us likely will combine their content contributions w/ getting involved in site design and maintenance.

What began for me a couple of years ago as frustrating conflicts in focus (content versus technical issues) is now becoming satisfying holism.

The advice I've been getting from a variety of people is gelling around signing up for a site host service and then running Word Press on that, giving us more options w/ plug-ins and other apps.

I may sign up for Blue Host. It's $5.95 for 24 months. They offer something called SiteLock Domain Security for an extra $12.95 per yr and something called Site Back Up Pro for an extra $12.95 per yr.

Do you think I need one or both of those additional services or neither ? After I send this, I will check out some more forums to compare site hosting services. But if I recall correctly, you said Blue Host was good enough, though you've been using some other service for yrs.

Thanks for all of this help,

-------------------
9-4-11 9:35 pm
Do you know how to modify our templates so as to have multiple vertical and horizontal panels ?

If not, I'm getting some help from my nephew and will be trying that out this evening and tomorrow. The site would be better if the main page of the Columbus Activistl had several posts shown on a single page---like a newspaper or magazine site.

That would be good for the OFF blog and other blogs too. What we can do to the template of the main page, we can do to the templates of all of the other 100 + blogs Blogger allows on one url.

Users of the Columbus Activist are more likely to perceive it as a local umbrella site for a broad progressive movement if they see diverse causes depicted on the main page, and if they see geographically diverse depictions of the fair food fight on the main OFF blog page.

And, except for conversations you'd like to be private among us, could we please discuss these and other issues using the comment function of the blog and/or the forum which I will embed sometime this evening or tomorrow ?

Of course there is no substitute for in-person interaction, but as much as we're all comfortable w/, what do you think of having our talks at the actual blog as a sort of 24/7 invitation for others (who have internet access) to join us ?

Also, what do you think of the idea that using a forum and the comment boxes will help us to sustain continuity and organization w/ this cause ,while also connecting it with other forms of progressive activism here in Columbus and beyond ?

9-4-11 7 pm

Create a forum for each blog, using nabble.com or some other service. Put that forum and forums for other blogs under the forums listing on main page (and on all the other blog pages. But the forums section should list the forums for each blog, which will not necessarily be the forums that were originally listed there.)

I won't give access to new bloggers solely on my own judgment. If there is ever any doubt, I won't send the invitation link if I don't have approval from you and other bloggers.

I'd like to be open-minded about collaborating w/ activists who might not exactly be progressives but as I've said, my admin role is a technical necessity, not a matter of me having authority over other bloggers. So, who gets invited to blog is a shared decision given that this is not my site anymore. It's ours.

But how do you want to decide stuff like that ? By unanimity? Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

Also---come to think of it----this issue of having someone who wants to blog who isn't exactly a progressive probably would come up rarely, if ever; though for me at least, it would be ideal if we occasionally surprised and intrigued people by constructively making strange bedfellows, as the saying goes.

I imagine someone saying "they're really liberal, but you can't just pigeon-hole them and write them off. I know the other bloggers there didn't agree w/ it, but believe it or not, the other day I read something in there by..."

--------------------
Regarding the importance of comments and forums:

is it because of the tedium involved w/ reading and responding to comments ? Or do you associate comments w/ venomous criticism that leads to nothing positive ?

If the latter is the case, you wouldn't be the first person to express that view to me. But as for me, presenting my ideas in a frequently hostile online forum ( Columbus Underground) has seemed to sharpen my focus as an activist.

By the way, the type of site that I envision would lead to comments being mostly constructive feedback and collaboration. IMO, that is, after all, one of the main benefits of websites: a departure from the top-down, gate-keeper, one-way, communication process most of us experience w/ traditional media.

So, for me, comments and community forums are tools for movement building, though they by no means are substitutes for in-person interaction.

-------------------------
Some might say that building a mass grassroots movement requires us to ignore our disagreements and differences so as to have a unified front. But IMO movement building requires a wide variety of people to honestly engage w/ one another, recognizing our differences while finding common cause.

I consider myself a 'progressive' but I'll be honest w/ you and say---sorry to repeat myself---I don't intend to limit my engagement or my invitations to this site to people who consider themselves 'liberals' or 'progressives'.

I'm convinced that correcting imbalances such as 1 percent of our population controlling 40 percent of our wealth requires rank-and-file progressives and rank-and-file conservatives to find common cause.

The same, if not more, can be said of our attempts to address our environmental challenges. But it's not only a matter of strategy; recognizing our common humanity is a matter of morality.

Of course, this doesn't mean we ought to ignore right wing extremism. It should fight it and defeat it not because it's necessarily worse than left-wing extremism, but because--- of the two---- it seems far more likely to takeover our nation.

------
How about if we try to communicate w/ each other--when feasible--via the comment functions of your blog posts, instead of exchanging emails? When feasible.

My hunch is that we and some of the people in our immediate circles likely will comprise the bulk of the comments and traffic on your blogs in the short term. Perhaps as that social content accumulates, that circle of collaboration will broaden, and contribute to movement building.

An additional benefit of blogging is that it may result in greater intellectual and social organization for you. That's been the case for me, Karen.

You don't have to make public all or even any of your entries, though sharing some of them at some point could be helpful to others.

You can have countless unpublished drafts you develop over days, weeks, months, or even years. I can't think of any other arrangement that offers that degree of mental organization.
------------------------

On a person note, maybe the best theme for me to pursue might be promoting alliances to address--- among other dangers--- the risk of right wing extremism going even further in our country as well as much of the rest of the world.

The fact Blogger just might end up being a tool to help me cope with not being able to focus only on one or two issues is kind of ironic, given my environmentalist skepticism about technologically advanced industrial societies.

And by the way, my inclination toward a broad perspective that involves common ground among a variety of causes doesn't necessarily make me any sort of supervisor or authority. Though that might apply in organizational settings, it doesn't apply here.

------------
Maybe the following suggestions will help to reduce your hesitation about blogging.

It differs from traditional scholarship and journalism. At least for the purposes of this site, blogging involves less of a focus on being an expert offering definitive solutions.

Instead, your ideas are more of a work-in-progress as you collaborate on shared understandings of possible solutions, and further develop working relationships.

This process can complement traditional scholarship and journalism, but---ideally---it reduces our dependence on a class of gate-keepers and experts, though standards for assessing the truth should be similarly applied.

The goal of the site is to help ourselves form shared understandings and working relationships on problems in our communities and beyond. That process of collaboration is compatible w/ more traditional forms of scholarship, though it's not dependent upon it.

Being the admin person for the site doesn't make me the editor or any other sort of supervisor. I've thought of everyone having admin access to the site, but decided against that.

This is my reason. If everyone were to have admin access to every blog on the site---or even just one or two blogs--- and we ended up with 10, 20 or a 100 or more content posters, accountability would get complicated if someone's work got changed or deleted, or if someone got involved in a libel suit.

This way it's simple. If something happens to anyone's work, there are two possible causes: (1) something I did; or (2) something that person herself or himself did.

Rare instances of spam and even rarer instances of a system failure from Blogger would be the exception to this rule. And I'm not likely to give someone my password to the site nor are you and other content posters likely to give someone your passwords for posting, given that they are the passwords to our respective gmail accounts.

Again, I'm not sure if this was your initial concern when you mentioned not wanting an editor, but if you can think of a better admin arrangement for the site, let me know.

Within the main site at herenowandbeyond.org, we can create one or more blogs according to whatever title(s) and theme(s) you want. We can then send the invitation to the blog(s) to your gmail account. After that, you can post content to your blogs whenever it's convenient for you.

It's a site that draws together people on a wide variety of causes. The web design is a work-in-progress. But it's a start.

There is to our knowledge no other site in Columbus or some other cities that's user-driven, interactive, and involves a wide variety of causes.

Most activist or advocacy sites focus on one or two issues or a somewhat narrow set of issues. That may be OK for some people's purposes, but having a comprehensive site for activists likely will be useful for helping to build a mass movement that puts more power into the hands of ordinary people.

8-18-11

Maybe a more comprehensive and flexible listing of causes along the top bar would involve read as follows , instead of "food and water/ transportation/...etc :

Issues A thru D / E thru J/ K thru P/Q thru Z/Forums/About/Events/Orgs

To what extent is being vegan the easiest way to oppose oppression ?

2011-08-18T14:32:00.002-04:00

As for me at least, eating plants instead of animal products has been the easiest of all of my attempts to minimize--if not eliminate--my participation in 'systems of oppression.' ( Sorry but I'm not coming up w/ a less activist-jargon-laden way of saying that.)

Cycling instead of driving has been slightly more challenging than changing my diet. And much more complex and otherwise challenging has been extracting myself from buying things such as cell phones and computers.

Those communications gadgets seem so useful to activists such as me (as well as people in general for good or bad, whether opposing a dictator in Egypt or doing a violent flash mob in Philly.)

But these gadgets---including this computer and the servers running this site--- are tied to sweatshop/slave labor in terms of how they're manufactured and how they're processed as e-waste; as well as the mining of raw materials such as tin oxite.

For some of us the suffering of people we don't know and of animals we don't see (or hear and smell ) is something to dismiss or even laugh about. What causes a mentality such as that ?

I ask not out of pointing my finger at someone else, but as a request for help with further developing my own empathy.

" Why I'm not laughing at the 2012 GOP candidates." For posting on DU/CU/Op-Ed News/ and other forums (Draft requring revision)

2011-08-17T13:17:00.002-04:00

Some mainstream liberals might be amused and encouraged by how GOP candidates such as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann come across as 'crazy,' and how the liberal component of mainstream media are amplifying that perception.

Perhaps less mainstream is the concern that beyond a likely second Obama presidency, the fact that the GOP is putting forward such candidates could be a problem in and of itself, especially if economic transitions become more severe.

Someone like Hitler likely would not have risen to power were if not for the dire situation in Germany in the 1930s.

Candidates from the political right who seem ‘crazy’ currently, might have broad appeal, especially if the American middle class and upper middle class believe their standard of living has been downgraded.

The poor often lack the tools for fighting back politically, though they may lash out self-defeatingly in small groups or individual acts of crime, or riots that often lose their political meaning as they degenerate into individualistically opportunistic looting.

But a newly demoted middle and upper-middle class is able to combine their lingering sense of entitlement w/ their anger and social connections, becoming a force for major reform or revolution.

But that magnitude of political force won’t necessarily lead to a decentralization of wealth which puts more power into the hands of ordinary people. The economic elite could manage to keep their power--- at least for a while--- if the rage of the newly demoted middle and upper middle classes is directed not at the people at the very top, but instead at each other and those below them, such as the very poor.

To generalize, due to an ingrained fear of socialism in our national character, people may be more likely to blame immigrants, Muslims, queer folk, the poor, liberals, or other categories of outsiders than to challenge the power of the super-rich. Listening to conservative talk radio indicates those ideas already proliferate among masses of Americans.

Worsening economic problems + wounded national pride + a charismatic leader offering scapegoats could possibly----though not necessarily--- lead us to political repression.

Don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of extremists on the political left. But they don’t seem nearly as able to connect w/ large segments of our society as their counterparts on the fringes of the political right--- not by a long shot.

Religious conservatives--- mostly Jews and Christians--are a source of political power for the political right. Leaders can appeal to religious, ethnic, and other prejudices to increase the chances of masses of people focusing their rage on those in the same or lower economic class, instead of directing their anger at those making the economic policies adversely affecting their lives.

But as far as having masses of highly motivated people to back you, does the left have anything to compare to the right’s ability to mobilize Christian and Jewish religious conservatives ?

Perhaps the political left and centrists could get support from environmental and social justice activism. But is the magnitude of that comparable to the mass support the political right may be able to muster ?

There don’t seem to be many political extremists on Columbus Underground, whether from the right or the left. So, I'll say that we shouldn’t be fatalistic about this.

Ordinary people, thru political involvement, might be able to push our country toward seeking solutions to our problems, and away from the urge to embrace solutions that require scapegoats, whether they’re presented to us by extremists on the political right or---less likely--- the political left.

I’m an activist who works in relative obscurity. But as I’ve said before, I’m at peace with myself regarding the not-so-far-fetched possibility that a radical Christian, right- wing take over of our country will involve making scapegoats of queer folk, along with perhaps Muslims and Arab-Americans, and maybe even anyone regarded as a‘ liberal.’

As for me at least, activism matters. Most of the people using Columbus Underground don’t seem to be extremists, whether left wing or right wing. So, we have a stake in the risks of extremism taking over our country.

Maybe if we become more politically involved we can prevent extremism from taking hold in our country, whether it comes from the right or the left. If we can’t do that, maybe we can at least reduce its severity, duration, and damage.

And our involvement should connect local actions and issues w/ things going on nationally and globally.

Hopes and fears: queer folk as scapegoats

2011-08-16T22:39:00.000-04:00

These are notes from a letter I wrote to one of my nephews in the summer of 1999.

Right now I have hopes and fears.

My fears involve mass killings of sexual and gender nonconformist as a result of a process of scape-goating in the midst of some sort of catastrophe. Perhaps I am spooked by my very limited understanding of the systematic killing of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and others Nazis deemed undesirable over 50 years ago.

During that time Germany was in a crisis situation. It seems that Hitler used scapegoating as a means to organize society, to rallying a large segment of German society against a perceived enemy within Germany.

Along this theme, I have wondered if some sort of crisis in the US or in the world at large would make scape-goating gays and other sexual nonconformists a viable means of seizing and/or maintaining power by individuals desiring it.

What I think can happen is that a society's entire system can weaken or break down to the point at which it no longer functions as it once did. As a result of this break-down in function, the means by which leaders formerly acquired their power no longer are viable.

For example, now with a relatively smoothly functioning system(although always in need of improvement, as are all things human) our leaders go the route of a process that involves doing well in high-school, going to an elite university and/or having a responsible and distinguished military service or some other type of training.

Yet if the stock market took a bad crash or if there were some sort of unprecedented crisis in energy or in infrastructure such as the collapse of oil supplies or water supplies, who knows what havoc that could cause on our system of government.

In such a climate, our society runs into a problem: the previous methods by which our leaders were trained and chosen is no longer viable. So what happens is that people take advantage of the leadership void. In some cases we may follow a certain leader because we have become desperate or we think there is no better leader available.

In situations like this we may have people who would not stand a chance under the old system of becoming successful. Such leaders could be more prone to lack the sophistication of leaders that would flourish under the old system.

Lacking sophistication, they are unlikely to run a country of millions of people in a manner that is compatible with individual liberty. Lacking sophistication, these leaders are prone to organize society by rallying people to a cause. A key part of such rallying may also involve keeping peoples' minds off the catastrophe that has dramatically transformed our society.

We want something to believe. We want a solution and answers. Often, answers, in the midst of catastrophe are not readily available. In our desperation, we believe in overly simplified solutions and invented answers.

Many of us want to believe something...anything even if it is not rational. An environment such as this that is filled with desperation, unsophisticated leadership, and a desperation for answers is one in which there is likely to take place the phenomenon of scape-goating.

Sometimes, when things go wrong, we want someone to blame..anyone, not necessarily those closely associated with the causes of the catastrophe, but probably those least able to defend themselves against lies and other hostility. Also, we humans scapegoat out of sloppy thinking.

One of my fears is that scapegoating queers may at some point in the future be a viable means for desperate leaders to rally the rest of society.

Concerning my hopes, I say that there will come a point in history at which the world will look at the evidence and conclude that there is more to fear from anti-queer prejudice than there is to fear from queerness. There is a rewording in my mind of FDR saying “We have nothing to fear about queers…”

But what will it take for this to happen? Will it require future generations to look back upon mass killings and/or other forms of degradation in this upcoming century to conclude that homosexuality is not immoral but rather it is the case that homophobia is immoral ?

Linking environmentalism with other issues

2011-08-16T22:37:00.000-04:00

Should, and how can people link the work of environmentalists with the work of people addressing a variety of other issues?

For the purposes of this topic, there are two scenarios that I envision. One is a mass social movement that directs societies’ efforts toward addressing ecological and social justice issues.

(I would like to include other issues such as 'terrorism' and nuclear proliferation, but I am not sure how they would fit in with environmentalism and social justice. However, whatever issue that I think of, it seems to me that what all of them have is common, as far as I am concerned, is that so-called ordinary people such as me ought to get more involved in decision-making processes, at least to some extent.)

Though addressing environmental concerns is a key issue in that all life depends on the Earth’s biosphere, environmentalism is part of a larger process of people working together in an attempt to improve our communities. So, in my opinion, there has got to be ways to connect what environmental groups are doing with what groups outside of environmentalism are doing.

People are working together to address a wide variety of goals and not all of them are environmental. People are working on improving our educational system or our criminal justice system or our healthcare system.

The issues that may be compatible with environmentalism are not limited to ‘domestic issues’ such as healthcare, access to jobs, access to formal education, and having a criminal-justice system that protects the community while also protecting civil and human rights.

Environmentalists may have at least some degree of common cause with people who are working on issues pertaining to national security and the global viability of the US economy. Maybe there are ways to find common cause between people working on those issues and people working on environmental issues.

Environmentalism is a framework, among others, for people to work together to achieve community and societal goals, whether those goals pertain to addressing the ways in which petroleum scarcity may affect food security, or addressing the issue of how industrialized agriculture affects the quality of our air, water, and soil, or addressing how our over-reliance on private automobiles may affect our communities in terms of air quality.

Those community projects seem compatible with other forms of activism such as that aimed at addressing issues such as school funding, access to healthcare, problems associated with the ‘prison-industrial complex’ or voter disenfranchisement.

I suspect that there are ecological issues that a wide variety of environmental and social justice groups could agree on. Regarding what may be preventing the formation of such alliances, John Bellamy Foster in his book Ecology Against Capitalism wrote that if addressing ecological issues is going to gain mass appeal, then people in the environmental movement have to combine social justice advocacy with environmental advocacy. Google "Van Jones" and "Green For All".

I agree with Foster. However, I also think that environmentalism, to gain broader appeal, has to also be understood as an expression of patriotism, civic pride, and morality.

Foster said, if I recall correctly, that, in reality, environmental and social justice issues are intertwined. However, Foster said, if I recall correctly, that if environmentalists take the wrong approach, we may find ourselves , in situations such as that which occurred in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States in the early 1980s, in which the issues became framed in the public’s mind as the economy and jobs, on the one hand, versus, on the other hand, protecting the environment. More specifically, it was saving the spotted-owl versus saving the jobs of people in the logging industry, if I recall correctly what Foster wrote.

Someone like Judi Bari, an activist with Earth First, sought to combine her environmental activism with activism to address the concerns of workers in the logging industry.

Why is there little public sense of urgency regarding environmental problems ?

2011-08-16T22:27:00.000-04:00

Why is it that many people are not concerned about environmental issues with a sense of urgency; and what, if anything, can and should be done about it?

But I don’t expect a critical mass of people to take the warnings of scientists and environmentalists on faith, given the track record of some environmentalists, such as Paul Ehrlich, whose dire predictions did not come true, at least not according to the time-frames he originally presented.

Regarding someone’s interest in community or civic engagement, as it pertains to environmentalism, I would say that it has to appeal to people’s self-interest in more than just theoretical or hypothetical ways. My guess is that, in many people’s minds, environmentalism seems to focus on the distant future.

That people are shallow and self-centered and therefore not concerned about future generations is one way of explaining the lack of environmental concern taking place in the mainstream of society.

An alternative explanation is that, to a significant degree, people are absorbed in attending to immediate concerns, based on our sense of obligations to our families and communities; and that, somehow, ‘environmentalist concerns’ have yet to resonate with enough people regarding one’s own sense of personal responsibility.

For many people, environmental activism seems to be a special interest pursuit, based on self aggrandizement and political ambition, not social conscience and a sense of duty.

Speaking about my own ideas, if I had to guess, I would guess that, more likely than not likely, at least some of the potential environmental problems will become actual problems, and that there may be ecological problems that no one foresees, during this new century or later. Also, my guess is that some of the problems can only be reduced in severity, not avoided.

Having said this though, it seems that for the vast majority of people in this society and in other ‘developed ’ nations, the environmental problems that a consensus of ecologists forecast have yet to affect people’s lives in a way that is tangible enough for a critical mass of people to have a sense of urgency.

As far as I can determine, there are, as of yet, no quality- of- life problems for the majority of people in the ‘developed’ world to signal that ecological issues are coming to a head.

Sure, there was Katrina and there is $4 per gallon gas, but, critics and people skeptical of ecologists’ warnings may say that, for example, during the past 30 years, life expectancy in the ‘developed’ world has risen; some types of cancer and other diseases have become less prevalent and less deadly once diagnosed; and that, in at least some limited geographic contexts, both air and water quality has improved.

Speaking for myself, I don’t interpret this appearance of things being generally well--at least as far as life in the ‘developed’ world is concerned--- as a guarantee that our society and other ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ societies can continue on the resource consumption course we are on.

I venture human civilization in general cannot continue to increase our population while also increasing, in many cases, our per capita consumption of resources and our per capita creation of pollution, without detracting significantly from our collective quality of life, sooner or later.

So far in my environmental reading and writing, the positions of people who say we, collectively, would be wise to address our resource consumption with a sense of urgency as if our quality of life -if not our lives--depended upon it (as opposed to taking baby steps), seem to me to be more credible than the positions of those who say economic growth is a greater priority, and that market incentives will spur innovation that will enable 8 or 9 or 10 billion people to live well.

Yet, environmental concerns remain an abstract and marginal part of our nation’s public discourse.

I am not convinced that market forces will spur technological and other innovations that will enable people around the world to enjoy a high quality of life, as ever more people in India, China, and parts of Africa, the Middle East, and South and Central America begin, or continue to, aspire to the materialistic and consumerist ways that exist in ‘the West’ or the ‘developed’ nations, while ‘developed’ nations such as the United States continue with resource- intensive lifestyles.

For many people life still seems pretty good, and therefore many people do not have a sense of urgency regarding various aspects of environmentalism, whether it involves climate change, water scarcity, peak oil, peak soil, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and so on.

Make environmentalism more inclusive

2011-08-16T22:20:00.000-04:00

What are your ideas regarding making environmentalism more inclusive and less cliquish and less elitist?

I have developed the habit of talking about the terms ‘environmentalism’ and ‘social justice’ together, at least partly based on wanting to change people’s minds about environmentalism being elitist.

I would like ordinary people have to get more involved with this movement. I don’t want a situation in which a collection of environmentalists who are part of some sort of elite group of people to make changes to our society without the participation of ordinary people.

Though I may agree with many of the goals such elite environmentalists may have, I likely would disagree with the processes by which those goals would be pursued.

Also, my guess is that an anti-environmentalist backlash would be more likely if our society has a top-down approach to pursuing environmentalist goals. Just as some people complain about the power of corporate lobbyists, some other people complain about the influence that environmental lobbyists have over politicians.

I would like so-called ordinary people to become more of a part of the process of addressing our societies ecological issues. That way, members of communities would take actions to address environmental issues, thinking of it as a something we ourselves thought about and put into place, as opposed to thinking of it as something imposed upon us by outsiders.

Maybe those groups exert a type of influence on the political process that is not quite the same thing as what I am imagining in this article. Perhaps I am, by contrast, imagining a process which is inclusive, as opposed to being limited to a sort of clique of well-connected environmental activists, who are themselves members of a type of elite, or if not members of a sort of elite, they are professional activists who are willing and able to devote the bulk of their time and energy to being activists.

I imagine some type of process whereby millions of people have a type of awareness in which we connect in our minds a wide variety of pursuits, as being part of environmentalism, and, further, a type of awareness in which millions of people connect in our minds environmentalism with various other community and societal pursuits in which people work with one another to address community and societal goals.

Some people may denote this concept with the word ‘consciousness’, referring to a process in which people recognize that other people’s circumstances are compatible enough with our own to identify ourselves with one another and cooperate. A lack of ‘consciousness’ of this sort would involve people not working together or perhaps working against one another when we could be working together due to having a compatibility of causes.

To what extent is excessive corporate power a theme that a variety of social and environmental activists have in common ?

2011-08-16T22:16:00.000-04:00

To what extent, if at all, is excessive corporate power an issue that connects the work of environmentalists, social activists, and people working on other issues?

A common theme that, possibly, ties, some, if not most, of these concerns together may be the theme of how excessive corporate power is causing damage socially, environmentally, and politically.

This is not an attempt to foment class conflict or to demonize corporate executives or anyone else for that matter. The problems, for the most part, are not individuals or groupings of people based on categories such as class, national origin, political leanings, religion, sexuality, and so on. Making scapegoats of individuals or groups of people is not the solution to our ecological and political problems.

We are all part of the problem and can be at least some part of the solution, regarding the problems posed by Earth’s finite life-support capacity or the problems posed by excessive corporate power.

Seeking to lay blame amidst our frustrations about high gas prices or high food prices or lost manufacturing jobs, and making scapegoats of people, indicates an overly simplified understanding of our problems.

Our problems are caused by our ways of doing things. So, I advocate reforms to political and economic systems. I am not calling for the abolishment of corporations or the abolishment of capitalism.

I would like to promote a drastic increase in the civic, political, and community participation on the part of so-called ordinary people, as a key part of bringing about those reforms. My guess is that a lot of good could be achieved using the existing political and economic system, if ordinary people would just get involved.

An idea I have is that excessive corporate power is perhaps not only obstructing efforts to address ecological concerns, but it may also be a factor in terms of the economic hardship and national security risks involved with losses in the US manufacturing sector, problems with our credit system, and problems with using voting machines, in that these privately run operations are difficult to hold publicly accountable.

Not only that, but an idea I have is that excessive corporate power is a factor that is involved in a variety of issues beyond environmentalism per se. For example, some people are concerned about the effects on our election processes that corporations owning and operating voting machines may have.

In so many areas, from the affects of overly industrialized agriculture to the affects of privately run prisons to the privatization of natural resources such as water, a common theme seems to be that excessive corporate power is detracting from the vitality of democratic institutions and otherwise from the well-being of many of the so-called ordinary people of the world.

But there is some irony here. A lot of the tools I use to get more involved is available to me from this or that corporation--Microsoft for my software on my laptop, Toshiba for my laptop, Yahoo and Google for my internet research...I use these tools in my attempt to get more involved in the political process.

Is it ironic that I use these tools as part of my process for trying to address what I and many others regard as the excessive power of large corporations?

I marvel at how much an average Tom such as me can do as a result of the media tools that have come about because of the tech wiz people such as Bill Gates and others at Microsoft and others who invented and refined all this digital technology that has resulted in these communications breakthroughs.

The irony that I find is that so much of this tech wizardry that has made various people such as Bill Gates and others very rich, puts into the hands of ordinary people like me the ability to read and listen to viewpoints that I wouldn’t hear in the mainstream corporate media in the form of the main newspapers, magazines, radio and tv shows.

There is a greater diversity of perspectives being expressed and considered as a result of this computer technology that gives us the internet and the ability for average Tom’s like me to put together a radio program or a website.

Taking a guess at it, I would say that corporations per se are not the problem and that corporations are a way to organize our resources to achieve various good things. However, the influence of giant coporations over our lives has to be countered or some might say ‘balanced’ by ordinary people getting much more involved in civic life and in our communities so as to make our governmental leaders and corporations more responsive to the needs of the vast majority of people, the so-called ordinary people.

But also the question can be asked Do corporations need to be so huge and have so much control in order for our society to be innovative and inventive?

Also, as the billionaire investor Warren Buffet himself has said, the super-rich have a responsibility to society, because society has provided them with the resources with which they got so rich.

So, I am not focusing my blame for the world’s problems on the people who run large corporations. Instead, I am focusing on the process by which ordinary people such as me get more involved in our communities and get more involved in the political process, and get smarter and wiser about how we use our power not only as consumers but also as citizens.

But correcting the problem of excessive corporate power is perhaps not the only basis for connecting environmentalism with other causes or forms of civic engagement.

Excessive corporate power may not only be causing problems in terms of economics, the environment, and national security in our country, but it may also be detracting from the quality of life of people in other nations, such as farmers in developing nations having to grow export crops instead of growing their own food.

Excessive corporate power may tie together all of the following processes: the damaging of soil, air, and water via some aspects of industrialized agriculture; gutting our manufacturing sector, and impeding investments into solar and wind and other renewable energy, while fossil fuel parts of the energy sector receive subsidies.

The forces that devastate the livelihoods of third- world farmers, may be the same or similar process of excessive corporate power that owns private prisons, that obstructs improvements to our healthcare system, that is displacing American workers, and that is detracting from our nation's military and economic security by stripping away our manufacturing sector.

I don’t want to overstate this basis for common-cause between environmentalism, on the one hand, and a variety of social justice and political movements, on the other hand. But it may be the case that there is sufficient common cause for the formation of alliances , which could lead, at least in theory, to a pooling of resources and political will, aimed at an agreed-upon set of public policy goals. Such coalitions could counter the influence that the lobbyists of large corporations have over the political processes of this nation.

Greater cooperation among all sorts of groups working on environmental and social justice and other political issues may be a counter-balance to the powerful influence that giant corporations have over our society.

There may be opportunity for building alliances , in that many of the processes which are standing in the way of addressing ecological issues, are also standing in the way of improving our nation’s political process, in the sense of, for example, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, and rebuilding our manufacturing sector.

I advocate greater civic engagement on the part of ordinary people. That way of thinking does not involve me limiting myself to trying to hold the people who run large corporations accountable, but it involves me holding myself accountable for being civically engaged and for sharing this sense of priorities with other ordinary people.

Environmentalism in the context of other issues

2011-08-16T22:08:00.000-04:00

What are your thoughts about putting environmental issues within the context of other issues that affect the well-being of people and other sentient animals? ***
Ecological and other resource issues are not the only issues that pose challenges to the well-being of our communities, our nation, or humankind in general.

For example, water scarcity or soil erosion or loss of biodiversity pose a risk to human welfare, and perhaps human survival. But there are risks that are not ecological such as the risks involved with nuclear proliferation, or some mass-scale usage of biological warfare, though those things still involve the theme of human beings setting into motion destructive processes that would likely not have occurred without human beings being involved.

Creating new meanings for 'development' and 'progress'

2011-08-16T21:30:00.002-04:00

What are your ideas on creating new meanings for the words 'development', 'progress', and 'success'?

I put the term 'development' in parentheses to acknowledge that there are at least a few people who question the idea that the industrialized way of life that exists in say, the United States or Western Europe is necessarily superior to the non-industrialized ways of life in some other parts of the world. Some of these critics say that our industrialized way of life will sooner or later crash into a wall of ecological constraints.

About questioning ideas about what makes a society ‘advanced’ and what makes it ‘backward’, my guess is that a good measure for that would be to consider how well a society (1) meets the needs of its people, and (2) how viable, long-term, that society’s means for meeting those needs is.

US society and other industrialized societies may have been doing a good job of meeting the needs of its people as measured by infant mortality rates, literacy rates, access to education, life expectancy and so on. Yet some people say that our methods for meeting our people’s needs are taking a high toll on the Earth’s ability to keep that process going.

Not only that, but some people are saying that the level of affluence of US society and other industrialized societies is not attainable for the rest of the world. In other words, if the rest of the word lived at the level of consumption that exists in the United States there would be ecological collapse and widespread suffering like never seen before all over our planet.

Of course, some critics of that viewpoint say that consumerism and materialism are good things, despite what the ‘eco-nut jobs’ would want us to believe. They say that affluence such as that which exists in the United States is not the problem. They say that poverty is the problem.

That point of view makes sense in terms of it being a bad thing if people don’t have adequate food and don’t have adequate water and if they are illiterate and suffer and die from diseases that we’ve found cures for many years ago. Yes, I would agree, that that sort of poverty is the problem.

But here is where I disagree with the people who criticize some environmentalist as ‘eco-commies’ : just because poverty is obviously a direct and indirect (perhaps feeding the hate that enemies of our nation have) cause of suffering, that doesn’t mean that an excessive form of affluence is a good thing.

Yes, it’s a problem if people aren’t fed or clothed or if they (or we) are drinking contaminated water. But that doesn’t mean the solution is for people in US society to keeping going with business-as-usual in terms of our inefficient usage of natural resources.

In other words I agree that people should have food, water, education, and other ways to otherwise have what is required to thrive physically and mentally.

But is there something hardwired into human nature that makes our physical and mental well-being require us to live our lives as if there were no tomorrow? Do we require, in order to thrive mentally and physically, a system of transportation that is based on inefficiently using single occupancy vehicles that run on a dwindling supply of oil, that may also be damaging our climate?

Do we require settlement patterns that are based on the majority of adults driving many miles to and from work, school, and retail outlets?

Do we require a food system that is based on heavy usage of a dwindling supply of oil, that is, chemical pesticides and fertilizers and that is controlled by a few corporate conglomerates?

Do we require, in order to thrive physically and mentally lots of consumer goods that we use for a while and throw away into some landfill?

Yes, poverty is problem, but in my opinion, the type of affluence that our nation and other industrialized nations have is also a problem.

So what’s the solution? In my opinion, the solution involves changing how we define ‘wealth’ ‘the good life’ ‘the American Dream’ and ‘success.’ Those new definitions , in my opinion, ought to be based on making meeting human needs (with consideration to non-human sentient beings also) the highest priority, as opposed to having a society in which we value the accumulation of stuff and other resources for its own sake, thinking that the more we have the better.

For example, some of us, including myself, may be inclined to think that having a billion dollars is good, but that having 10 or 30 billion dollars is even better, or that having a 1400 square foot home may be good, but that having a 3000 sq foot home or a 8000 square foot home, and perhaps several of them in various parts of the world is even better.

I am not ruling out that there may be noble uses of that many homes or that much money, but what I am trying to get at is the idea that I think this is a good set of priorities for a society:

(1) focusing on meeting people’s needs; and (2) for those with extraordinary abilities, contributing more to the well-being of people in that society would be the goal, not the accumulation of material wealth.

Environmentalism and materialistic values

2011-08-16T20:18:00.000-04:00

What are your ideas in terms of the opportunities and obstacles that consumerist and materialistic values present for environmental and social justice activism?

Our consumerist and materialistic value system may be a barrier to addressing environmental issues, not only in terms of affluent people being reluctant to divest themselves psychologically from that system of rewards, but also in terms of the people of lower socio-economic status who may be reluctant to give up their pursuit of greater materialistic status. This may be a factor within nations and among them also.

People in this country lower on the ‘socio-economic rungs’ may or may not embrace the idea of rejecting consumerism. It could go either way. Some people who are ‘working poor’ or ‘working class,’ may find rejecting consumerism to be liberating, while others may defend what they regard as their right to pursue materialism, thinking that the non-consumerist message involved with some aspects of environmentalism is an attempt to cheat them out of things that members of the middle and upper classes have had for some time.

This dynamic may be occurring within and among nations. This mixture of responses to the non-materialistic approach may be ok in terms of forming alliances, if at least some of us find the idea to be appealing to us.

Many of the people who are not middle class or upper middle class, hold on to the prospect of someday being able to have that big house in the suburbs, that big SUV, and being able to rack up thousands and thousands of frequent flyer miles, and being able to drive a car, instead of experiencing what many people in, for example, Columbus,Ohio, and perhaps many other US cities regard as the daily stigma and inconvenience of relying on the bus system.

To the extent that I would want to present ideas to other people, (given that I want to have dialogue instead of preaching to people), maybe it would be a good idea to present environmentalist pursuits as ways for people to improve our lives by either reducing or avoiding hardship and by doing things that improve our satisfaction with our lives, (as opposed to preaching to people and trying to get them to change their behavior, based on a self-righteous, be-a-good- person approach .)

Perhaps, I am over-simplifying things, in that there are, at least potentially, a politically significant number of ‘lower income’ people whose aspirations focus not so much on the attainment of cars, houses, and air travel, as status symbols, but, rather, whose primary motivation is on quality-of-life attainments such as having better access to healthcare and education for ourselves and loved ones, and greater employment opportunity and greater physical and economic security in our communities.

My guess is that within each person, at least to some extent, both categories of motivation for pursuing ‘a better life’ and both ways of thinking about it exist at the same time.

My guess is that it makes more sense to present environmentalism in terms of people working together in order to maintain, if not improve, our quality of life than to present environmentalism in terms of trying to make people feel guilty and trying to convince people to make sacrifices without having any sense of the quality of life rewards we may get from changing how we live.

I think changes need to be made. But I think some environmentalists conceptualize those changes as being a form of austerity and making oneself miserable to placate one’s guilt.

Or am I naïve to think that a person can do one’s best to live a sustainable life while being satisfied from it ?

Maybe environmentalists seeking to connect with social justice issues could take an approach such that environmentalism connects with the concerns and aspirations of people in the ‘lower socio-economic rungs’ not by appealing to people’s motivation to become ever more consumerist, but instead by appealing to people’s desire to have quality of life in their communities, such as for example, their children getting a quality education that prepares them for meaningful participation in society, and such as, for example, having greater trust and cooperation with members of their surrounding communities, as opposed to feeling alienated and not being able to trust their neighbors in a high-crime section of their town or city.

My guess is that the elites of our society regard it as a liability that eventually could threaten their own well-being, if the 'lower classes' of people have no faith in our government, or our societies other institutions, and otherwise have no stake in our society's other systems.

Historically underserved communities could also relate to ideas about finding ways to reduce toxic and other wastes, given that such waste sites tend to be located near where they live more so than where Whites live. Such persons may relate to ideas about striving to drastically reduce or not generate such toxic wastes in the first place.

Within and beyond the context of environmental issues, an idea I have is that our consumerist and materialistic values may be a significant cause of the socio-economic barriers that politically fragment the American public, detracting from the extent to which ordinary people work together to address community and societal problems.

I say that based on me thinking that maybe an overly competitive, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentality gets in the way of people working together to address community problems. Maybe, we can be so focused on ‘bettering ourselves’ financially that we overlook the common cause that may exist between ourselves and other members of society.

Maybe we identify too readily with the economic elite to recognize the common cause we may have with people in our communities, based on our hope that someday we can become part of an economic elite.

Choosing sides but seeking to be in touch w/ reality

2011-08-16T19:54:00.000-04:00

An idea I have is that there is a tendency within human beings, myself included, to acquire a sense of certainty about one’s own moral correctness when engaged in conflict in which we are defending ourselves, either interpersonally or as a community or as a large community such as a nation, ethnicity, or civilization.

When engaged in this conflict, there seems to be a tendency for people, whatever side we are on, to think that ‘we’ are entirely right about everything and that ‘we’ are the force of good and that ‘they’ are entirely wrong and that ‘they’ are the force of evil.

I am presenting the idea that a person can defend her or his interest in interpersonal conflict and in broader types of conflict such as a war between nations, without this sort of dishonesty.

It seems to be the case that in some minds, this sort of dishonesty or lack of realism about oneself and ‘our’ side is understood as a form of loyalty to oneself , one’s community, one’s causes, one’s nation, one’s civilization, and so on.

I myself have wondered whether this sort of attempt at being honest about the likelihood that my enemies may believe ‘they’ are right as much as I believe that I am right is a type of liability in terms of my own wellbeing.

I wonder about that not only in terms of the prospect of some people regarding me as a traitor, but also in the sense of me having wondered whether such an attempt at being less biased would detract from my ability to fight for my cause as an individual, as a member of communities, as a member of this nation--the United States-- or as a member of Western Civilization, as well as I would be able to fight for this or that cause if I had more of a black- and- white conception of things, instead of conceiving of the shades of gray.

But an idea I have is that, maybe, this sort of honesty that I am talking about is a way to enable myself to fight for a cause more effectively, given that it involves me attempting to be more in touch with reality.

An analogy comes to mind . Imagine someone who has had a childhood involving being neglected, abused and otherwise mistreated. In addition to that, he or she some neurologically caused problem that makes it hard for that person, for example to work a job, find a sense of community, or otherwise have a stake in upholding community standards.

Imagine that her or his judgment is also affected by being under the influence of some drug such as a heavy dose of alcohol.

Imagine that this person breaks into my home with the intent to kill or otherwise harm me and my loved ones. As I imagine it, I would have no qualms about, for example, shooting and killing this person, if that is the most effective method for me making sure I have the best chance of protecting myself and my loved ones.

So, I can kill or otherwise harm this person, yet do so without hating her or him. To prepare myself for protecting myself and my loved ones, I don't need to shut my mind off from the reality of what may shape the mentality of someone who may break into my home and seek to harm me and my loved ones.

If I were to kill or otherwise harm a person in this way, as I imagine it, I can believe in the correctness of my actions without hating that person, and without hating other people based on my ideas of this or that type of person fitting into the same category as the person I killed in self-defense.

Of course, during the heat of the moment, I may not be in an introspective, philosophical mood, but in terms of the state of mind I have in my life in general before and after killing this person in self-defense, I don’t need to believe that I am, necessarily, and in all cases, a force for good and that someone like that person is, necessarily and in all cases, a force of evil, and that I am always right about everything and that the person I kill in self defense is always wrong about everything.

I use this analogy in reference to the United States protecting members of this nation from attacks such as those on Sept 11, 2001 or attacks such as that on the USS Cole. I present the idea that our nation can defend itself and do so while our writers, politicians, academics, religious leaders, and other members of our nation acknowledge the humanity of our enemies, and acknowledge the ideas and experiences that are a part of what motivates our nations’ enemies.

Being true to our nation’s cause for self-defense shouldn’t be a matter of our society as a whole believing in simplistic ideas about what motivates our foreign policy and simplistic ideas about what motivates those who are at war with our government and/or are at war with the actual people of the United States.

For example, in terms of the 9/11 attacks, some members of US society regard the perpetrators of the attacks as pure evil, or that their jealousy of our freedom in the United States and their religious intolerance of any faith other than Islam is what motivates them.

That type of motivation seems, it is my guess, part of the story, in terms of at least some of the people who may have, or may be, working on carrying out a 9/11-style attack on the people of the United States.

But, in my opinion, it’s not the whole story. US economic , military, and political policy is a part of the story that shouldn’t be overlooked, in my opinion. Being in tuned with that reality, on the part of the US general public and on the part of our leaders in the US government, is conducive for US national interest. Realism shouldn't be perceived as disloyalty, traitorousness or a lack of patriotism.

Dehumanizing and otherwise oversimplifying the enemy, while oversimplifying and romanticizing US foreign policy and US society in general, does not, in my opinion, serve the long term national interests of the United States.

Having a US foreign policy and a public sentiment that is nationalistic, xenophobic, and based on ethnic and religious prejudice may be a way for one or both of the main parties in the United States to drum up popular support for various policies --some of those policies aimed at channeling public anger away from our government or business leaders and toward a perceived internal and/or external enemy. But it’s short-sighted.

Are fossil and fissile fuel industries investing in cleaner renewable energy such as wind and solar ? Why not ?

2011-08-16T19:51:00.000-04:00

What set of ideas and motivations may be preventing the oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear industries from investing into cleaner, renewable, and climate-benign sources of energy?

could anyone please educate me about what may be stopping the major coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas corporations from investing into wind, solar, wave energy, and other non-fossil fuel sources?

A person by the name of Pat Marida, who is involved with the Ohio Sierra Club told me that some people think that the support for nuclear power as an energy source is linked to people who want to maintain the 'nuclear weapons industry.'

It may be the case that there is some degree of affinity between people who are generally at odds with urgently investing in non-fossil-based sources of energy and people who seem to favor having a type of US foreign policy that focuses more on military might and less on using what some people refer as the ‘soft power’ of the United States--that is, our nation’s ability to influence other nation’s via our ideals, diplomacy, and our economy. (Yet some people would refer to the economic influence of the United States as a type of coercion in at least some situations.) That basis for common ground may also involve people who support nuclear power, given the military role that nuclear energy plays.

Perhaps as someone who considers himself an environmentalist, I may want to keep in mind the apparent limitations of using renewable energy. Comment if you think I am overlooking some details in terms of renewable energy solutions not seeming to apply to what to do about powering our military machine (except for how, maybe, having in place a renewable energy infrastructure may enable our nation to significantly decrease, though not eliminate, the extent to which we wage war in a struggle over scarce resources.)

Maybe one way of thinking about how the US military and the militaries of other nations depend on petroleum is to acknowledge that petroleum, sooner or later will become drastically and increasingly scarcer and more expensive.

But I don’t know what to present as even a remote possibility about what to do after making that acknowledgement. Well, actually, at least one thought comes to mind : as a matter of realism and as a matter of making an imperfect situation significantly better, we ought to seek to urgently invest in renewable energy, so to significantly reduce, though not eliminate, our nation’s inclination toward militaristically pursuing its continued access to whatever petroleum remains (along with reducing, though not eliminating, the ecological problems associated with using fossil fuels and nuclear power.)

Similar to the mentality of a nuclear arms race, using our military to get access to whatever petroleum may remain or choosing not to take that action, involves the issues of trust and distrust that have been, I venture, a part of the human psyche, since our species emerged on this planet.

Suppose the United States doesn’t use its military for continuing or enhancing its access to whatever petroleum may remain, and, suppose that, say China and/or Russia does? I guess there are multiple scenarios that you can imagine.

But I keep thinking that the people in the coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear industries would want to invest into solar, wind, geothermal and other cleaner renewable types of technologies so as to make a lot of money. Do the leaders of these fossil-fuel and nuclear based corporations think that it’s more profitable to use up all of the fossil fuels and uranium and plutonium first, and then get serious about investing into non-fossil fuel based sources of energy?

What are the pros and cons of bike lanes ?

2011-08-16T03:05:00.002-04:00

On the one hand, bike lanes afford more room. Yet, on the other hand, a motorist is less likely to see a cyclist who is riding in the bike lane or near the curb.

If I had to choose, I would rather a motorist blare their horn at me, yell at me, or even throw something at me or pick a fight with me, than have them unintentionally kill or harm me. That's why I strive to take the entire lane.

Yet, I somehow still allow those white stripes to lull me into a false sense of security. Perhaps I suspend practical thinking because it feels good to perceive bike lanes as a form of public acceptance for cyclists.

Now that I think of it, I wonder what's stopping me from rejecting those bike lanes along Morse Road between Maize and Cleveland, and opting instead to bike in the middle of the regular lane. I can imagine someone yelling from their car or truck, "use the f---king bike lane!" Perhaps that someone could even be a well-intentioned cyclist who happens to be driving or riding in a car that day.

In a few days, I may find out how far I will go in terms of applying this idea about rejecting bike lanes in favor of cycling in the middle of the regular lane. I don't expect to be in that part of town until later in the week. I intend it to be an experiment as I refine my cycling efforts. Are there benefits to bike lanes I am overlooking ?

Also, about this strategy of taking the entire lane in order to be seen, I admit it only goes so far. It likely doesn't work well in scenarios that involve very intoxicated motorists or, for example, motorists having a seizure, heart attack, or a stroke.

But in at least some situations, getting in the way of motorists and forcing them to either slow down or commit themselves to a conscious choice of hitting me is a political act.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy harmony with motorists. For example, yesterday while stopped at an intersection, a man sang out through the window of his aging sedan part of a stanza from Jethro Tull's "Aqualung," picking up where I had left off when I stopped singing in order to spray my tonsils with a jet from my water bottle.

My experience as a motorist has contributed to my ambivalence toward bike lanes. I am compellingly aware of the blind-spots between the doors and the windshield of my car.

And I admit to knowing first-hand about how multitasking while driving seems to impair my ability to notice people or objects in the periphery.

Since cycling avidly, I now strive to not even have the radio or CD player on while driving, not mention refraining from using my phone. Come to think of it, the next time I have a passenger I will invite her or him to assist me with being vigilant as we motor along.

If I had to choose in terms of how our city invests its tax dollars, bike lanes are not as good as signs telling motorists to share the road with cyclists. (If I had my way, I would add pedestrians and skateboarders, rollerbladers, and people in wheelchairs to that list. But now we're talking billboards all over the place!) Reducing speed limits and enforcing them would be a good idea also

Notes on 2010 Ride of Silence (transferred from other part of blog)

2011-08-16T03:04:00.001-04:00

Perhaps the thought of all those white guys in expensive cycling gear riding expensive bikes behind a police escort kept away the cyclists who call themselves anarchists or who call themselves revolutionaries fighting for economic justice ( most of whom are also white guys from not so disadvantaged backgrounds. )

Also, I didn't see any of the Mexican immigrant cyclists I sometimes see around Columbus, or any of the Black teenage cyclists, or any of the South Side cyclists either.

As we rolled north on High through the Short North, I realized that making a conscious effort to cycle slowly can make one's shoulders ache, along with other body parts.

But to talk about the mental and not the physical, as I rode yesterday in that crowd of cyclists, keeping my lips tight, making sure I was not going to be the one jackass to blurt something out during the Ride of Silence, a thought occurred to me. Why can't this be a celebratory ride in which we'd wave and shout out to onlookers. We could have thrown to people along the streets of the Short North, the campus area, or Weinland Park, fliers about the joys of cycling, and how it's part of a cause for economic justice.

Instead, I just smiled and waved and tried to make eye contact with people through the lenses of my sunglasses. The cloudy morning and afternoon turned into a vivid early evening. The Ride of Silence spilled north on High Street like a colorful liquid curving around parked cars.

The fliers I would have thrown would have mentioned cycling as part of a 'transportation revolution.' That's what I tell some of my Mexican coworkers when my Spanish seems inadequate for conversations about the environment or economic justice.

But as things went, multiple onlookers shouted “what's the ride for?” None of us answered, keeping to our silence, as a sort of vigil for those killed and injured while cycling. Yet perhaps we would have honored the injured and fallen cyclists more had the spectacle of four hundred or so of us been celebratory, instead of somber. Perhaps the ride could have been similar to a New Orleans-style funeral. My friend and landlord, the Piano Peddler could have been part of the carnival.

To me the Ride of Silence seemed to emphasize identity politics and a sort of victim mentality on the part of cyclists. Yes, some cyclists get injured and killed, and I may sooner or later be one of them, as I do a sort of vehicular dance with motorists on Morse Road on a regular basis. Further, I have been mugged once while cycling.

But cycling is not a cause to promote in isolation to other causes. It's connected to other issues, both environmental and socio-economic. Cycling pertains to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the injustices in our own communities right here in Columbus. Cycling is relevant in terms of the damage we're doing to our life support system, which some people such as Jame Lovelock refer to as Gaia. Like the Comfest slogan of couple of years ago stated: No planet. No Party.

The Ride of Silence somehow reminded me of queer-themed public events I have participated in over the years, in that there was that sense of a shared identity among the participants, along with a sense of righteous indignation. Amidst those queer marches and rallies of the past , I kept thinking there ought to be ways to connect that cause with other causes that pertain to justice. I feel the same way about cycling.

As the Ride of Silence made its way down Summit Street with police lights flashing and sirens chirping and burping, a child who looked to be 8 or 9 years old and who had an unkempt 'fro and was wearing a shabby t-shirt and shorts shouted out to us en mass: “ Can I go home with one of you ?”

Upon hearing his innocent question, I looked around me and got the sense that many, if not the majority of the cyclists who were participating in the Ride of Silence are people with various luxuries and political access. We were riding with the mayor and a police escort after all. The majority of the 400 or so cyclists rode expensive bikes and wore expensive cycling clothing. Also, the majority were, like me, male and Caucasian.

The question from the child with the raggedy clothes and messy 'fro reminded me of how cycling, as alternative transportation, can and should connect with socio-economic issues. To me cycling is not just about getting exercise or having a spirit of adventure, nor only about promoting cleaner air or addressing Climate Change and Peak Oil.

It can also a way to defy the custom of using automobiles to display our materialistic standing in the community, and a way to divest ourselves from a system that tends to deny low-income people without cars access to jobs, entertainment, and healthful food.

Bob Fitrakis on how newly elected Obama may affect the progressive movement ( video from '08)

2011-08-16T01:43:00.000-04:00

Columbus activist Bob Fitrakis talks about progressivism during an Obama presidency and about related issues, at the Drexel Cafe in Bexley, a community that is a part of greater Columbus.

Part of the reason I wonder about this is that Obama has seemed inclined to making civic engagement on the part of ordinary people a priority during his presidency.

To what extent does internet access narrow the 'civic divide' among social classes ?

2011-08-16T01:29:00.000-04:00

The 2008 American Civic Health Index, a report by the National Conference on Citizenship, indicated that internet access seems to be a means for narrowing the civic divide, involving factors such as income, race, and level of formal education, if I am not mistaken about that reports findings.

Perhaps, prior to the advent of the internet, socio-economic factors may have played a greater role in terms of limiting people's access to information that they would have to obtain at well-funded public libraries or from a college education.

While I am not exactly saying that the digital divide doesn't exist and also I am not saying that using the internet renders college education unnecessary, I am, however, saying that, it may be the case that the internet enables many people to, to a significant degree, pursue life-long and non-institutional learning that he or she can tailor to her or his wants and needs.

Further, I am saying that having access to the internet, as it now exists in terms of net neutrality, provides ways for people to engage civically that we, perhaps, would not otherwise have.

Save the Internet

Freepress.net

Merit, Discredit, and Identity

2011-08-16T01:24:00.000-04:00

Whatever someone may think, write, say, sing, pantomime or otherwise express-good or bad- about the United States; China; Russia; Nazi Germany; a pre-European-colonial or pre-Arab-influenced African kingdom or society; the Aztecs; the Mayans; the Incas; the Iroquoi; the Navajo; the Ancient Romans; the Ancient Greeks; the Babylonians; and so on involves a reflection upon the human species, not a reflection on, in the final analysis, any particular civilization, society, nation, 'race', ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexuality, class and so on.

How does this concept connect to the phenomenon of group-identity-based senses of entitlement, superiority, inferiority, or victimhood?

How do our nation's ideals compare w/ the reality of US foreign and domestic policy ?

2011-08-16T01:20:00.001-04:00

How does your understanding of the ideals that US political and cultural leaders, past and present, have expressed compare with your understanding of the reality of US foreign policy toward nations such as Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Greece,Nicaragua, Indonesia, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, and Israel ?

An idea that some people have had in terms of being critical regarding US foreign policy is to seek to make US foreign policy more consistent with our nation's often expressed ideals. Many of such persons regard themselves as patriots.

It seems that some commentators, usually those, if I am not mistaken, who regard themselves as 'conservatives' label as 'America haters' people who are critical to one or more aspects of US foreign policy.

I venture that there is a contingent of people on what could be called the 'far left' (and also a contingent of people on what could be called the 'far right') who not only are critical of US foreign policy (and US domestic policy also) but who want to overthrow the US government.

But it seems to me that many, if not most or the vast majority of, the people who draw attention to what they regard as the disconnect between, on the one hand, our nation's professed values concerning democracy, freedom, and individual rights, and, on the other hand, our nation's foreign policy, do so because they want to reduce, if not correct, the discrepancy between what our nation preaches and what our nation practices. They don't want to overthrow our government.

To what extent do you think it's realistic for members of US society to think that we can influence our political and cultural leaders, so as to make our nation's foreign policy more consistent with the ideals we profress regarding what we stand for as a nation?

LONGING TO EXPERIENCE GREATER EMPATHY, AND IMAGINING THE REWARDS

2011-08-15T23:33:00.001-04:00

(From Long Essay, 2002)

As I write out these thoughts about what seems to me to be the configuration of human beings and other species, in terms of what seems to be the inevitability, of at least some degree of zero-sum scenarios, I wonder how I can distinguish, as I mentioned above, between, on the one hand, making excuses, and giving myself license to be immoral, and, on the other hand, genuinely facing up to the reality of how human beings are configured, that is , that sometimes I must choose sides, and that sometimes I must cause harm, in one form or another, and that sometimes I must accept I’m unable to help someone.

Regarding this matter, one thought I have is that, if I and other human beings strive to be as honest as we can in terms of dealing with how human beings function, in terms of our dealings with each other and other sentient beings; and in terms of the configuration of human mental phenomena, then, that may enable myself and other human beings, to more closely approximate a perfect state of affairs, as defined by the complete well-being of every sentient being.

Actually, attempting to approximate that ideal perhaps is more meaningfully expressed as human beings genuinely seeking to minimize the extent to which we inflict suffering upon human and other sentient beings, accounting for the fact that non-human factors bear upon whether human and other sentient beings suffer.

Regarding the matter of me being tempted to copout, using my thoughts about the inevitability of zero-sum scenarios as an excuse for me to be immoral, my thought is that what motivates me to not make such excuses is my own self interest. If I copout, I stand to lose, in the long run.

Regarding my conception of a perfect state of affairs, I have been wondering about my own desire for such a state of affairs. I have wondered about me desiring such a state of affairs so strongly that such a desire fills my entire being.

I don’t understand this though, given that a perfect state of affairs seems unlikely to ever exist. I guess I have had this thought about me genuinely desiring that there be such a state of affairs, but accepting, with genuine reluctance, the fact that such a state of affairs can be approximated, though not attained, because I may have suspected that I seemed to somehow be glad that our state of affairs is imperfect, and that there is suffering.

To think of it in another way, perhaps I wasn’t glad about the suffering of others, but rather, I was relieved by thinking that it is a matter of reality that I have limitations in terms of what I can do about the suffering of others; and that making myself miserable by obsessing about the suffering of others, would not, in itself, contribute to the well-being of others.

I imagine that it is a nice state of mind to be in when I deem that I am genuinely doing my best to follow my conscience.

I am not sure why I am attracted to the idea of me genuinely desiring there to be total happiness and no suffering. Perhaps I sense that I would experience some sort of psychological liberation via having such a genuine desire. Perhaps such a genuine desire for a perfect state of affairs would be such that I could escape from my preoccupations concerning my pride and vanity.

Perhaps, I sense that when I outgrow my ‘pride’ and ‘vanity’ there is nothing, or much less, to fear. I think of this idea about genuinely desiring there to be such a perfect state of affairs being such that I long for it with the intensity that I have longed for other things such as what I deemed at one time to be the liberation of sexual activity or the joy of acclaim.

I am not sure if I can long for the perfect state of affairs given that the thought of it may be too abstract for me to have strong emotions over it. Perhaps, what I can have is strong emotions with regards to my concern for specific human beings or some other specific sentient being.

I am not sure how this strong emotion that I mentioned earlier would come about. I am not sure if it would come about via my concern for a loved one or whether it could also come about by me somehow becoming concerned about someone I don’t know.

A thought that occurs to me is that there is something appealing to me about me disliking the fact that the perfect state of affairs does not exist. Perhaps I sense that there is something I don’t like about myself, if I somehow like the fact that there is suffering.

For lack of a better way of putting it, an aspect of what has appealed to me about having a concern for the feelings of others, is that it seems that via having such a concern I seem to transcend my sexual/romantic frustration and my fears about ‘losing face’ and my fears about being disrespected or not accepted, and my fears about being harmed in some way, and my vague sense on ‘missing out on life’.

Perhaps the issue regards being true to myself. Indeed, I want to live life to the fullest enjoyment I can get from it. Perhaps an aspect to doing that involves me caring about the thoughts and feelings of others through my companionship and community with others.

Perhaps there is a certain burden that I bear as a result of being ‘overly concerned’ about ‘my own feelings’; and that such a burden is lessoned via me taking a genuine interest in the thoughts, feelings, and welfare of others. It seems, at first perhaps, paradoxical: to get more satisfaction, I need to take more of an interest in the welfare of others.

As I stated in an earlier chapter, if I make changes to how I live my life such that I deem that I make some sort of ethical progress, it is not a matter that I have begun to become less motivated by self-interest due to concerning myself more about others. Rather, if I make what I deem to be moral progress, I have changed the manner in which I relate to myself.

I think that the dimension to my self interest which motivates me to take more of an interest in the thoughts and feelings of others is that I deem that by doing so, I enhance myself, given that my various states of awareness comprise that which I term my ‘self’. It follows that if I do what I deem to be increasing my awareness, I am, consequently, enhancing my ‘self’.

The attractiveness of the idea of me having a genuine desire for there to be a perfect state of affairs may be related to me sensing that to do so, would involve me expanding my ‘self’, in the sense that my awareness comprises my ‘self’.

I have written in other parts of this essay about doing what is good for me with as little harm as possible to others. I wonder whether it is possible for me to harm others while genuinely disliking the fact that I am doing so.

There may be a type or degree of satisfaction that requires me to empathize in a manner that transcends my immediate concerns and perhaps even transcends my own lifetime.

There seems to be a certain sort of psychological liberation that I get from being concerned about others in such a way that I am concerned with matters that will or may occur when I no longer exist.

Perhaps, ‘conscientiousness’ is a psychological state that results from both, one, a person’s intention to get some sort of personal satisfaction that he or she is aware may result from her or his actions, and, two, a person’s ‘subconscious drive’ towards getting some sort of reward.

Perhaps related to various aspects of the question about the soundness of my theory about most closely approximating a perfect state of affairs is the fact that I determined that I could not figure out how to go about living my life such that my actions would bring about the most good for the most people.

A question I have regarding the premise about what brings about the closest approximation of the perfect state of affairs is whether it is possible for me or any other human being to have a practical sense of what brings about the closest approximation of the perfect state of human affairs; or a practical sense of what it would involve. A thought that I have is that all I can have a sense of is whether I am living up to my potential for happiness.

Does Human Nature Evolve ?

2011-08-15T23:31:00.000-04:00

(From Long Essay)

It may be the case that various psychological features of our species may change through some sort of evolutionary process, spanning thousands or millions of years. That view seems consistent with evolutionary thought, given that the prevailing theories currently hold that the features of humankind evolved over thousands and millions of years, in adaptation to circumstances.

So, it would follow that this process is continuing as we speak, though, likely, unnoticeable to most if not all of us, due to the graduality of the process.

Having said this, I wonder whether concerning myself with how various individual human beings can make an impact on such changes to ‘human nature’ would be meaningful. To what extent do the ‘choices’ of individual human beings have an impact on the evolutionary processes regarding the psychological features of our species?

In light of my daydream about some sort of super-sentient or some type of new creature that, through some sort of ingeniousness which is inscrutable to ‘ordinary humans’, meets its needs while doing less harm than humans, I wonder, as a sort of casual thought, whether, for example, Ghandi’s approach of non-violent resistance was more than his particular means to address the political situations he faced.

I wonder whether Ghandi was prototypical in some way, signaling what may be the beginning of some sort of step forward in terms of the evolution of the human psyche.

By writing ‘step forward’, I don’t necessarily mean that such a change would be an improvement or would not be an improvement. I am not arguing that evolution is an ongoing process of improvement.

To speak about improvement implies a value system. Based on my starting point for this essay-that a perfect state of affairs would be one in which there was complete satisfaction for every sentient being, I deem that I do not know if, somehow, human evolution involves a process whereby human beings, in sum, more closely approximate the perfect state of affairs.

The stumbling block I have had with Ghandi’s approach is that, through it, a person does not achieve the goal of avoiding causing suffering. It seems to me that to refrain from causing harm or pain to certain sentient beings, one, at least in some cases, necessarily, causes harm or pain to happen to some other sentient being or beings.