Report Back from Fracking Meeting in Allegan
This article was written by Nicole Berens-Capizzi.
A meeting took place in Allegan County on January 9 to “educate” local residents about oil and gas leases and horizontal hydraulic fracturing. This meeting was sponsored by Allegan Farm Bureau and the Michigan State University (MSU) extension office. The speakers included Bill Mitchell of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Curtis Talley, the MSU Extension Area Farm Management Educator, Luke Miller of Miller Energy (who is also a representative of the Michigan Oil and Gas Association), and a lawyer specializing in oil and gas leases. Later in the meeting this writer discovered that there were individuals from numerous environmental groups, including Michigan Land Air Water Defense (MLAWD) and a group from Fennville whose philosophy is to look for alternatives to fossil fuels. There were many farmers in the audience, some of whom were also involved with environmental groups.
Before introducing the speakers, the individual who began the meeting briefly discussed Michigan’s role in oil and gas production, saying that Michigan has over a trillion cubic feet of capacity for oil and gas. She said that because of landmen and individuals willing to lease their land for oil and gas exploration, Michigan ranks high in oil and gas production. In relation to landowners leasing their property for this purpose, she stated that “regulations can seem overwhelming to a person not used to dealing with them”. After this brief discussion, she introduced the speakers.
Bill Mitchell of the DEQ was the first presenter. Before beginning his presentation, he reiterated to the audience that the DEQ does not work for the oil or gas industry, and they are not paid by them. He stated that the DEQ’s job is simply to enforce the laws regarding oil and gas exploration. Mr. Mitchell showed a map of Michigan that highlighted where oil and natural gas wells are located throughout the state. Much of the activity was located on or near the Antrim Shale, where many vertical wells have been installed. Mr. Mitchell repeated on at least two occasions at the beginning of his presentation that what is happening in Michigan (in terms of oil and gas exploration) is not unlike what’s happening in other areas of the country. While this statement was likely meant to make the audience feel at ease with the whole process, this would be more appropriately seen as a warning given what is happening in other states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Mr. Mitchell briefly discussed oil and gas wells in Allegan County, though he did not discuss specific locations. In his presentation he stated that Allegan County has 196 oil wells, 16 brine disposal wells, 10 natural gas wells, and 217 gas storage wells. In reference to “brine”, Mr. Mitchell repeatedly stated throughout his presentation that brine is nothing more than salt water and is not the same as the “flowback water” that contains all of the chemicals used in the fracking process. This confused many members of the audience, as was evidenced by the fact that throughout his presentation and others, people continued to ask for clarification of the term. For those of us who have studied fracking, “brine” is the term used by the industry to describe the flowback water, which includes not only salt but the chemicals used in the fracking process. While Mr. Mitchell claimed brine and flowback water are two separate things, later in the day he used the terms “brine disposal wells” and “flowback disposal wells” in reference to the same thing.
Included in Mr. Mitchell’s presentation was a brief discussion of the DEQ’s role in the oil and gas leasing process. He said that the first step for oil and gas companies is to obtain leases, and the DEQ plays no role in this. The DEQ gets involved when oil and gas companies seek a permit for “exploration” purposes, at which point the DEQ verifies that they have acquired mineral and surface rights.
Mr. Mitchell also made a distinction between hydraulic fracturing and horizontal and vertical drilling. In a nutshell, he said drilling is the first step and hydraulic fracturing is “a completion process”. He noted that there have been concerns about fracking because of “media attention” on the issue, and attempted to reassure the audience that fracking is safe because there are over 12,000 wells in Michigan and it has been done safely for years. After an audience member asked for more information on those 12,000 wells, Mr. Mitchell admitted that the majority of those wells have been vertically drilled, as opposed to the newer, horizontally drilled wells that people are even more concerned about. One individual said she thought it would be prudent for water quality tests to be done prior to this exploration, at which point Mr. Mitchell said that “it isn’t the DEQ’s job to keep track of the chemicals used, just to enforce the laws”. More questions from the audience followed. At the end of his presentation, Mr. Mitchell took a seat at the back of the room next to Mr. Miller.
Between presentations this writer observed a volunteer with MLAWD asking one of the individuals hosting the meeting if he could hand out information on MLAWD or put some of his flyers on the table with the other literature handed out for the presentation. The first person he spoke with referred him to one person, who suggested he talk to another person, and the third person he spoke with pointed him back to the first person he spoke with, at which point he explained that person referred him to them. In the end, they said he couldn’t distribute his flyers. The meeting already seemed pro-industry before, but this refusal to officially allow literature from another perspective made it seem even more so. To be fair, this writer also brought information to hand out at the meeting and did so between presentations and on lunch break without anyone stopping her.
The second presenter was Curtis Talley from the MSU extension. He stated that he has experience negotiating with oil and gas companies in Colorado. His presentation focused more on how a landowner can get the most out of their money, making a comparison between crop farming and being a mineral rights owner. Mr. Talley encouraged audience members to “treat underground resources the way you’d treat your above ground resources”, meaning that mineral rights owners should not be willing to accept the first offer.
Economics was a big focus of this presentation, but audience members continued to ask questions and raise concerns about fracking and the leasing process. One audience asked, “How public are lease rates?” Mr Talley responded, “Not very public.” Another person asked “Who’s our advocate?” “The person in the mirror,” was Mr. Talley’s response. The person replied, “No wonder they’re making so much money,” which made some people laugh. “That’s business,” responded Mr. Talley. Then someone asked “How much does it cost to ship it to China?” This question made people laugh even more, including the presenters. Mr. Talley didn’t seem to know how to answer this question, saying that the natural gas might have to be liquified, and also stating that “markets overseas for natural gas are higher than they are here”. Some individuals raised concerns about compulsory pooling should they refuse drilling on their property. Mr. Talley touted the “benefits” of compulsory pooling, saying that an individual will still get paid, albeit a lower percentage of royalties. Based on the research this writer has done, this statement conflicts with the stories of some individuals who have been forced into compulsory pooling. When asked about the involvement of banks when there’s a mortgage on the home, Mr. Talley said that banks typically love properties that are being explored for oil and gas because if a homeowner defaults on a loan, the oil and gas companies will pay for it.
The last two presentations occurred after a short lunch break. These two were also the shortest. Luke Miller of Miller Energy gave a brief presentation on the process of hydraulic fracturing, again making a distinction between vertical/horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Throughout this presentation he stated that drilling for oil and gas is safe and has been done in Michigan for many years without incident. One audience member brought up the hydrogen sulfide gas leak that occurred in northern Michigan a couple of winters ago. This presenter and the others diminished this event, stating that the levels of hydrogen sulfide in the leak weren’t enough to be toxic to humans.
The last presentation was done by a lawyer specializing in oil and gas leases. He made a disclaimer that he is not an expert on the topic (it is assumed he meant the topic of fracking), and also talked about his background growing up on a farm. Like Mr. Talley, he continuously stated that people need to know what they’re signing up for, and they need to do their research first. He admitted that landmen will sometimes use tactics that make the landowner feel like they are required to sign a lease, and they will even pit neighbors against eachother. An individual asked if there was a way for a landowner to look up specific landmen in order to know their tactics, but the presenter said there wasn’t. While this presenter talked a bit about environmental concerns, the majority of the focus was on the economics of leasing and how to get the most out of a lease.
There was a question and answer period after all of the presentations were done. Members of the audience continued asking questions about environmental concerns related to fracking, and this seemed to bother Mr. Mitchell. When one audience member raised concerns about gas companies not cleaning up toxic spills, Mr. Mitchell snapped at this person, saying that gas companies are required to clean up any spills. It is worth noting here that most fracking sites are exempt from superfund laws, meaning they are not legally obligated to clean up any spills resulting from their operation. This same audience member mentioned that gas companies are exempt from the Clean Water Act, and Mr. Mitchell snapped back that they are not exempt. For the record, gas companies are exempt from certain key provisions of the Clean Water Act. Another person made reference to all the chemicals used and how some of them are “trade secret”. Mr. Mitchell denied that any of the chemicals are trade secret and said a list of chemicals used are available on their website.
Overall, this meeting was a disappointment for those hoping to learn the facts about fracking and how landowners are impacted. As someone who has studied the impact of fracking on farmers and communities, this meeting was particularly disappointing because these concerns were not addressed, yet the audience was full of individuals for whom these issues are very relevant. The meeting was clearly biased toward the oil and gas industry, as evidenced by the lack of useful information on fracking, nondisclosure agreements, and health issues, to name a few concerns, not to mention the dismissal and/or denial of concerns brought up by audience members. That being said, it was very encouraging that there were more than a handful of individuals that continued to ask questions about some of the issues the speakers were avoiding discussing.
Damocracy the Movie
This information is re-posted from EcoWatch.
Damocracy is a short documentary that exposes the myth of dams as ‘green’ energy through two examples from Amazonia and Mesopotamia. Filmmaker Todd Southgate travels from the deepest corners of the vast Amazon rainforest in Brazil to the mountains and plains of fertile upper Mesopotamia in south east Turkey. He meets academics, lawyers, campaigners and local communities whose livelihood is threatened by two monster dam projects—Belo Monte in Brazil and Ilisu in Turkey.
The documentary shows the potential disasters these dams would cause on cultural heritage, wildlife and local communities who rely on the rich natural resources provided by the Tigris and Xingu rivers. The film also questions the sanity of climate change solutions that depend on the destruction of “the lungs of the Earth” and “the cradle of civilization.” It is a call to action to save this priceless natural and cultural heritage being gambled for the interests of a few.
The documentary will be released in February 2013.
Arrogance and the Creative Class in West Michigan
Ever since the 2007-2008 global economic crash, one mantra that has been repeated over and over about ways to both solve the economic crisis locally, is the mantra of retaining and attracting the “creative class.”
People in business, government and even the non-profit world invoke Richard Florida’s claim that what brings back cities is a group of people he refers to as the creative class. This usually translates as young, urban, white professionals who are somewhat forward thinking on social issues and entrepreneurial in spirit.
I discovered an invocation of the creative class in an article posted on Stellafly Social Media, entitled Steve Frazee and Bill Holsinger-Robinson: Your guides to tending the local economic rainforest.
The focus of the article is on the new HUB Grand Rapids, which, according to the group’s website, is a new kind of membership club dedicated to the individuals and teams building the local, sustainable economy in Grand Rapids and beyond.
However, it was the comments in the Stellafly article that were particularly instructive.
It’s all about developing a community of creative people, knowledge workers. It’s the core of the super-creative class – the 3 percent of the community who do most of the creative work,” Frazee said. “We’re bringing those people together and giving them things to start to make their lives more interesting and effective.
And what exactly will these people be doing……..ending poverty, figuring out ways to drastically reduce global warming, make health care affordable to everyone or stop rape and other hate crimes. Not even close. The HUB will be all about thinking of new ways to assist existing businesses and start new for profit ventures that will primarily serve those who already have tremendous privilege in this society.
In addition, what the hell do they mean by the “super-creative class – the 3 percent of the community who do most of the creative work?” Nowhere do they really define creative work, but it seems quite arrogant of them to make such a claim when all kinds of people, in all walks of life engage in creativity in this community.
Think of all the working class people who don’t make enough money to really make ends meet, but many of them do because they creatively can make every dollar count. What about all the artists in this community who aren’t primarily motivated by money, but provide venues of all kinds of artistic expression – places like Mexicains Sans Frontieres or the regular activities hosted by Avenue for the Arts.
Then there are all of the passionate and creative people at the grassroots level who are addressing violence in the community, making it safer for women, immigrants and other sectors of society who are the targets of violence and hate. Most of these people do amazingly creative work, for little or no money, with an outcome that is unquantifiable. Are these people not “super-creative.”
The HUB has already received $300,000 from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, which means some of that money is taxpayer money. Shit, if these people are so creative, why do they need to be subsidized by the public?
The Stellafly article also lists entities that have offered the group support, such as Adtegrity; Atomic Object; Cascade Engineering; Huntington Bank; Grand Rapids Community Foundation; Grand Valley State University; Huron River Ventures; Spectrum Innovations; StartGarden; and the City of Grand Rapids. In many ways the usual suspects in promoting business projects that will primarily benefit those who already have easy access to capital.
Lastly, it is worth noting how they keep using the metaphor of the rainforest for what they are doing. This is also instructive, since a rainforest is extremely bio-diverse ecosystem, which does not exactly fit with the 3 percent super creative class notion. A rainforest would be an apt metaphor for including all people and all species as necessary components to make any system thrive, from the smallest insect to the largest tree.
But hey, maybe the HUB of Grand Rapids will figure out a way to stop the capitalist class from destroying what remains of the real rainforest around the world.
Guatemalans Resist Invasion of North American Mines
This article by Helen Jaccard and Gerry Condon is re-posted from ZNet. Editor’s Note: We are reposting this story as a follow up to an article we posted on January 7 about a West Michigan mining company’s expansion. This re-posting is also relevant, since there are hundreds of Guatemalans from the Huehuetenango region, which is cited in the story.
In November we traveled to Guatemala to study Spanish and learn about the lives of the indigenous Maya people. Guatemala is an amazingly beautiful country, with countless mountains and valleys, and 22 volcanoes, the most in Central America. The people are very friendly and good humored. Traditional Mayan culture, mostly observed in the colorful dress of the Mayan women, lives side by side with modernity. Picture a traditionally dressed indigenous peasant woman tending her cattle and sheep on a hillside pasture. Now watch her pull a cell phone out of her skirt to call her children.
We are not just Spanish students and certainly not “tourists” in the usual sense. We are active members of Veterans For Peace, and we are very concerned about the U.S. role in Central America. The legacy of the 36-year war waged by the Guatemalan military against its indigenous people is everywhere. A peace agreement was signed in 1996, but many people we met, especially in the mountainous Mayan communities, told us the war continues – through discrimination, poverty, lack of voice in government, and now the systematic destruction of their communities in favor of gold and silver mining, hydroelectric dams, cement plants and oil exploration.
We learned again about the CIA engineered coup that overthrew the progressive, democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954. Sponsored by the Eisenhower administration at the behest of the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita), the coup led to a 36-year long war of “scorched earth” genocide. More than 440 Mayan villages were destroyed and over 200,000 people died in massacres by the Guatemalan military, with aid and encouragement from the United States government.
An unjust order prevails to this day. Most of the land and wealth is in the hands of only eight families. To make matters worse, between 2000 and 2004 the Guatemalan government granted over 400 mining and extraction licenses to U.S. and Canadian mining companies who seek gold, silver and other precious metals that are right under the feet of the poor Mayan communities in the mountains. With massive profits to take away from Guatemala, the mining operations are carrying out a “scorched earth” policy of their own.
Huehuetenango
After studying Spanish for two weeks at San Pedro Laguna on Lake Atitlan (highly recommended), we stayed with a family in Huehuetenango, close to Chiapas, Mexico, which used to be part of Guatemala. We visited the small mountain town of Jacaltenango, where we met Bernardo Masariegos, a community leader who told us of the struggles in the department (state) of Huehuetenango against mines, hydroelectric dams, and petroleum extraction. The people of Huehuetenango, the most indigenous and rural department of Guatemala, adamantly oppose such exploitation. 
In successful opposition to a hydroelectric dam on the Mesté River, a grassroots movement of 9,000 to 14,000 people maintained a three year long nonviolent occupation (rotating about 100 people at a time) at the main square of Jacaltenango, swelling to more than 6,000 for every protest event. “All of the people who protest have no education,” Bernardo told us, “Only ten to twelve people in the movement were teachers and two to three were university teachers. They were the real people, the poor people.”
Indigenous peoples have an international and national constitutional right not to have their natural resources used without their knowledge and informed consent. This is called the consulta comunitaria de buena fe, or good faith community referendum. Twenty six of the 32 municipios (counties) in Huehuetenango voted against the mines in local referendums.
Our visit to the Marlin mine and affected communities
The huge Marlin Gold Mine is near the town of San Miguel Ixtahuacán, high in the rugged mountains of the department of San Marcos. It is operated by Montana Exploradora, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian company Goldcorp. It is both an open pit and tunneling mine. This region is already damaged by decades of war.
On December 6, 2012, accompanied by community organizer Aniseto López, we visited people affected by the Marlin Mine, adjacent to several indigenous communities in the department of San Marcos. According to Amnesty International, in February 2011, protesters in north-western Guatemala’s San Marcos region were attacked after speaking out against the Marlin Mine. Aniseto López was taken to the local mayor’s office, where officials beat him and threatened to kill him if he continued to speak out against the mine.
In San Marcos, we visited:
The community of Ágel and a group called FREDEMI “Frente de Defensa Miguelense, San Miguel Ixtahuacán” (Front for the Defense of San Miguel Ixtahuacán). They have been resisting the mining activities since 2007. In February 2010, FREDEMI organized a protest in which 700 people blocked the entrance to the mine for 13 days.
Diodora Hernandez, who was shot in the eye for refusing to sell her land to Goldcorp.
Solomon, who worked for Goldcorp for two years. He said, “They arrived in 1996 to explore and in 2003 started to settle in with machines – now people are starting to realize how serious the situation is. There are four problems – water (contamination, dead animals, skin rashes and hair loss), cracks in the houses, explosives rocking the land, and the earth.”
On December 10 – 12 we visited a proposed mining project, El Tambor, about an hour’s bus ride from Guatemala City. Kappes, Cassiday & Associates of Reno, Nevada owns the license. Between the towns of San Jose del Golfo and San PedroAyampuc is an area called La Puya, and the entrance to the mining area. Hundreds of residents of local communities have maintained a successful nonviolent occupation here since March 2, 2012.
We arrived late and spent the first night sleeping on a wooden platform in the middle of the occupation. This and having Spanish language flyers handy to explain who we are helped us to be welcome here.
Company and police violence meets nonviolent resistance
Only days before we arrived at La Puya, on Friday, December 7, 2012, the police violently attacked the La Puya occupiers with tear gas and batons. Nearly 2,000 members of the National Police from all over Guatemala descended on the encampment. In the morning, there were only 20 people from the community – they lay down in front of the police and discreetly made phone calls – soon the church bells in the nearby town rang the alarm. By the afternoon 1,500 community members had come to support the occupiers. 
Paola Aquino Gutierrez’ 12 year old daughter was severely beaten by the police. “My 12 year old daughter was beaten Friday – she is still sore physically but more so psychologically,” Aquino told us five days later. “I have never beaten my daughter and now a police woman did. Many people still have sore throats from the tear gas that was used against us. We were on the ground when the tear gas was thrown right over our heads. My daughter and I are even more determined than ever to continue this struggle.”
Two women and a girl required medical attention after being sprayed with tear gas and four resistance leaders were arrested.
”The police captured four of us in order to scare the others, but they weren’t scared, they were even more brave, so they started calling people for help”, said Jorge López. “We are here to defend our water, our life and our territory.” In police custody, after two hours of lying in the hot sun with no food, water, or even a chance to pee, the captives were taken to two courts that refused to hear the case because of lack of charges or evidence, and released.
This is a completely nonviolent resistance, which, according to organizers, was key to preventing deaths when the police attacked with tear gas and batons.
Water shortage and being forced off of the land
The climate has become drier here. The rainy season used to start in May, but now it is dry. Lack of rain is causing crop failure in many areas of Guatemala this year. On top of that, communities that had barely enough water to survive are seeing the mining companies steal their water for processing ore. Wells, springs, and streams near mines are drying up.
The Marlin mine had a mechanical well, but it’s already dry. They are building another well closer to the spring. The people are afraid that they will soon have no water. Cristana Pérez said, “We tried to talk to the manager where they are building the mechanical well, but security people come instead and said that if we continue to fight them, they will prosecute us. The manager is saying that the well is built in consultation with the local community – it is not.”
Solomon told us, “In 1987 the community bought the spring, which gave water until last year – now it is dry. The human rights commission told the company to provide water, but we got none.”
The Marlin mine has also displaced communities. For example, there were at least 60 homes on the hillside that is now a hole in the ground.
At the El Tambor site, people are also concerned about lack of water and being forced off of their land.
“For me, the motivation is life – life itself. I’ve been here for 71 years and managed to live a tranquil life. I’ve been able to live my life being happy, so I want my children also to be able to live a happy life. If we don’t have water, if we don’t have trees, and all of that, it’s just going to be a desert,” said one man, “We struggle for life, water, and peace. If we don’t have this gold, we’ll still be able to live. But if we don’t have water, we’ll die.”
Milton Carrera explained about the water shortage, “We are fighting because if they come here, we won’t have water. We are very, very short on water. Some communities only have water maybe one hour a week. Other communities, like the big town, we only have water for one hour a day. The company is located where all of the wells are – right here. The water for the town, the wells are close to here. So what’s going to happen for us, if in 5 or 10 years we don’t have water?
Water contamination, health problems, dead animals
Mines also contaminate the water. The Marlin mine has a tailing pond containing the acidic mixture of cyanide, arsenic, heavy and radioactive metals, explosives, and other chemicals – normal for a mine using cyanide to extract gold. On September 23, 2010 at night, this contaminated water was discharged into the Quivichil River, which runs into Mexico.
Crisanta Pérez told us, “On Nov 29, 2012 we went to look at the spring and found pipes from the mine discharging into the river that goes through the community – it is now a contaminated river.”
Both FREDEMI and Solomon told us about a lot of skin problems and hair loss. According to Solomon, “In 2008-09 various people have had skin problems – two of them died. Their bodies were covered with painful rashes, and then they died.”
Cattle have been dying from drinking the water from the river. Diodora Hernandez told us, “The mother of a calf was poisoned. The water was pure white, like milk.” Her horse also died from the poisoned water. There are many other reports from shepherds whose cattle have died after drinking water downstream from the mine.
Division and Conflict
When mining companies start their propaganda campaign near a mining site, they cause divisions – in families and in communities. Aniseto López told us, “In the community, they are always in conflict – the environment is so thick with conflict that you can breathe it – conflict between those that support and those that are against the mine.”
“We were peaceful communities before all of this”, said one 71 year old man at La Puya, referring to the mining license.
Among 75 local men who work at the Marlin mine, many have left their wives and children for other women, without paying anything to help support their original family – something they would not do had they not had more money in their pockets, said Crisanta of FREDEMI. “We are really sorry about this, because a long time ago it was better – we went to the farms – men and women worked together to pick the coffee – there was no division between families.”
Many of the miners and affected community members turn to heavy drinking and drug use, Solomon told us. “There had been only 4 bars/liquor stores – now there are 100.”
At a Health Tribunal held at San Miguel Ixtahuacán on July 14-15 2012,one man testified: “There is prostitution, crime, pollution of Mother Earth. The workers, the Cocodes (local authorities), have beaten me up. When they are under the influence of alcohol, they come to my home and threaten me”
Intimidation, violence and corruption
The Marlin mine bosses will stop at nothing and have an arrogant attitude toward the Mayan people whose land they are destroying. They force entire villages to leave their land and pay very little for the land they buy, according to FREDEMI. When met with resistance, they falsely accuse people of crimes, and even shoot and kill them. They intentionally poison animals – dogs, horses, cows, and chickens.
The mining explosions rock the area. Together with tunneling and the constant traffic of heavy trucks, over 100 homes have been severely damaged with big cracks. The big trucks drive fast and run over the chickens and dogs. People are pressured to sell their land, and to stop talking about the effects of the mine. The police are bought off by the mine, so do not prosecute these crimes. The Minister of the Environment, in charge of making a report about the contamination, was being hosted by Goldcorp.
On March 12, 2007 Alvaro Sánchez, a Mayan villager living near the Marlin mine was murdered by mine workers during a heated discussion.
Diodora Hernandez refused to sell her land to the company and in 2010 two mine employees came and shot her in the eye. “I won’t sell my land – never. If I sold, where would I put my animals?” In another incident, she went to a meeting and a man threatened to kill her with a machete.
Solomon worked for the company for two years, and then started speaking out against it when he saw the problems. He said that the company comes to his home – sometimes at night – to intimidate him. He has been falsely accused of five crimes, a common tactic against mine resisters.
Crisanta Pérez of FREDEMI was also falsely charged her with a crime. “Because of the arrest warrant, I left my family and moved from place to place, hiding out for six months. When I returned home, they captured me – but by that time, people were more aware, and they blocked the police car and freed me after two hours.” Another man in the community was beaten to death.
Milton Carrera at La Puya said, “We used to have a little goat farm. They killed all my animals – about two months ago. Another of my family has a fish farm and a few months ago they put poison into the fish pond and they killed about 2,000 fish. Another lady had chickens at her house and they threw in poisoned corn.
“They shot one lady June 13…she still has the bullet, only two inches from her spine… Only God knows how she’s still walking. She has nerve problems, but she’s a very strong lady. She stopped the confrontation last Friday – if it wasn’t for her, there would have been a bunch of people killed here.”
We spoke with Yolanda “Yoli” Oquely Veliz, 33 years old, the community leader who survived the assassination attempt of June 13, 2012 after receiving death threats. She was shot three times while leaving the La Puya resistance occupation.
Communities are fighting for their survival
There are seven communities within 700 meters of the proposed mine. The Environmental Impact Study proposes removing these communities. The people have been living here for 300 or 400 years. “How can they expect us to move, when we don’t even know where we would go?”
Deodora Oliva lives about 700 meters from the mine. “See that hill there?” She points to a hill about 100 yards from the camp. “I live on the other side of that hill and they’re going to disappear that hill. I’m afraid that my village is going to disappear eventually, because the hill is right in front of my village.” In just two of the closest villages there are about 150 houses, about 1,000 people.
Milton Carrera told us, “We told the government they have to kill us. The government has to kill us in order to go inside. A lot of people decided, if they have to die, they will, to save the land for the next generation. Please tell your government that we’re humans, not animals and should have our rights respected.”
Being killed for this struggle is no idle concern. On October 4, 2012 at least seven people were killed and more than 30 injured by soldiers of the Guatemalan army near Totonicapán, about 90 miles west of Guatemala City. Unarmed indigenous people there were blockading the Inter-American highway to protest against changes in the constitution, changes to education laws that make teaching careers impossible for poor people, increasing energy prices, inadequate services, and being forced to pay for street lighting that doesn’t even reach them. According to Al Jazeera, “The indigenous community in Totonicapán is well organized, widely respected, and has historically pursued a strategy of engagement and negotiation with the government to resolve disputes. That the state would respond with violence on such a scale sparked fears about its willingness to brutally suppress protest and flout human rights.” Fortunately, a colonel and eight soldiers have been arrested and President Otto Perez Molino, former general, who was trained at the School of the Americas, has said that he will no longer deploy the army to protests. It was the National Police, not the Army, who recently attacked the people at La Puya.
Neoliberal trade agreements: intervention by other means
According to “Open Doors to Resource Extraction” by Guatemala’s Pastoral Commission for Peace and Ecology (COPAE), translated by Network in Solidarity with the People of Guatemala (NISGUA):
“In 1524, the pillaging of the natural wealth of Guatemala and Central American began with the arrival of the imperial interests of Spain. Today, the United States is intervening in a similar fashion, although more discretely, by way of imbalanced neoliberal trade agreements such as the Central and North American Free Trade Agreements (CAFTA, NAFTA).
Throughout the long history of the exploitation of Central America, among the only challenges to this system were the ones implemented during the 10-year period in Guatemala known as the “October Revolution” (1944-1954). At that time, two social-democrat presidents enacted laws in favor of the nation and the people of Guatemala. During that period, resource extraction by foreign-owned companies was banned. Part of the “development” strategy designed by the United States and implemented as part of the counterrevolution throughout Guatemala’s 36-year internal conflict (1960-1996), involved strengthening the private business sector and promoting foreign investment, which served to lay the groundwork for the all-out exploitation that we are facing today.
With CAFTA, Central American countries are essentially concessioned off for 50 years, rendering governments effectively powerless, without the right to supervise or regulate foreign companies. Chapter 10 of CAFTA, the chapter related to foreign investment, sets an unequal legal playing field– it is very difficult for a state to take legal action against a multinational company, while investor companies can sue the state as they please for loss or potential loss of profit caused by any change in regulation, law, or policy.
The Mining Law in Guatemala, implemented by the neoliberal government of President Alvaro Arzu (1995-1999), dictates that 99% of revenues be repatriated by multinational companies, leaving royalties in Guatemala of only 1%, a reform based on the neoliberal ideology that aims to attract foreign investment by creating favorable conditions for investors at the expense of the benefit to the population.”
La Lucha Continua
Clearly, imperialism’s war against Guatemala and its indigenous people has not ended. U.S. and Canadian mining corporations, aided by unfair trade agreements and collaborators in the Guatemalan government, are systematically destroying Mayan communities, while taking 99% of the enormous profits back to North America.
The resistance of Mayan and other Guatemalan communities also continues. It is no longer an armed resistance, but it is strong, deep and broad. Rural communities, such as at La Puya, are employing nonviolent strategies, while the government prefers to portray their resistance as violent and to meet it with violence.
The government is frantically attempting to isolate community leaders, accusing them of being manipulated by NGOs and funded by foreigners. Apparently, the government and the communities in resistance agree on one thing. International solidarity strengthens the resistance movement.
Toronto based Rights Action and Oakland-based NISGUA, which maintains an office in Guatemala City, provide regular updates, action alerts, organize solidarity delegations and even provide nonviolent “accompaniment” for community organizers whose lives are at risk. Solidarity actions are also aimed at culpable corporate executives and shareholders in Canada and the U.S. Another organization, Guatemala Human Rights Commission (GHRC-USA) based in Washington, D.C. has been working since 1982 to support asylum seekers and to defend the rights of women and indigenous people in Guatemala.
For the last four decades, many members of Veterans For Peace have taken bold actions in solidarity with the peoples of Central America, and we will continue to do so. We look forward to returning to Guatemala. In the meantime, there are many mining companies to visit in North America.
The 1954 coup against Guatemala’s fledgling democracy was organized in order to halt land reform and to guarantee that a U.S. company would be the primary beneficiary of Guatemala’s fertile earth and ideal growing climate. The CIA coup was also meant as a warning to governments in the region who might be so reckless as to put the needs of their own people first. Apparently however, the people of Nicaragua and El Salvador did not heed the message, and neither have the people of Guatemala.
Thirty-six years of genocide has not put an end to deep-rooted resistance in Mayan communities who wish to live free and healthy lives. Riding through the beautiful countryside, we often saw signs along reading “No a la mineria. Guatemala no se vende.” No to the mines. Guatemala is not for sale. Perhaps that was our best Spanish lesson of all.
This article by Glenn Greenwald is re-posted from the Guardian.
Prior to President Obama’s first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIA director. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush’s programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming “strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the” CIA.
This “victory” of forcing Brennan’s withdrawal proved somewhat Pyrrhic, as Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser, where he exerted at least as much influence as he would have had as CIA Director, if not more. In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama’s drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year. He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden “engaged in a firefight” with Navy SEALS and had “used his wife as a human shield”. Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama’s most controversial and radical policies, including “signature strikes” in Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency.
As it typically does in the US National Security State, all of that deceit and radicalism is resulting not in recrimination or loss of credibility for Brennan, but in reward and promotion. At 1 pm EST today, Obama will announce that he has selected Brennan to replace Gen. David Petraeus as CIA chief: the same position for which, four short years ago, Brennan’s pro-torture-and-rendition past rendered him unfit and unconfirmable.
Although I actively opposed Brennan’s CIA nomination in 2008, I can’t quite muster the energy or commitment to do so now. Indeed, the very idea that someone should be disqualified from service in the Obama administration because of involvement in and support for extremist Bush terrorism polices seems quaint and obsolete, given the great continuity between Bush and Obama on these issues. Whereas in 2008 it seemed uncertain in which direction Obama would go, making it important who wielded influence, that issue is now settled: Brennan is merely a symptom of Obama’s own extremism in these areas, not a cause. This continuity will continue with or without Brennan because they are, rather obviously, Obama’s preferred policies.
Still, this is worth commenting on because the drastic change between the reaction to Brennan in 2008 and now is revealing. The New York Times article this morning on the appointment claims that “it is uncertain whether the torture issue will now cause any problems for Mr. Brennan.” Of course, there is nothing at all uncertain about that: “the torture issue” won’t cause any problems for Brennan, as it did in 2008, because Obama has buried that issue with his “Look Forward, not Backward” decrees; because most people who claimed concern over such issues back in 2008 have resigned themselves to Obama’s posture in this area; and because, with very rare exception, there are no more serious campaigns mounted against Obama’s decisions except from the American Right.
It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush’s most radical policies is not only Obama’s choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan’s eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama’s calculus.
UPDATE
There’s one more point worth noting: the reason Obama needs a new CIA chief is because David Petraeus was forced to resign. Here we see the ethos and morality of imperial Washington: past support for torture and rendition does not disqualify one for a top national security position; only an extramarital affair can do that.
UPDATE II
The ACLU today said that the Senate should not proceed with Brennan’s nomination “until it assesses the legality of his actions in past leadership positions in the CIA during the early years of the George W. Bush administration and in his current role in the ongoing targeted killing program”.
Speaker appeals to faith in dealing with immigration issue, but leaves out policy analysis
Earlier today I went to Calvin College to hear Jenny Yang, Director of Advocacy and Policy of the Refugee and Immigration Program at World Relief, as part of the January Series.
Her work on the immigration issue came to the forefront about six years ago, when World Relief began to get numerous requests from pastors across the country who were looking for insight on how to respond to the growing number of undocumented immigrants in their congregations.
Yang realized during this time that every conversation she had or heard about immigration, especially with Christians, was not based in Christian scriptures. Immigration is a biblical issue, a church issue and a missional issue, according to Yang and spent most of her talk discussing immigration through a biblical/theological lens.
It was understandable that Yang would focus on this issue from a Christian perspective, considering it is a lecture series at Calvin. Yang provided biblical examples of how immigrants are portrayed and what messages are communicated about them. She stated that immigrants are one of the core vulnerable populations that, along with widows and orphans, must be embraced and advocated for.
Then there is the question of following the “rule of law.” Since many people come to the US without documentation, how do people of faith respond in this context? Yang made the point that following the laws of the land are a biblical mandate, but that depends on whether or not the laws actually serve the greater good.
Yang then shared some survey statistics and said that about 88% of Americans who are likely to oppose new immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, are White Evangelical Christians. Unfortunately, the speaker did not address why the greatest resistance is from the Christian community.
Yang did not address the fact that one of the main topics addressed on talk radio is immigration, especially from the reactionary right perspective, with radio personalities like Michael Savage, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh regularly attacking immigrants on their shows, as is well documented in the book by Rory O’Connor, Shock Jocks.
Yang also did not mention or identify the numerous anti-immigration groups in the US, which are well funded and politically powerful.
The speaker did look at some US immigration history, by talking about the Chinese Exclusion Act as the first immigration policy. It was followed by the National Origins Act, which limited where immigrants could come from, making European immigrants the favor group. However, she never really provided much information on current immigration policy other than to say that there seem to be two broad policy approaches. Some people want all undocumented immigrants rounded up and deported, while other groups want to give amnesty to those who are here without documentation. Yang says she didn’t agree with either approach.
Yang believes that the US should: 1) make it harder for undocumented people to enter the country illegally; 2) Make it easier for people to come through legal means; and 3) allow those who have come unlawfully to make it right with the law, pay a penalty and then go through the proper channels.
In some ways this seems like a humane and practical approach to the current policy, but it also ignores the more complex issues that drive why people come to the US to begin with.
Much of what drives immigration to the US is either political repression or poverty, which are often intertwined reasons for flight. US foreign policy in Latin America, both support of political repression and trade policies are at the root of why so many people chose to leave their own country and make their way to the US. Until these policies are addressed, the immigration debate will be incomplete and inadequate.
Yang did address some common myths about immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, with taxes being one of those myths. For a more comprehensive look at myths about immigration, read Aviva Chomsky’s book They Take Our Jobs!: And 20 Other Myths about Immigration.
One other important area of omission in this lecture was the growing immigrant-led movement for justice. Ever since the massive marches in 2006, immigrants themselves have been taking the lead on what they want, whether that is challenging the broad immigration policies, those fighting for The Dream Act, those speaking out against government repression and those who challenge the racist nature of much of the anti-immigration backlash in the country.
Yang ended with some discussion about how people of faith can get involved and said people can get more information at the site http://welcomingthestranger.com/ and a more recent campus immigration movement called G92.
Local Media Directory Updated
With the wonderful help from Josh Leng, the new Citizen Journalist coordinator at WKTV, we have updated the local media directory for the beginning of 2013.
Having the contact information is important for local organizers, community groups and grassroots activists, but having the information is just the first step.
It is important to be strategic in how you interact with the local news media. Check out our Media Activist ToolKit to get tips and ideas about how to important it is to develop a media strategy for your work.
Also, if your organization or community-based group is look to develop a media strategy or need training on how to deal with the media, GRIID offers workshops on those topics. Contact Jeff Smith jsmith@griid.org if you are interested.
This Day in Resistance History: French Farmers Destroy GMO Crops
On this day in 1998, an estimated one hundred farmers in France destroyed genetically modified crops, resulting in roughly $1 million of damage.
The farmer’s movement in France had done acts of resistance before the January 8, 1998 action and numerous since, including the dismantling of a McDonalds restaurant that was being built in a rural community. The farmers showed up one day and took the building apart and then used the materials for barn construction.
The 1998 action was targeting the GMO seed stock from the multinational company Novartis, one of the largest GMO corporations in the world.
Several French farmers were arrested for this action and some spent up to four months in jail. Actions like these are well documented in the book, The World is Not For Sale: Farmers Against Junk Food.
Numerous farmer groups around the world have been resisting the introduction of GMO seeds into their country and communities for nearly 20 years now. The struggle has been a difficult one, since the WTO (World Trade Organization) has decided in favor of GMO use and the right of GMO corporations to go after farmers for monetary compensation, because their crops have been infected by neighboring GMO crops. In North America, this practice of extortion has been defended by NAFTA regulations.
While the January 8, 1998 action by French farmers has not diminished the amount of GMO crops being cultivated in their country, it did demonstrate a clear tactical victory. Instead of just protesting the use of GMO crops, the farmers took matters into their own hands and destroyed the GMO seeds, with the intent of making it clear that they did not want this in their communities.
This type of action, where people physically remove or destroy something they find destructive to their freedom and autonomy is an old tactic and one that activist around the world should utilize when necessary. We must abandon the notion that “private property” is sacred, especially when private property is used to destroy the environment, make us sick and make money for the very few.
Let us celebrate the action of those that take matters into their own hands and remove harm from their lives and their communities.
This article by Kristen Lombardi is re-posted from the Center for Public Integrity.
Notre Dame’s high-profile re-emergence among college football’s elite has focused new attention on the university’s long-standing claims that it does things “the right way” — that football players are treated like anyone else on campus, with no special favors.
The boasts of lofty moral standards have long struck other schools’ fans as a bit sanctimonious. But they are getting fresh scrutiny now, in part because the bright lights of college football’s biggest stage have brought renewed attention to a two-year-old case involving a Notre Dame player and chilling allegations of sexual assault.
In August 2010, 19-year-old freshman Lizzy Seeberg accused the athlete of sexually assaulting her in his dorm. She filed a report with campus police, which sat on it for two weeks before even interviewing him. By then, Seeberg had committed suicide. Administrators would later convene a closed-door campus disciplinary hearing—three months after Seeberg’s death became national news—in which the player was found “not responsible.” In the university’s only direct comment on the case, Notre Dame’s president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, told the South Bend Tribune in December 2010 that university police had conducted a “thorough and judicious investigation that followed the facts…” He acknowledged, however, that the inquiry could have been conducted “more quickly, perhaps.” The player, who has not been publicly identified, reportedly has never missed a game, nor presumably will he miss tonight’s national championship contest with Alabama’s Crimson Tide. Meanwhile, a small but vocal number of critics are asking pointed questions about how this case was handled, and wondering aloud whether Notre Dame’s righteous rhetoric is really a fiction.
As tragic as the details of the Seeberg case are, they are actually far from unusual. The struggles that colleges have faced in addressing campus sexual assault were the subject of an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity beginning in 2009. Published in a six-part series, “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice,” the investigation showed that campus judicial proceedings were often confusing, shrouded in secrecy and marked by lengthy delays, leaving alleged victims feeling like they were victimized a second time. Those who reported sexual assault encountered a litany of institutional barriers that often led to dropped complaints. Even students found “responsible” for alleged sexual assaults often faced little punishment, while their victims’ lives frequently turned upside down. Many times, victims dropped out of school — or worse — while their alleged attackers graduated.
The Center series — done in collaboration with National Public Radio — shed light on what Education Department officials have since called “an epidemic of sexual violence” on campuses. According to a report funded by the Justice Department, roughly one in five women who attend college will become the victim of a rape or an attempted rape by the time she graduates. Much of the problem is up to the institutions to address, because prosecutors face imposing obstacles in filing criminal charges; allegations come down to he-said-she said accounts that may be colored by alcohol, while physical evidence and eyewitness testimony are often lacking.
In April 2011, the Education Department’s civil rights office unveiled its most thorough guidance on how schools must respond to student complaints of campus rape. The 19-page “dear colleague letter,” combined with a unique enforcement strategy, has spurred change at dozens of schools nationwide, including Notre Dame. There’s also proposed federal legislation aimed at combating campus sexual violence.
The guidance hasn’t pleased everyone, and the legislation is, for the moment, stalled. Sadly, cases like Seeberg’s continue to make headlines. The latest comes from elite Amherst College, where a former student has documented allegations of her school’s callous treatment following an alleged rape by a classmate. Highly emotional, colored by broader cultural stereotypes, these cases remain among the thorniest for colleges and universities. Even so, lawyer Brett Sokolow, who advises college administrators, says he believes they have improved their handling of what he calls “the garden variety cases” — those without ties to money or influence.
But “the old rules still apply if [the alleged assailant is] a star athlete or a student president…Corruption still exists in those cases,” he says, while adding he’s not familiar with the details of the Seeburg case.
Changes
That new federal guidance, announced with fanfare by Vice President Joe Biden, says schools have an obligation, under the federal law known as Title IX, to investigate student complaints, and to take prompt and effective action to end harm.
The guidance has drawn fierce pushback, much of it focused on a policy the civil rights office was already enforcing: that schools should rely on the more lenient evidence standard in these cases — “preponderance of evidence” rather than the higher “clear and convincing” or even “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidence standards. Groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates for free speech and due process, have penned multiple letters arguing that such a “weak” principle undermines, in its words, “the reliability, integrity and basic fairness of the disciplinary process.”
“We see the burden of proof on many campuses being the only protection an accused student has,” says FIRE’s Joe Cohn, whose last letter, in May 2012, included 19 professors, lawyers and other individuals as co-signers.
Taking a cue from the department, many colleges and universities were using the preponderance standard when the guidelines came out. Others have followed suit. Some 40 schools at last count have also adopted what administrators describe as “the easy things” — policy reforms and procedural fixes like hiring a Title IX coordinator and offering appeal rights to both the accused and accusing students. Some administrators are even clamoring for more guidance to clear up lingering “confusion” about what Title IX requires.
By all accounts, the civil rights office has become far more aggressive since December 2010, when it announced its first in a series of “model” settlements with schools regarding policies on campus sexual assault. These settlements have emerged from “compliance reviews” that were pushed by the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, Russlynn Ali, who stepped down in early December. Unlike formal complaints, which students must file before the office can act, these compliance reviews have allowed the department to act proactively in response to allegations of campus sexual violence.
To date, there have been 11 such reviews — and the first one was at Notre Dame. Prompted by the Seeberg case, the civil rights office launched a seven-month investigation into how the school handles all sexual assault complaints. That ended in June 2011 with a “voluntary resolution agreement,” in which Notre Dame agreed to speed up investigations, adopt the “preponderance” standard, and issue no-contact orders for alleged assailants and their alleged victims, among other things. Seth Galanter, the civil rights office’s acting director, declined to discuss the Notre Dame resolution, citing its “open” status. The office is currently monitoring the school to ensure its compliance.
Many of the reviews are ongoing, but the office has hammered out similar settlement agreements with such schools as Eastern Michigan and Yale. Last spring, it took the rare step of joining the Justice Department in examining how the University of Montana, as well as local law enforcement, handle campus rape allegations — after several prominent cases there, some involving football players. The civil rights office has even seen the number of formal complaints from students filed against schools soar to more than 120 in the past four years— a rise of more than 41 percent.
“One of our goals,” Galanter says, “is to make sure the April 2011 ‘dear colleague’ letter isn’t just a piece of paper.”
A multi-front struggle
Over on Capitol Hill, victim advocates have pressed for passage of the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act. Filed in the fall of 2010, the federal legislation was meant to codify the Title IX guidance, creating minimum, national standards for colleges and universities. Two years later, after lobbying by FIRE and others brought about changes in the bill, some supporters now actually oppose it. The most notable change: the bill would no longer require schools to use the “preponderance” standard.
“Now we have this monstrous bill all wrapped up in nice sounding language,” says lawyer Wendy Murphy, a prominent victim advocate. She believes the bill, stripped of that mandate, would give institutions leeway to use a higher burden, thus in her view undermining the guidance.
Bill supporters counter that the SaVE Act would still require that institutions expand programs to offer prevention awareness and bystander intervention education, meant to stop sexual assaults from occurring. And the legislation would improve victim protection, they say, by guaranteeing counseling, legal assistance, and medical care on campus, as well as other accommodations.
“We didn’t get everything we wanted,” agrees Daniel Carter, a long-time victim advocate now with the VTV Family Outreach Foundation, who helped draft the original bill. But “no one was willing to sacrifice [the whole measure]” he explains, to preserve a few of its mandates.
Administrators and advocates alike expect the legislation to pass — eventually. It had been incorporated, as Section 304, into the Senate’s re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, but not the House’s. Advocates were pinning their hopes on the bill making it in the final version of VAWA until the House let it expire at the end of the congressional session on January 3. Now, it will have to be re-introduced, as will the stand-alone version of the bill. Its sponsor, Senator Robert Casey Jr., a Democrat from Pennsylvania, will keep working to ensure final passage of the Campus SaVE Act in the 113th Congress, his office says.
For all the attention on campus sexual assault, it remains an intractable and complex problem. The cultural climate surrounding these cases is tense— especially those involving athletes. They are, after all, popular public figures who may be pivotal to the reputation and success of a school’s highest-profile programs.
It all feels painfully familiar to Laura Dunn, whose case was featured in the Center series; in 2005, she reported her allegations of rape by a crew member at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He denied the allegations. It took the university nine months to contemplate, and then reject, filing disciplinary charges against him.
“It’s almost like you’re attacking something bigger than the individuals who assaulted you,” Dunn says. When she thinks about how much progress colleges have made in combating campus sexual assault, her thoughts turn to Lizzy Seeberg and that Notre Dame football player.
“Until college athletes are handled differently,” Dunn says, “nothing has changed.”
New Media We Recommend
Below is a list of new materials that we have read/watched in recent weeks. The comments are not a “review” of the material, instead sort of an endorsement of ideas and investigations that can provide solid analysis and even inspiration in the struggle for change. All these items are available at The Bloom Collective, so check them out and stimulate your mind.
Howard Zinn Speaks: Collected Speeches 1963 – 2009, edited by Anthony Arnove – This is a wonderful collection of speeches by radical historian Howard Zinn. Anthony Arnove, who collaborated with Zinn on several projects, has given us these powerful words by Zinn that cover a broad range of topics and gives us even more insight into his personal life. Zinn talks about why he became an historian and why he thinks history is so important to contemporary struggles. In these speeches, we can read how passionate Howard was to abolishing war, racism, economic exploitation and how dedicated he was to the idea that ordinary people are what makes up real social change in this country’s history. The collection of speeches covers a period from the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, all the way to the present. Zinn takes on government lies, the first amendment, the legacy of Columbus, civil disobedience and the idea of American exceptionalism. A fabulous collection.
Foodopoly: The Battle Over The Future of Food and Farming in America, by Wenonah Hauter – Just released, Foodopoly, is a well researched and well written investigation into the current state of food production in the US. Hauter, who is the Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, does a marvelous job of breaking down for readers the current framework for how food is grown/raised in the US within the agribusiness model. Hauter makes it clear that the food system in the US is unjust and unsustainable. She looks at problems of the for profit food system, the chemicals used, GMOs, CAFOs, the control of seeds and food policy. The book has only a brief discussion on what is happening to create a just food system in the US, but the real flaw of the book is that it’s emphasis on how to confront the current food system is through better regulation and financial incentives for local food production, both of which are too reformist and even a bit naïve in terms of the power that the agribusiness sector has in the current food system. However, the critique of the current system section, which is the bulk of the book, is well worth reading.
Anarchism, by Cindy Milstein – This is the last in a series of zines we have looked at from the Institute for Anarchist Studies. Cindy Milstein provides one of the most readable and beautifully written brief descriptions of both the spirit of anarchism and its practice. Author of several books and an active practitioner of anarchist principles, Milstein presents the origins of anarchist thinking, what distinguished it from other political philosophies and ways in which it can contribute to creating a healthier and more fulfilling society(ies) of equality and freedom. Milstein does not provide any real historical examples of anarchism in practice, of which there are plenty, but she does provide a valuable introductory tool for those who are new to anarchism and those wanting to spread its message of a society without hierarchies, where power is shared for the good of all.
Abused: The Pottsville Raid (DVD) – In May 2008, US immigration officers raided a meatpacking plant in Iowa and arrested nearly 400 workers. They were not given proper legal representation and sentenced to serve 5 months in jail, before most of them were deported. Abused presents the devastating effects of US Enforcement Immigration policies on communities, families and children. The film tells the gripping personal stories of the individuals, the families and the town that survived the most brutal, most expensive and largest immigration raid in the history of the United States and serves as a cautionary tale of government abuses. An important film for anyone concerned about immigration, the growing police state in the US, racism and what drives immigration policies of this country.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 
