Skip to content

Chemicals, Wartersheds & Maps: More Tools for the Anti-fracking Movement

November 16, 2012

It seems that every week there is new information on the dangers of hydraulic fracturing. We have seen a massive uprising to oppose this latest form fossil fuel extraction from the oil & gas industry and grassroots activists are doing their own research to counter the claims of the fossil fuel industry.

We reported a month ago about a forum held in Kent County, where the DEQ representative gave out a source dealing with what chemicals were used in fracking. The source, Frac Focus, is an industry website, where the companies involved in fracking are supposed to “self-report” on what chemicals they are using.

As a counter to this source, a new chemical fracking disclosure database has been created by the group, SkyTruth. Using the data from Frac Focus, SkyTruth is taking the information further and making it more accessible to the public.

Responding to public calls for greater transparency Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and five other states require disclosure via FracFocus. But with the limited tools provided by FracFocus, data aggregation and analysis is impossible. Despite these and other critical shortcomings, the White House has suggested FracFocus is a suitable platform for public disclosure.

More states are considering relying on FracFocus to address increasing public pressure for disclosure.  The Bureau of Land Management is finalizing new rules for fracking that will apply to drilling on millions of acres of public land, and may be on the verge of designating FracFocus as the public disclosure platform. But we think the data must be much more accessible, shareable, and useable for the public to be adequately informed about the types and amounts of chemicals used in fracking operations. 

“The intelligible disclosure of industry information and data through this SkyTruth action will make the task of research on the effects of fracking much easier,” said Dr. Tony Ingraffea, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University. “This large and ever-expanding dataset is invaluable for cross-referencing with other datasets such as health and environmental quality.”

Fracking and Watersheds

A report commissioned by citizens opposed to hydraulic fracturing has identified grave public health and environmental risks in plans to lease public land for fracking near Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) reservoirs in Ohio. The report, written by Paul Rubin, a high-profile New York Hydrogeologist and president of HydroQuest, warns of toxic water contamination sources which will be created by fracking near and underneath the lakes.

The report was sent to the MWCD along with a demand letter that there be an immediate moratorium of indefinite length imposed upon hydraulic fracturing on any MWCD lands and underneath all MWCD reservoirs, and further, that there be a permanent policy to not sell reservoir water for fracking.

Rubin’s report focuses on Seneca Lake, Ohio’s second-largest freshwater lake, as an example of a Muskingum reservoir case study. He concludes that leasing for widespread gas and oil drilling is a “present worst-case scenario” because: 

  • Gas and oil wells, some drilled more than half a century ago, have weak or failing plugs of questionable integrity. The ability of aging, incomplete and absent well sealant (i.e., plug) materials to keep toxic contaminations out of freshwater aquifers, reservoirs and waterways is poor and short-lived.
  • Cement sheaths, steel casing and clay plugs of known wells are failing or will fail within anywhere from a few years to decades, thereby creating new pathways for explosive methane gas and fracking poisons to flow into drinking water sources. Huge fracking pressures will blow out weak clay plugs in old wells, many beneath reservoirs. Earthquakes will further shorten the limited durability and life span of well sealant materials.
  • Repeated hydraulic fracturing will result in interconnecting natural and created fractures and old, poorly plugged, gas and oil wells, allowing upward contaminant migration into drinking water supplies, including reservoirs.
  • Toxic hydrofracking fluids injected deeply in the ground will move with groundwater flow systems, eventually moving upward into freshwater aquifers, reservoirs and waterways. Permitting of horizontal gas wells proximal to reservoirs will needlessly jeopardize water quality.

Fracking sites in Michigan

Lastly, a Michigan anti-fracking activist sent us the most current map of where high pressured hydraulic fracturing is taking place in Michigan. There are 40 well permits (for vertical and horizontal fracking) and 15 pending in the state.

As you can see from the map, most of the fracking is taking place north of Kent County, but since mineral rights have been purchased in Kent, Allegan and Barry County over the past 6 months, we can expect to see new fracking sites in West Michigan.

“One Big Progressive Cluster-F–k”

November 16, 2012

This article by The Insider is re-posted from CounterPunch. Editor’s note: It is important that people understand that the Democratic Party has a long history of co-opting social movements, as is well documented in Lance Selfa’s book, “The Democrats: A Critical History.”

President Barack Obama was elected merely a week ago in a presidential campaign that ran a bill of $6 billion.

Campaign Season,” as its called by the electioneering professionals and most journalists, has officially come to an end in the eyes of most citizens and the press, both mainstream and “independent media” alike. For the “Professional Left” though, “campaign season” never actually ends, which explains why they refer to their form of activism as “campaigns.” It’s truth in advertising, at last!

The newest “campaign” in town is being run by….wait for it….a MoveOn.org offshoot in the form of “Movement Strategy Brunches” being held nationwide on Nov. 17-18.

“Drink Mimosas”

On Nov. 8, writing to a confidential email list, Liz Butler, a “Senior Fellow and Network Organizing Project Director” of the Movement Strategy Center, declared,

“We are asking you to set up a Movement Strategy Brunch – an informal, low-key way to bring together you and other local grassroots people at the local level to reflect, drink mimosas (or healthy green smoothies) and talk about the future. Sound fun? It’s supposed to be! After so much hard work, it’s nice to be able to kick back, drink some orange juice, and munch on a flaky croissant.”

The Movement Strategy Center is the Fiscal Sponsor for Van Jones’ Rebuild the Dream, according to Rebuild the Dream‘s website. Jones’ front group for the Democratic Party set up shop in June 2011 when MoveOn.org gave $348K to Rebuild the Dream in start-up capital, according to its most recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 form.

Rebuild, as regular CounterPunch readers will likely recall, was responsible for the attempt to co-opt the Occupy movement not once, but twice – once in the fall of 2011 and once again in the spring of 2012.

Butler oversaw the “99 Spring,” the front operation for both MoveOn.org and the Democratic Party. Prior to her current stint at the Movement Strategy Center in April 2012, Butler worked for 3.5 years as the Campaign Director for 1Sky, which in April 2011 merged with 350.org, currently in the throes of its “Do the Math” campaign.

The email was co-signed by Billy Wimsatt, a Fellow at the Movement Strategy Center, as well as an employee of Rebuild the Dream, two outfits that are interchangeable and one-in-the-same. A WhoIs.net search shows Wimsatt registered the website for the “Movement Strategy Brunches” on Oct. 16, a few weeks ahead of the Nov. 6 election.

“Consensual Domination”

Like its cousin the 99 Spring, the ”Movement Strategy Brunches” give well-meaning grassroots activists the illusion of having full control of things at the local level. “YOU organize it,” shouts its website.

Yet again, it’s the same players managing a brand new version of what University of California-Santa Barbara Sociology Professor William I. Robison refers to as “consensual domination” in his classic book, “Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony.”

“The Gramscian concept of hegemony as ‘consensual domination’ exercised in civil and political society at the level of the individual nation (or national society) may be extended/applied to the emergent global civil and political society,” he wrote in the book’s introduction. “The emergence of ‘democracy promotion’ as a new instrument and the orientation in US foreign policy in the 1980s represented the beginnings of a shift – still underway – in the method through which the core regions of the capitalist world system exercise their domination over peripheral and semi-peripheral regions…”

The tools of imperialism have come home to the core of the empire, as they always do. This time, like the many times before, it’s in the form of “consensual domination” on the part of citizens who partake in “activism” that’s nothing more than freshly installed astroturf for the Democratic Party disguised as “democracy promotion.”

“These pseudo-revolutionaires no doubt believe their own propaganda, or their ‘memes,’ as they prefer to call them. But these liberal cultists are nothing more than convenient lap dogs for the ‘progressive’ millionaires who fund them and the Democrats,” said John Stauber, author of the book Toxic Sludge is Good for You and Founder of the Center for Media and Democracy. ”They are well fed, they groom each other, they regurgitate the same talking points, and they consistently accomplish nothing in the real world except to push a false hope that they are leading a real Movement. In other words, it’s a classic form of cooptation, which is both made possible by the severe limitations of the political process and of course serves to limit it further. It is essential to maintaining a status quo that benefits the 1%. Follow the money, this is one big progressive cluster-fuck.”

Talking about Transgender Tuesdays: An interview with Mark Freeman and Kelly Kelly

November 15, 2012

Earlier this week, the LGBT Resource Center at GVSU hosted a screening of the film, Transgender Tuesdays.

The film is about the lives of eight of the patients who came to the Transgender Tuesdays clinic starting in 1993. Their stories reach back to some of the “bad old days” of the 1950s, recalling the sexual freedom movement of the 1960s, drug ravages of the ’70s, Women’s and GLB (and finally T) Liberation in the ’80s, and the HIV epidemic and queer activism of the ’90s.

These true tales reveal what transgender life was like over those decades on the streets of San Francisco and around the country — and make it clear that it is still no bed of roses today. Clinic staff and stars of the community make cameo appearances. But it is the lives of these transgender heroes (often unknown even by younger trans folk today) that provide pride in the present and hope for the future.

On Wednesday, we were fortunate to be able to sit down and talk with the producer of the film, Mark Freeman, and one of those people profiled in the film, Kelly Kelly.

The interview is in two parts. In Part I, we asked both Mark and Kelly to talk about what brought them to the Tom Waddell Health Center. We also asked them about how this film came to fruition and the importance of sharing the powerful stories of the individuals in the film. Lastly, in Part I, we asked both of them what impact the clinic and the film is having across the country.

In Part II, we asked Mark and Kelly to talk about how this film can be an organizing tool to address larger Transgender rights issues in the country. In the last question of the interview, we asked them to speak to the idea of revolutionary love, which is something that Che Guevarra talked about as something that should be central in the lives of all revolutionaries.

New Report finds that huge amounts of natural gas fracking will be for export

November 15, 2012

The DC-based group Food & Water Watch has released a new report that questions the claim from the oil & gas industry that fracking will make the US more energy independent.

Just as people have exposed the Tar Sands project as a false energy independence plan, we now have more evidence that the rush to frack for natural gas across the country is primarily a means for exporting and greater profits.

Briefly, Food & Water Watch finds that:

  • The popular claim that the United States has 100 years worth of natural gas presumes not only that no place would be off-limits to drilling and fracking, but also that highly uncertain estimates of domestic natural gas resources are accurate;
  •  Even assuming that the industry’s dreams of unrestricted drilling and fracking for natural gas come true and that resource estimates prove accurate, plans to increase the rate of consumption of U.S. natural gas easily cut the claim to 50 years, well within the lifetime of college students today;
  •  Among these plans are 19 proposals, as of October 26, 2012, to sell U.S. natural gas on foreign markets to maximize oil and gas profits. Combined, these proposals alone mean that annual natural gas exports could reach the equivalent of over 40 percent of total U.S. consumption of natural gas in 2011; and
  • Even if the highly uncertain estimates of “tight oil” reserves prove accurate, and even if the oil and gas industry wins unrestricted access to drill and frack for oil, the estimated reserves would amount to a supply of less than seven years.

The report also states:

The threat is that the fossil fuel industry — empowered by its deep pockets, armed with increasingly intensive extraction methods and bolstered by entrenched infrastructure and demand for its product — will succeed in delaying the necessary transformation for decades, just to protect its bottom line. Now is the time for the United States to declare independence from the oil and gas industry.

Food & Water Watch also offers up some recommendations, which we find to perpetuate the current economic system. The failure to discuss climate change, the US military industrial complex and the need for a drastic reduction in carbon emissions is most unfortunate and ultimately will mean that there might not be a real sustainable future for humanity.

However, beyond the significant short-comings of the report, the information is useful for the anti-fracking movement and should be used for that purpose.

Transgender Day of Remembrance this Sunday in Grand Rapids

November 15, 2012

Last year we reported on the Transgender Day of Remembrance event at Plymouth UCC in Grand Rapids and this Sunday people will gather to participate once again in this important event.

The Facebook event page for this event states:

Come join Transgender Education Collaboration, Plymouth UCC, and the rest of our community remember those who were taken away from us in the last year because they didn’t fit neatly in expected gender roles. Also, share in the hope and joy that comes for the amazing talents that shines within the diversity among us.

Grand Rapids’ Transgender Day Of Remembrance service

Sunday, November 18

6:00PM

Plymouth United Church of Christ

4010 Kalamazoo SE, Grand Rapids

10 Myths About Obama and the Democrats

November 15, 2012

This article by Jason Hirthler is re-posted from CounterPunch.

As we head into The Chosen One’s second term, it might be useful to explode a few of the chronic myths that cling to the man more tightly than his shadow. Myths that have helped liberal intelligentsia justify its enthusiastic support for this lesser of two evils. Here are the myths as articulated by a young, imaginary, and starry-eyed Obama progressive, momentarily detached from the stampeding liberal herd, just long enough to have a conversation with a leftist on the political fringe…

Myth 1. Now look, Obama wants nothing more than global peace, but Iran is a nation of madcap mullahs looking to nuke Tel Aviv. We have to do something.

Obama is definitely not a peace advocate—unless by peace you mean: peace on our terms. That means a disarmed, defanged, and docile Iran with mullahs in exile and puppet doyen in ascendancy. We take with Iran the same line that Israel takes with the Palestinians. Sure, we want peace—on our terms. Meaning the less Arabs in Jerusalem the better. Meaning a Bantustan province with notional national status. A series of tidy little prison camps strung together by gauntlets of IDF troops. So peaceful at night you can hear the safety switches at the security checks clicking off.

The administration’s posture on Iran has already violated international law—using open threats and coding a few others. (Everybody knows what “all options are on the table” means.) Our sanctions amount to economic warfare visited on little children who can’t define the word sanction. Iran has done nothing wrong. They are within their IAEA rights. There isn’t a shred of evidence they are using nuclear for anything outside the purposes of civilian power. Yet the U.S. and Israel are nuclear states, signatories and serial violators of the Non Proliferation Treaty. Israel has 200 nukes. We have more. Iran has none and they know they would be instantly vaporized if they bombed either Israel or us. They don’t have a death wish. But we are openly threatening to bomb them. We have already carried out acts of war within Iran, including cyber-warfare and assassinations. If Iran had done either inside the United States we would have invaded them instantly and reduced Tehran to rubble. Palestine is so bad there’s not enough space to get into it. And on a side note, we’re rapidly surrounding China militarily, and we’ve infuriated Russia by building a defense shield on its doorstep. There are two kinds of people that claim to crave peace. Those that want peace and those that want peace on their terms. Obama is the latter.

Myth 2. You seem to forget that Obama decided to end the Iraq war and brought all our troops home. 

Actually, George Bush did. The man we know as Dubya actually pushed through and signed the SOFA agreement that called for the troop removal. He actually tied off his own war. In fact, Obama pushed hard for a revised agreement that would allow troops to stay on in Iraq, but the Iraqis rejected his efforts. So he’s taking credit for something he didn’t do; he wanted to do the opposite. But we are still leaving tens of thousands of military contractors—mercenaries paid for by our government—behind just to reassure the Iraqi people of our benign intentions. What country  wouldn’t want the illustrious Blackwater roaming its streets in blacked-out SUVs, cigar-chomping sociopaths from Texas at the wheel? And don’t forget the Green Zone, that billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded Fortress-on-the-Tigris. Hard to miss from a satellite.

Myth 3. But he ended torture, rendition, and closed Guantanamo! 

Regarding Guantanamo, it is still open for business. Obama supposedly didn’t close it because of Congressional resistance, the legal issues involved with bringing ‘enemy combatants’ into the states. I guess even the Department of Justice sometimes stumbles its own nebulous doublespeak. Rendition is still an active program, although it is being—ahem—more closely monitored to avoid prisoner abuses. (I almost used the not-so-laughable euphemism ‘detainee’ by accident.) But that is really beside the point since we’ve created a mirror image of Guantanamo at Bagram in Afghanistan, except that it is larger. Sixty thousand square feet of detention dementia in the heart of opium country.

Myth 4. Let’s not forget that he liberated Libya and wholeheartedly supported the Arab Spring?

He bombed Libya into the dark ages, much like Bush did in Iraq, all in the name of democracy. Since Congress wasn’t awakened from its dogmatic slumbers long enough to rubber stamp the attack, the action violated the War Powers Act of 1973. But no matter, the bombing helped remove the inimitable Colonel Gaddafi. But Libya is now more dangerous than it was under Gaddafi, and is turning into a bloodbath that would make Quentin Tarantino rush out the door with a Super 8. As for Egypt, a look back at the record will confirm that the administration supported Mubarak for years up until the very moment when the tide turned and it became clear he was going to be ousted. Then we took the position of the people and hailed a new democracy. That is not our preference, however, in the Middle East. In country after country, both Democrats and Republicans have supported and continue to support repressive regimes. As well in Latin America and Asia. There is actually a study by Edward Herman that shows a clear correlation between an increase in human rights violations and an increase in American aid.

Myth 5. Besides, Obama must know something we don’t, so we probably shouldn’t question the war on terror.

I think this argument, that the government may know something we don’t, so he gets the benefit of the doubt, has always been a Republican response to liberal criticism of illegal wars. It’s a dangerous position to take. There’s an international protocol, within the UN and NATO, for situations of unavoidable state violence. We don’t follow it. We act with impunity when we violate the sovereignty of other nations on a regular basis in Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran, and Syria. We do as we please because might makes right. A good way to think about it is to ask yourself whether you would be okay with Iraq bombing Washington to take out a terrorist we were harboring? We harbor plenty, including Bush, who has been convicted in a war crimes court, and to whom Obama has granted immunity by ending torture investigations. There was a moral standard set at the Nuremberg Trials called the principle of universality, that you should apply to yourself the same principles you apply to criminals. That’s the moral foundation for all our international conventions. But we don’t follow it.

Myth 6. Obama just can’t get anything done because the Republicans won’t let him!

The argument that Obama doesn’t do more because the Republicans won’t let him is unconvincing and doesn’t fit the facts. The Democrats had four years of Congressional majorities where they controlled the budgets, including two years under Obama. Their budgets reflected the neoliberal consensus—heavy war spending, small-scale social spending or regressive social policy. He could have pushed through so many progressive measures with budgets and executive orders, and if he were truly progressive, he would have. As many diehard liberals claim, he may be progressive at heart, but that doesn’t matter much if his policies are firmly neoliberal. In fact, they always have been, as was laid bare before his 2008 election by authors like Paul Street. Also, budgets can’t be filibustered.

Myth 7. But he means well.

The evidence that I’ve seen—his actions—overwhelmingly shows that the Obama administration is on balance moving us in the wrong direction. If you want to roll in arguments about improvements in the racial mood and self-belief of the country, there may be truth in that, but those are intangible factors that can’t be measured. The actual policies are a different story altogether. Neoliberal economics and imperial foreign policies are a radically regressive force in the world—studies of nation after nation show their negative effects. See Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine and Chalmers Johnson’s Sorrows of Empire for a nice recap. Not content to be one or the other, Obama has proven to be a neoliberal imperialist, as opposed to your garden-variety fascist. It’s not really a question of opinion, unless you introduce intangibles, which I’m not discounting because I do believe the fact of a black president matters, and is in itself positive, despite the kind of pandering Obama had to do to make himself acceptable to our moneyed and pale-cheeked elites.

Myth 8. Poor people support him. He must be doing something right!

He did well in the election with African-Americans and Hispanics, minorities often facing brutal economic realities. It is a shame he won their vote again, because their interests are not being served. The thirty-year trend in this country of declining wages and offshoring of jobs continues apace. His jobs bill at best addressed 1/24th of the unemployed. One twenty-fourth. His housing help was about as bad. He even rejected McCain’s request to release $300 billion in funds to help underwater homeowners. Even as he took $13 trillion in toxic mortgages onto government books as part of a bailout of about $24 trillion to banks. If that doesn’t convince you where his loyalties lie, nothing will. In any case, the jobs that have vanished—through either offshoring or the meltdown—have not come back. Many were good middle class jobs. What jobs are being created, if any? Low-income jobs. Most pay between $7 and $13 dollars an hour. Not even a living wage. The only real jobs being created are those that can’t be exported. Service industry jobs: waiters and bartenders or social service people who help care for the elderly. Cashiers at Best Buy. Servers at Ruby Tuesday. So the stimulus of $700 billion, although woefully inadequate by design, was better than nothing, but can’t be said to be the right decision when so much more was—and is—needed.

Myth 9. Still, things are getting better. 

The fact is, half of all Americans—half of us—are now either low income or poor, according to the Census office. Forty million people rely on food stamps. Those numbers are increasing, not decreasing.

The government—at the behest of its finance patrons—is deliberately creating a large, low-income labor pool. Exactly what capital wants in a neoliberal system. Cheap labor. Macroeconomic policy used to aim at full employment. Neoliberal economics instead demands a focus on controlling inflation—largely to protect finance capital. Again, you can see who is being protected at whose expense. So when Obama stimulates 10,000 new manufacturing jobs, it provides positive press that helps him get re-elected, but it doesn’t begin to stem the tide of millions of better jobs that have flown out the door. And when you export production, you often find that product development and production design work follows in short order. Like Bob Dylan sardonically sings, “They say low wages are a reality/if we want to compete abroad.” A false storyline peddled to millions by The New York Times’ Tom Friedman and his ilk, that roving clan of Panglossian optimists. It’s surprisingly easy to be a globalization triumphalist when you sit atop a media empire, your telescope trained on exotic Asia, and your handlers feeding you juice and nuts while you dictate your latest bestseller. By the way, unemployment stats are skewed. They no longer count you if you’re out of work and haven’t looked for a job in four weeks. A terrific little perversion of reality that one might call ‘Friedmanesque.’

Obamacare won’t help, either. Low-income debt slaves won’t be able to afford it and, even if they could, wouldn’t want to pay for a policy that doesn’t provide adequate coverage. They will be taxed instead, which they won’t pay because they don’t have the money. So they will be government debtors, which will then have the right to garnish their wages and unemployment checks. There are sadly no serious cost constraints in the Affordable Care Act. Instead, it hands $447 billion to the insurance companies that are the actual cause of spiraling costs. When Bill Clinton said during the Democratic Convention speech that he was so lauded for, that healthcare costs were dropping, he was diddling the numbers. Healthcare costs always drop during a recession, as do other costs. So he used the lousy economy to argue that Obamacare was working. Kind of Orwellian, if you pause to think about, which you probably shouldn’t. Watch what happens if the economy recovers.

Myth 10. Well, if we could just get rid of the Tea Party fanatics and other Republican radicals, things would return to normal.

The further radicalization of Republicans is more symptom than cause. At a macro level, I think we’re seeing a war of finance capital against labor and industry. Capital—in the neoliberal model—pushes hard for deregulation, privatization, and downsizing. It’s been implemented for 30 years in the third world by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank through austerity bailouts, all with disastrous consequences (although not for American finance and multinationals). Now the model is being applied in the first world for the first time. It was only a matter of time. The Democrats and Republicans have jointly adopted its prototypical narrative—of cutting public spending and reducing government. Another false narrative. The deficits went up when the economy went down, as they always do. They’ll go down again when the economy goes up. We can and should be deficit spending our way out of this recession, but the administration sticks to the required talking points about the fiscal cliff and the horrors of debt. As if the American public needs to be reminded.

The real goal is to eliminate the social safety net. So, finance capital moves aggressively against labor with the goal of erasing the New Deal and Great Society. With those onerous programs gone and healthcare shifted onto the back of the individual courtesy of Obamacare, big business can truly earn the kind of astronomical profits it fantasizes about. To help, the Democrats can soften the harsh edge of austerity in a way Republicans can’t. That’s their doctrinal role now that they’ve been bought by finance. And they can always count of the votes of the unions and the poor because, as Clinton famously put it, “They have nowhere else to go.”

Like most media coverage, New York Times article is giddy over downtown GR market

November 14, 2012

Yesterday, the New York Times published a story about the market in downtown Grand Rapids, which is currently under construction.

The NYTs piece does what most local news coverage has done with this story so far, presented it as a wonderful thing. The Times piece talks about public/private partnerships, the benevolence of local philanthropists, the growing local food interest and how the market is one piece in the ongoing development of downtown Grand Rapids.

The only sources cited in the article are David Frey, a member of Grand Action, the entity that made the proposal; a representative from Rockford Construction, which is the primary construction company on this project; and the person who was hired to manage the market.

Excluded from the article are voices and perspectives that see this project through a much different lens.

For example, Our Kitchen Table, a local grassroots group working on food justice, had this to say about the New York Times article:

While it’s nice to see Grand Rapids receive national recognition, access to fresh, nutritious food in Grand Rapids’ neighborhoods remains a privilege reserved for those who can afford higher prices and transportation outside of the city’s food desserts. Our Kitchen Table works to address this injustice through food gardening programs and the Southeast Area Farmers’ Market. However, as government policies do not favor the small farmer, we have a hard time finding vendors who can afford the small returns our market brings them. In addition, existing philanthropic efforts to feed the hungry more often fill bellies with low-nutrient, high sugar, processed foods that only exacerbate medical issues caused by malnutrition: obesity, asthma, diabetes, heart disease and behavioral problems. While food industry donors get write offs, lower income families are written off. Furthermore, we do not believe the new Downtown Market will do anything to improve access to healthy foods for the Grand Rapids families who need it most.

Such a statement speaks to why this blog has been critical of the proposal from the beginning. We pointed out in an April 2010 article that the project was not just a farmers market, but a larger food complex that will serve an upscale population. In May of 2010, we posted a second article that provided a summary from a meeting where area residents and food activists raised questions about the proposal, stating that many who live in the Heartside area and south and south east of the market site were not included in any discussions about the project.

The project was approved despite the lack of public input and since then has been receiving millions of dollars in public funding. Is this what is meant is meant by public private partnership? The private sector benefits, while the public foots the bill?

We reported in a December 2011 article that the amount of public funds for this project are substantial. The Michigan Economic Growth Authority (public money) gave the project a $4.5 million grant, the DEQ (public money) gave a $1 million grant for demolishing the previous building on site and the DDA (public money) has also provided the project with over $1 million and is committing an additional $75,000 annually for the next 20 years.

Imagine if that kind of monetary commitment was given to groups like Our Kitchen Table, we might actually be able to eliminate malnourishment in Grand Rapids. Too bad that is not anywhere near the goal of the soon to be open downtown market.

Tar Sands Blockade Calls For Solidarity Actions November 19th

November 14, 2012

This article is re-posted from Earth First News.

Alright, eco-warriors, consider yourselves on notice. Tar Sands Blockade is stepping our game up, and we’re calling on you to do the same.

We’ll be throwing down in a big way next Monday, November 19th, somewhere near Nacogdoches, Texas, the heart of outlaw territory in this region for hundreds of years, and we want you to do the same. If you’re close enough or able to travel, of course we’d love to have you here with us, but we also want to see communities rising up and defending their homes from the wanton destruction of extractive industry everywhere.

TSB is dedicated to fighting this tar sands pipeline running through our collective backyard (or front yard, as the case may be), but we recognize the heart of the issue. We know that resource extraction is the lifeblood of the machine, the foundation of the crisis known as capitalism, and that only by building communities of resistance can people opt out of the system and watch it return to dust. So we call on the radical environmental community to show solidarity with the struggle against the tar sands, recognizing that our struggle is just a piece of the larger struggle against extraction and that you need to do what makes sense for your community.

Our message is simple: climate catastrophe is social injustice manifest and nothing less than a slow but sure genocide of the have-nots perpetrated by those with extraordinary privilege. The only way to survive climate chaos is by building community resiliency across all boundaries based on mutual aid and respect. The community that resists together persists together, so join with your neighbors and defend your homes from the onslaught of resource extraction.

The state, knowing that they can no longer ignore or mock us, has escalated its fight back against our campaign. At our last action, the two blockaders arrested had their phones stolen by police while they seek subpoenas for records, but they don’t scare us. 350.org believes the state can correct the error of its ways and embrace an outlook of environmentalism, and they are hosting a stand in the park rally on November 18th in hopes of convincing the state to do so. Let’s school them on why direct action gets the goods with an eruption of community resistance against tar sands and all the other fucked up extractive industries nestled in our backyards.

Check out this page for suggestions on targets and action ideas, but recognize that you know best about what your community needs. When you get your action planned, let us know about it and send any media you have to kxlblockade@gmail.com so we can spread the word far and wide. There are already 22 solidarity actions planned for November 14th through 20th, let’s keep that number growing and blow the lid off this thing all over the world.

Finally, thanks for the ongoing love and support. The day-to-day work here is a constant struggle, but knowing that y’all got our backs makes it easier to push on through and focus on what matters.

Loving and raging for the wild,

– Tar Sands Blockader

Bloom Collective to screen film on US policy towards Native Americans this Saturday

November 14, 2012

This Saturday, the Bloom Collective will host a screening of the documentary, The Canary Effect: Kill the Indian, Save the Man.

From multi-award winning directors Robin Davey and 
Yellow Thunder Woman, comes this ‘Illuminating Documentary.’ 
Delving deeply into the often misunderstood and frequently over looked 
historic realities of the American Indian, The Canary Effect follows 
the terrifying and horrific abuses instilled upon the Indigenous people of North America, and details the genocidal practices of the US government 
and its continuing affects on present day Indian country. 



Featuring interviews with the leading scholars and experts on Indian issues
including controversial author Ward Churchill, the film brings together the 
past and present in a way never before captured so eloquently and boldly 
on film.

According to the Facebook event page, the Bloom Collective says: Join us for a viewing and discussion of the film as we prepare to venture into the Thanksgiving season. Following the film there will be a discussion, donations accepted.

The Canary Effect

Saturday, November 17

2:00PM

671 Davis NW, Grand Rapids – lower level

New Media We Recommend

November 13, 2012

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.

Decolonizing Anarchism, by Maia Ramnath – In this fabulous written book, which is part of the Institute for Anarchist Studies, Maia Ramnath provides us with both a rich history of anti-colonialist resistance in India and a new framework for how allies can think and act about global resistance movements. Ramnath covers a great deal of ground and looks at numerous anti-colonial movements and theorists in India, to demonstrate that there has been tremendous diversity in how Indian people dealt with the British occupation. I also found the analysis of Gandhi to be refreshing, in that it wasn’t so dismissive of his contributions to the liberation struggle that one might get from some anarchist circles. For those of us living in the US and committed to support global liberation movements, Decolonizing Anarchism is an extremely useful tool since it challenges not only our notion of solidarity, it challenges the rigid anti-nationalist position that many anarchists in the west take, while sitting in our position of privilege. Ramnath presents readers with the reality that it is extremely difficult for liberation movements to not operate with nationalistic boundaries, both in terms of physical space, but also because of the backlash by centers of power. An important contribution in anarchist analysis that should be widely read.

Don’t Leave Your Friends Behind: Concrete Ways to Support Families in Social Justice Movements and Communities, edited by Victoria Law and China Martens – For those who have been involved in activists circles, one thing that is generally an obstacle for some people to participate in radical change is the lack of solidarity with people who have children. Don’t Leave Your Friends Behind is a wonderful collection of essays, interviews and stories from parents and children, about how we need to continue to figure out ways to create spaces and engage in a process that is both welcoming to parents with children and nurturing for them. There are lots of good concrete examples and lists of suggestions on ways to be in solidarity with parents/children, but the aspect of this book I found most delightful was the personal stories. The stories provide a rich diversity of opinions and experiences and they can challenge us to take serious the need to support families in social justice movements.

101 Changemakers: Rebels and Radicals Who Changed US History, edited by Michele Bollinger and Dao X. Tran – Unlike many large picture books, 101 Changemakers is not intended to be a coffee table book. This collection of brief bios on 101 radicals and rebels in US history is a fabulous tool for not only learning about some amazing people in US history, it would be an excellent educational tool for teachers, parents and young activists. The book follows a chronological timeline of US radicals and rebels, beginning with Crispus Attucks, an early revolutionary, and ending with Constance McMillen, a young Lesbian who challenger her school district by bringing her girlfriend to their high school prom. While the biographical information is brief, it does demonstrate a rich history of radicals and rebels in US history and each biography comes with a set of questions for discussion and suggestions of book, documentaries and websites to explore the individuals and movements they were a part of.

The Man Nobody Knew: In Search of My Father CIA Spymaster William Colby (DVD) – This documentary is an interesting investigation into the career of former CIA Director William Colby. Told through the eyes of former colleagues and his son Carl, The Man Nobody Knew is like watching a documentary version of the Hollywood film The Good Shephard. Colby was part of one of the CIA’s first campaigns, the undermining of the pro-democracy movement in Italy in 1948. However, Colby’s real legacy was in role in the US against Southeast Asia, particularly as head of the Phoenix Program, a CIA assassination campaign against Vietnamese dissidents and Viet Cong supporters. Some might criticize this film as humanizing Colby too much, since it relies on his ex-wife and son so heavily, but the humanizing of Colby demonstrates that people who carry out policy are not psychopaths, they are people who follow orders and have an allegiance to existing power structures. A useful film for those who care to investigate the brutality of US foreign policy.