Talking about Transgender Tuesdays: An interview with Mark Freeman and Kelly Kelly
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.
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
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
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.”
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
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
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
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.
WOOD TV 8 gave the DEQ a platform to respond to the Fracktivism forum, even though they were not present – updated
Earlier today, we posted a story about the Fracktivism forum that took place in Allegan last night.
We noticed that there were at least two area TV stations present and we also checked various local news sites to see if anything else had been posted about the forum.
There was nothing on WZZM 13, WXMI 17, MLive or the Allegan County News. The Allegan County News did post a story on Thursday about the amount of land that was leased at the October 24 DNR land auction in Lansing, but it is unfortunate that they didn’t send a reporter to last nights event to see how people might respond to the increased amount of leases given to oil & gas companies.
Both WMMT (channel 3) and WOOD TV 8 had camera crews there last night and we found a story posted on the WOOD TV site and the WWMT Channel 3 site.
The channel 8 story was not bad for broadcast news, in that they provided an overview of the issue, talked about the recent land auctions in Michigan and then gave a summary of the forum, with comments from two different people.
However, during the story, the WOOD TV reporter stated that the DEQ regulates the fracking wells throughout the state and said, “there has been no adverse environmental effects from the process.” This is a clear example where the reporter does not do anything to verify such a claim from the DEQ. Two of the presenters at last night’s forum pointed out the bias of the DEQ and their limited regulatory capabilities, plus the fact that what the forum presenters were pointing out last night was that there is a difference between the traditional fracking process and the high pressured horizontal hydraulic fracking, which is what is now happening across the state and the country.
In addition, the written version of the WOOD TV 8 story, not only mimick’s the broadcast story, they add more commentary from the DEQ. Here is what was added to the written version:
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality regulates fracking activity. Communications Director for the DEQ Brad Wurfel said the oil and mineral auctions are nothing new. The DEQ has authorized 12,000 wells over the past 50 years and says there have been no adverse affects on the environment.
Wurful challenged the organizers of Monday’s meeting to come up with concrete evidence to the contrary. He says good regulation by the state over the past six decades has prevented any environmental side effects from fracking.
“If the industry were hurting the environment, we would ban it,” he said.
While it is standard journalistic practice to seek out another voice on the issues of the day, the same usually doesn’t happen when the DEQ or DNR host a forum and are generally presented as “experts.”
We need to demand from the local news agencies that they seek out various opinions and voices when reporting on fracking, but they also need to engage in the practice of verifying claims made from anyone cited in the story.
The WMMT story did not seeking the DEQ or the DNR for a response to the comments made at the forum, but they did state that they would seek all government documents concerning the possible fracking on public land in counties in West Michigan. The reporter also stated that they would be monitoring to see if the State of Michigan will be responding to the lawsuit filed by the Michigan Land, Air and Water Defense group, a lawsuit that seeks to ban fracking in Barry and Allegan counties.
Fracktivism forum in Allegan generates lively discussion, but not enough concrete action
Nicole Berens-Capizzi contributed to this story.
Last night about 150 people came to the Griswold Auditorium in Allegan to be part of a forum to discuss the practice of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. The forum was co-sponsored by Michigan Land, Air and Water Defense Committee, FLOW and Food and Water Watch.
Three speakers addressed those in attendance, with the first speaker being Maryann Lesert, a professor of environmental studies at GRCC and one of the leaders in the anti-fracking movement in Michigan.
The focus of Maryann’s presentation was on the important of writing to generate awareness that truly matter. She talked about her own investigation and research on this issue throughout the state, which included meeting with grassroots groups, local stories and public meetings, most of which have been organized with a pro-fracking bias. One example of such a meeting was the one we attended in Rockford last month.
One issue the Maryann said was seriously lacking in these “public” meetings was the environmental impact of fracking. She said that when the DNR had announced the public land auction, which would include land in Barry County, this raised the level of urgency. Maryann and others created a press release and a document that the public and news agencies could use on as a resource to question the practice of fracking.
Maryann then talked about ways to connect with local media on this issue, whether that was formal news agencies, blogs, environmental and conservation groups. Maryann also addressed other tactics that could be useful for connecting with the news media and getting the world out.
Having a media strategy can lead to other organizing opportunities, which since this began last spring it has led to additional actions, protests and groups being formed across the state. Maryann herself said that this work has led to her being asked to do lots of fracking presentations, in a variety venues.
Maryann then showed a series of pictures she has taken from fracking locations across the state, images that helped provide visual clarity about the real environmental impact of fracking.
Maryann again emphasized the importance of what she called “writing out,” which was documenting and disseminating information about the ongoing resistance to fracking.
The second speaker was Jim Olson, an attorney is with FLOW, which previously challenged Nestle North America when the company began stealing ground water to sell under the brand name of Ice Mountain.
Water should be held in the public trust and that private interests should not override the public good. This is the basic principle which guides the work of FLOW.
He then spoke about the fact that there is a massive push for energy around the water, most of it in an unsustainable fashion. In addition, there is a global push for access to water, which presents its own problems. The when you mix the burning of fossil fuels with water one realizes that in addition to the contamination of water, there is an increase in water evaporation, which leads to more intense dry spells.
Jim then talked about the ecological impact of hydraulic fracturing, which includes not just the drilling, but the construction of the gas pumping plants, deforestations, road construction and water diverting that takes places when the drilling process begins.
Olson then made the point that each community needs to address this, since the federal law doesn’t stop fracking and the state regulations are not adequate to address the risks. Olson suggested that local communities need to pass local ordinances. While local communities can not ban drilling, they can ban certain kinds of industrial activity, land use, chemical use and wastewater disposal. Olson contended that local communities need to try any and all possible regulatory possibilities through ordinances.
Olsen thon said that communities can file lawsuits, what he called Citizen Suits, to require environmental assessment and disclosure of water baseline and chemicals. Ultimately, what Olson was wanting people to take away from his presentation, was that local communities can organize to challenge fracking through legal and regulatory means, since both state and federal law does virtually nothing to prevent horizontal hydraulic fracturing in communities.
The last speaker was Wenonah Hauter, the Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. She began by talking about the recent elections and said that Obama was re-elected by a progressive mandate, even though she provided no evidence of such a mandate. In fact, one could argue that Obama’s re-election was based on the “lesser of evils” political philosophy. Hauter also said that the oil & gas industry was not able to buy every vote, but that they did spend $200 million to influence the elections.
She then talked about the media influence of the oil & gas industry money and cited a study done by fair, which showed that the major TV networks have not given much attention, but that the oil & gas industry ran lots of ads on those networks during this same period of time, thus influencing public opinion on the issue of fracking.
Hauter then discussed aspects of the environmental impact of fracking and the industry arguments about the “benefits” of fracking. While some of this information may be useful in motivating people to oppose fracking, it shifted the focus away from action onto just what is “wrong with fracking.”
There was some time for Q & A at the end. One audience member asked about House Bill 5565 and whether or not the speakers thought we could influence the passage of this bill. Jim Olson didn’t believe it would pass with the “current political climate” in the state and that he doesn’t see “regulation going anywhere.” He also said that even if the bill does pass, chemicals used in the process will still be considered trade secret.
Maryann Lesert echoed a similar idea and stated that chemicals still won’t be disclosed with this legislation. She also mentioned that no part of the bill says that doctors are required to disclose anything (about frack chemicals, etc.) to patients who see them and believe they are sick because of fracking. Wenonah Hauter mentioned that so many people have gotten sick because of fracking and have sued (in PA) that the industry is trying to silence individuals through bills such as these.
Ellis Boal questioned Food and Water Watch on their “grassroots” efforts and their lack of support for the Committee to Ban Fracking, even something as simple as including a link for Committee to Ban Fracking on their (FWW’s) website. He also questioned Jim’s comments on local ordinances and said that the DEQ isn’t interested in zoning issues. He said there’s already a ban in Charlevoix, but the township won’t recognize it.
Wenonah said that organizations (such as FWW) have to decide how to spend resources and won’t participate in initiatives unless they have done the leg work themselves and believe it will pass. She used Prop. 37 in CA and big money from pro-GMO companies having more power in the election (through advertising) and citizens not being educated enough on the topic (so big money won over). Her point was that people won’t vote in their own self-interest unless they have been educated to do so, otherwise money from companies spent in advertising/lobbying will win over. Lastly, she said she didn’t believe it was “strategic” to have it on the ballot.
LuAnne from the Committee to Ban Fracking tried to comment and give a general update on the campaign (which is still going on) and was repeatedly interrupted by Wenonah, Tia, and Jim who didn’t want to give her the opportunity to give an update but move on to other questions instead. The audience pushed for the speakers to allow LuAnne the opportunity to speak. LuAnne pointed out that the petition campaign was doing what’s not being done by the state: bringing the issue to the voters. The campaign also served as a protest. She encouraged everyone to check out the website for the campaign and stay involved.
Maryann stated that as of September, there are 40 well permits (for vertical and horizontal fracking) and 15 pending in the state.
The last question they took was from a young man who said he supported all action but didn’t hear anything in the presentation on nonviolent civil disobedience and asked the speakers if they thought this would play in role in anti-fracking actions.
Wenonah said she supports all forms of activism, but direct action/nonviolent civil disobedience has to be more than “just walking out and getting arrested”, it has to be part of a larger strategy. She said we may not always agree on strategy and tactics, but we have to work together. Maryann said she wasn’t trying at all to diminish the importance of protests and believes this is an extremely important part of the process.
Several other groups such as Kent County Water Conservation and Mutual Aid GR were present and the representative from Mutual Aid GR encouraged all who were interested in direct action to talk to them afterwards.
It was unfortunate that time was not set aside to discuss tactics and strategies, as well as ways that people from Kent, Ottawa, Allegan and Barry County could collaborate and building solidarity to fight fracking in each of these counties.
