How Rural Wisconsin Got Fracked

webglider

Dagobah Resident
Another example of institutional insanity conceived of and produced by psychopaths. What will become of us if this goes on? Obama is promoting this technology all over the world. Is this part of a plan for population control?

Published on Monday, May 21, 2012 by TomDispatch.com How Rural America Got Fracked: The Environmental Nightmare You Know Nothing About

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/21-6?print

by Ellen Cantarow
If the world can be seen in a grain of sand, watch out. As Wisconsinites are learning, there’s money (and misery) in sand -- and if you’ve got the right kind, an oil company may soon be at your doorstep. Men with Cabot Oil and Gas work on a natural gas valve at a hydraulic fracturing site on Jan. 18, 2012 in South Montrose, Pennsylvania. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

March in Wisconsin used to mean snow on the ground, temperatures so cold that farmers worried about their cows freezing to death. But as I traveled around rural townships and villages in early March to interview people about frac-sand mining, a little-known cousin of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” daytime temperatures soared to nearly 80 degrees -- bizarre weather that seemed to be sending a meteorological message.

In this troubling spring, Wisconsin’s prairies and farmland fanned out to undulating hills that cradled the land and its people. Within their embrace, the rackety calls of geese echoed from ice-free ponds, bald eagles wheeled in the sky, and deer leaped in the brush. And for the first time in my life, I heard the thrilling warble of sandhill cranes.

Yet this peaceful rural landscape is swiftly becoming part of a vast assembly line in the corporate race for the last fossil fuels on the planet. The target: the sand in the land of the cranes.

Five hundred million years ago, an ocean surged here, shaping a unique wealth of hills and bluffs that, under mantles of greenery and trees, are sandstone. That sandstone contains a particularly pure form of crystalline silica. Its grains, perfectly rounded, are strong enough to resist the extreme pressures of the technology called hydraulic fracturing, which pumps vast quantities of that sand, as well as water and chemicals, into ancient shale formations to force out methane and other forms of “natural gas.”

That sand, which props open fractures in the shale, has to come from somewhere. Without it, the fracking industry would grind to a halt. So big multinational corporations are descending on this bucolic region to cart off its prehistoric sand, which will later be forcefully injected into the earth elsewhere across the country to produce more natural gas. Geology that has taken millions of years to form is now being transformed into part of a system, a machine, helping to drive global climate change.

“The valleys will be filled… the mountains and hills made level"

Boom times for hydraulic fracturing began in 2008 when new horizontal-drilling methods transformed an industry formerly dependent on strictly vertical boring. Frac-sand mining took off in tandem with this development.

"Awash in promises of corporate jobs and easy money, those who lease and sell their land just shrug."

“It's huge,” said a U.S. Geological Survey mineral commodity specialist in 2009. “I've never seen anything like it, the growth. It makes my head spin." That year, from all U.S. sources, frac-sand producers used or sold over 6.5 million metric tons of sand -- about what the Great Pyramid of Giza weighs. Last month, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Senior Manager and Special Projects Coordinator Tom Woletz said corporations were hauling at least 15 million metric tons a year from the state’s hills.

By July 2011, between 22 and 36 frac-sand facilities in Wisconsin were either operating or approved. Seven months later, said Woletz, there were over 60 mines and 45 processing (refinement) plants in operation. “By the time your article appears, these figures will be obsolete,” claims Pat Popple, who in 2008 founded the first group to oppose frac-sand mining, Concerned Chippewa Citizens (now part of The Save the Hills Alliance).

Jerry Lausted, a retired teacher and also a farmer, showed me the tawny ridges of sand that delineated a strip mine near the town of Menomonie where he lives. “If we were looking from the air,” he added, “you’d see ponds in the bottom of the mine where they dump the industrial waste water. If you scan to the left, you’ll see the hills that are going to disappear.”
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/Themes/CassiopaeaMorning/images/bbc/bold.gif


It’s impossible to grasp the scope of the devastation from the road, but aerial videos and photographs reveal vast, bleak sandy wastelands punctuated with waste ponds and industrial installations where Wisconsin hills once stood.

When corporations apply to counties for mining permits, they must file “reclamation” plans. But Larry Schneider, a retired metallurgist and industrial consultant with a specialized knowledge of mining, calls the reclamation process “an absolute farce.”

Reclamation projects by mining corporations since the 1970s may have made mined areas “look a little less than an absolute wasteland,” he observes. “But did they reintroduce the biodiversity? Did they reintroduce the beauty and the ecology? No.”

Studies bear out his verdict. “Every year,” wrote Mrinal Ghose in the Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, “large areas are continually becoming unfertile in spite of efforts to grow vegetation on the degraded mined land.”

Awash in promises of corporate jobs and easy money, those who lease and sell their land just shrug. “The landscape is gonna change when it’s all said and done,” says dairy farmer Bobby Schindler, who in 2008 leased his land in Chippewa County to a frac-sand company called Canadian Sand and Proppant. (EOG, the former Enron, has since taken over the lease.) “Instead of being a hill it’s gonna be a valley, but all seeded down, and you’d never know there’s a mine there unless you were familiar with the area.”

Of the mining he adds, “It’s really put a boost to the area. It’s impressive the amount of money that’s exchanging hands.” Eighty-four-year-old Letha Webster, who sold her land 100 miles south of Schindler’s to another mining corporation, Unimin, says that leaving her home of 56 years is “just the price of progress.”

Jamie and Kevin Gregar -- both 30-something native Wisconsinites and military veterans -- lived in a trailer and saved their money so that they could settle down in a pastoral paradise once Kevin returned from Iraq. In January 2011, they found a dream home near tiny Tunnel City. (The village takes its name from a nearby rail tunnel). “It’s just gorgeous -- the hills, the trees, the woodland, the animals,” says Jamie. “It’s perfect.”

Five months after they moved in, she learned that neighbors had leased their land to “a sand mine” company. “What’s a sand mine?” she asked.

Less than a year later, they know all too well. The Gregars’ land is now surrounded on three sides by an unsightly panorama of mining preparations. Unimin is uprooting trees, gouging out topsoil, and tearing down the nearby hills. “It looks like a disaster zone, like a bomb went off,” Jamie tells me.

"...Multinational corporations use their considerable resources to steamroll local councils and win sweetheart deals."

When I mention her service to her country, her voice breaks. “I am devastated. We’ve done everything right. We’ve done everything we were supposed to. We just wanted to raise our family in a good location and have good neighbors and to have it taken away from us for something we don’t support…” Her voice trails off in tears.

For Unimin, the village of Tunnel City in Greenfield township was a perfect target. Not only did the land contain the coveted crystalline silica; it was close to a rail spur. No need for the hundreds of diesel trucks that other corporations use to haul sand from mine sites to processing plants. No need, either, for transport from processing plants to rail junctions where hundreds of trains haul frac-sand by the millions of tons each year to fracture other once-rural landscapes. Here, instead, the entire assembly line operates in one industrial zone.

There was also no need for jumping the hurdles zoning laws sometimes erect. Like many Wisconsin towns where a culture of diehard individualism sees zoning as an assault on personal freedom, Greenfield and all its municipalities, including Tunnel City, are unzoned. This allowed the corporation to make deals with individual landowners. For the 8.5 acres where Letha Webster and her husband Gene lived for 56 years, assessed in 2010 at $147,500, Unimin paid $330,000. Overall, between late May and July 2011, it paid $5.3 million for 436 acres with a market value of about $1.1 million.

There was no time for public education about the potential negative possibilities of frac-sand mining: the destruction of the hills, the decline in property values, the danger of silicosis (once considered a strictly occupational lung disease) from blowing silica dust, contamination of ground water from the chemicals used in the processing plants, the blaze of lights all night long, noise from hundreds of train cars, houses shaken by blasting. Ron Koshoshek, a leading environmentalist who works with Wisconsin’s powerful Towns Association to educate townships about the industry, says that “frac-sand mining will virtually end all residential development in rural townships.” The result will be “a large-scale net loss of tax dollars to towns, increasing taxes for those who remain.”

Town-Busting Tactics

Frac-sand corporations count on a combination of naïveté, trust, and incomprehension in rural hamlets that previously dealt with companies no larger than Wisconsin’s local sand and gravel industries. Before 2008, town boards had never handled anything beyond road maintenance and other basic municipal issues. Today, multinational corporations use their considerable resources to steamroll local councils and win sweetheart deals. That’s how the residents of Tunnel City got taken to the cleaners.

On July 6, 2011, a Unimin representative ran the first public forum about frac-sand mining in the village. Other heavily attended and often heated community meetings followed, but given the cascades of cash, the town board chairman’s failure to take a stand against the mining corporation, and Unimin’s aggressiveness, tiny Tunnel City was a David without a slingshot.

Local citizens did manage to get the corporation to agree to give the town $250,000 for the first two million tons mined annually, $50,000 more than its original offer. In exchange, the township agreed that any ordinance it might pass in the future to restrict mining wouldn’t apply to Unimin. Multiply the two million tons of frac-sand tonnage Unimin expects to mine annually starting in 2013 by the $300 a ton the industry makes and you’ll find that the township only gets .0004% of what the company will gross.

For the Gregars, it’s been a nightmare. Unimin has refused five times to buy their land and no one else wants to live near a sand mine. What weighs most heavily on the couple is the possibility that their children will get silicosis from long-term exposure to dust from the mine sites. “We don’t want our kids to be lab rats for frac-sand mining companies,” says Jamie.

Drew Bradley, Unimin’s senior vice president of operations, waves such fears aside. “I think [citizens] are blowing it out of proportion,” he told a local publication. “There are plenty of silica mines sited close to communities. There have been no concerns exposed there.”

That’s cold comfort to the Gregars. Crystalline silica is a known carcinogen and the cause of silicosis, an irreversible, incurable disease. None of the very few rules applied to sand mining by the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) limit how much silica gets into the air outside of mines. That’s the main concern of those living near the facilities.

So in November 2011, Jamie Gregar and ten other citizens sent a 35-page petition to the DNR. The petitioners asked the agency to declare respirable crystalline silica a hazardous substance and to monitor it, using a public health protection level set by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The petition relies on studies, including one by the DNR itself, which acknowledge the risk of airborne silica from frac-sand mines for those who live nearby.

The DNR denied the petition, claiming among other things that -- contrary to its own study’s findings -- current standards are adequate. One of the petition’s signatories, Ron Koshoshek, wasn’t surprised. For 16 years he was a member of, and for nine years chaired, Wisconsin’s Public Intervenor Citizens Advisory Committee. Created in 1967, its role was to intercede on behalf of the environment, should tensions grow between the DNR’s two roles: environmental protector and corporate licensor. “The DNR,” he says, “is now a permitting agency for development and exploitation of resources.”

In 2010, Cathy Stepp, a confirmed anti-environmentalist who had previously railed against the DNR, belittling it as "anti-development, anti-transportation, and pro-garter snakes," was appointed to head the agency by now-embattled Governor Scott Walker who explained: “I wanted someone with a chamber-of-commerce mentality.”

As for Jamie Gregar, her dreams have been dashed and she’s determined to leave her home. “At this point,” she says, “I don’t think there’s a price we wouldn’t accept.”

Frac-Sand vs. Food

Brian Norberg and his family in Prairie Farm, 137 miles northwest of Tunnel City, paid the ultimate price: he died while trying to mobilize the community against Procore, a subsidiary of the multinational oil and gas corporation Sanjel. The American flag that flies in front of the Norbergs’ house flanks a placard with a large, golden NORBERG, over which pheasants fly against a blue sky. It’s meant to represent the 1,500 acres the family has farmed for a century.

“When you start talking about industrial mining, to us, you’re violating the land,” Brian’s widow, Lisa, told me one March afternoon over lunch. She and other members of the family, as well as a friend, had gathered to describe Prairie Farm’s battle with the frac-sanders. “The family has had a really hard time accepting the fact that what we consider a beautiful way to live could be destroyed by big industry.”

Their fight against Procore started in April 2011: Sandy, a lifelong friend and neighbor, arrived with sand samples drillers had excavated from her land, and began enthusiastically describing the benefits of frac-sand mining. “Brian listened for a few minutes,” Lisa recalls. “Then he told her [that]… she and her sand vials could get the heck -- that’s a much nicer word than what he used -- off the farm. Sandy was hoping we would also be excited about jumping on the bandwagon. Brian informed her that our land would be used for the purpose God intended, farming.”

Brian quickly enlisted family and neighbors in an organizing effort against the company. In June 2011, Procore filed a reclamation plan -- the first step in the permitting process -- with the county’s land and water conservation department. Brian rushed to the county office to request a public hearing, but returned dejected and depressed. “He felt completely defeated that he could not protect the community from them moving in and destroying our lives,” recalls Lisa.

He died of a heart attack less than a day later at the age of 52. The family is convinced his death was a result of the stress caused by the conflict. That stress is certainly all too real. The frac-sand companies, says family friend Donna Goodlaxson, echoing many others I interviewed for this story, “go from community to community. And one of the things they try to do is pit people in the community against each other.”

Instead of backing off, the Norbergs and other Prairie Farm residents continued Brian’s efforts. At an August 2011 public hearing, the town’s residents directly addressed Procore’s representatives. “What people had to say there was so powerful,” Goodlaxson remembers. “Those guys were blown out of their chairs. They weren’t prepared for us.”

“I think people insinuate that we’re little farmers in a little community and everyone’s an ignorant buffoon,” added Sue Glaser, domestic partner of Brian’s brother Wayne. “They found out in a real short time there was a lot of education behind this.”

“About 80% of the neighborhood was not happy about the potential change to our area,” Lisa adds. “But very few of us knew anything about this industry at [that] time.” To that end, Wisconsin’s Farmers’ Union and its Towns Association organized a day-long conference in December 2011 to help people “deal with this new industry.”

Meanwhile, other towns, alarmed by the explosion of frac-sand mining, were beginning to pass licensing ordinances to regulate the industry. In Wisconsin, counties can challenge zoning but not licensing ordinances, which fall under town police powers. These, according to Wisconsin law, cannot be overruled by counties or the state. Becky Glass, a Prairie Farm resident and an organizer with Labor Network for Sustainability, calls Wisconsin’s town police powers “the strongest tools towns have to fight or regulate frac-sand mining.” Consider them so many slingshots employed against the corporate Goliaths.

In April 2012, Prairie Farm’s three-man board voted 2 to 1 to pass such an ordinance to regulate any future mining effort in the town. No, such moves won’t stop frac-sand mining in Wisconsin, but they may at least mitigate its harm. Procore finally pulled out because of the resistance, says Glass, adding that the company has since returned with different personnel to try opening a mine near where she lives.

“It takes 1.2 acres per person per year to feed every person in this country,” says Lisa Norberg. “And the little township that I live in, we have 9,000 acres that are for farm use. So if we just close our eyes and bend over and let the mining companies come in, we’ll have thousands of people we can’t feed.”

Food or frac-sand: it’s a decision of vital importance across the country, but one most Americans don’t even realize is being made -- largely by multinational corporations and dwindling numbers of yeoman farmers in what some in this country would call “the real America.”
Most of us know nothing about these choices, but if the mining corporations have their way, we will soon enough -- when we check out prices at the supermarket or grocery store. We’ll know it too, as global climate change continues to turn Wisconsin winters balmy and supercharge wild weather across the country.

While bucolic landscapes disappear, aquifers are fouled, and countless farms across rural Wisconsin morph into industrial wastelands, Lisa’s sons continue to work the Norberg’s land, just as their father once did. So does Brian’s nephew, 32-year-old Matthew, who took me on a jolting ride across his fields. The next time I’m in town, he assured me, we’ll visit places in the hills where water feeds into springs. Yes, you can drink the water there. It’s still the purest imaginable. Under the circumstances, though, no one knows for how long.

Many thanks to Wisconsin filmmaker Jim Tittle, whose documentary, “The Price of Sand,” will appear in August 2012, and who shared both his interviewees and his time for this article.

© 2012 Ellen Cantarow
Ellen Cantarow, a Boston-based journalist, first wrote from Israel and the West Bank in 1979. Cantarow has written on women in the labor force, social activism, and the Middle East. Her work has been published in the Village Voice, Grand Street, and Mother Jones, among other publications, and was anthologized by the South End Press. More recently, her writing has appeared at Counterpunch, ZNet, TomDispatch and Common Dreams.
 
Capitalism at it's best.

Oil/gas industries are trying to ''invade'' Québec as well. We have a huge reserve of shale gas under the Vallée du Saint-Laurent, where the majority of the population of Québec lives. It is also where there is the greatest concentration of agriculture, farming and there is a lot of food processing plants there as well.

Project is for over 20,000 wells. That would make about 40,000 km of piping and trillions of liters of water (this is way bad).

Population is protesting against this with great intensity. We have been to PA twice to see how it is there and it was further motivation to keep fighting. There is already around 30 wells in the province and most of them are badly leaking to begin with, even those who have been sealed.

I have tried to question and have discussed with some people from the industry but that was just pathetic. These guys are experts at avoiding anwsering, spreading disinformation and missguiding people. It just dosen't work with me so I had to end it before getting seriously mad and punch them on the nose. :P

My primary area of expertise is about water treatement. And I got more seriously involved in the matter when a mayor here decided to treat used frack water from the USA in his biological plant in exchange of money of course. What a joke. This is only good at dilluting the toxins all over the river in which water ends and only good at killing needed bacterias, which will concequently diminish the efficiency of the primary treatment thus dilluting human wastes in the river as well on top of the chemicals.

By example, there are chlorinated compounds in the frack water. When mixed with organic matter like massively found in biological plants, they can react to form halocarbons like chloroform, a dangerous chemical.

That is on top of other various chemicals than emanate from used frack water like benzene, toluene and xylene which are three other dagerous compounds.

As we can see, fossil fuel industries are leaning more and more towards ''non-conventional'' methods like shale gas, shale oil, and tar sands. There are generally speaking a lot more ''dirty'', damagable and unconvenient for those affected (surrounding population).
 
Quote from JayMark:

I have tried to question and have discussed with some people from the industry but that was just pathetic. These guys are experts at avoiding anwsering, spreading disinformation and missguiding people. It just dosen't work with me so I had to end it before getting seriously mad and punch them on the nose.

Josh Fox, the filmaker who made Gasland, recently released a short 18 minute film that not only refutes many industry claims, but points out some of the tactics the industry uses to misguide and confuse people. This theme ties into the film's title, "The Sky Is Pink".

Professor Tony Ingraffea's expanation information about why the the cement casings around the pipes are guaranteed to fail is especially disturbing.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/new-anti-fracking-film-by-gaslands-josh-fox-targets-cuomo-governor-what-color-will-the-sky-be-over-new-york-20120620

Quote from JayMark


My primary area of expertise is about water treatement. And I got more seriously involved in the matter when a mayor here decided to treat used frack water from the USA in his biological plant in exchange of money of course. What a joke. This is only good at dilluting the toxins all over the river in which water ends and only good at killing needed bacterias, which will concequently diminish the efficiency of the primary treatment thus dilluting human wastes in the river as well on top of the chemicals.

I'm really sorry to learn that your mayor has compromised the people's health for money by agreeing to treat used wastewater from the US.

In New York there seems to be a plan to do the same thing - truck wastewater into the municipal water treatment plants here.

There is an organization called The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund which is spearheading an international movement to incorporate the Rights Of Nature and Communities into ordinances, Constitutions, and bans. In the U.S. their rights based bans have not been challenged - not even in Pennsylvania where all the other local bans were pre-empted by the governor, the rights based bans seem to be holding.

http://www.celdf.org/

What I've learned from three years of activism is that the system is completely rigged in favor of the corporations which is understandable since the corporations are the ones that write the environmental laws.

In addition I imagine that NAFTA also makes it easier for the energy industry to come into Quebec

These videos are of Thomas Linzy one of the lawyers at CELDF - Together the videos give a good sense of their approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgn7mlsb5gE&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A4OhXR9vAc&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfVAHFTY9DI&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6abV18rVEaE&feature=relmfu

I am aware of Quebec's vaiient efforts to ban fracking. I wish you all the best, and hope that you may find some of this information useful
 
Thanks for the links. I'll consult them with great attention.

Yeah bro this is a crazy situation.

The environmental study on shale gas will end next April or so. Then it will be decided if these industries can frack or not.

Sadly, many 'suspicious' names are on the list of those conducting the study. In other terms, I don't trust it entirely (not much actually). Power Corporation and the whole lobby of fossil energies is just too powerfull and influent.

Our current governement is very interested in doing so, unlike most of the population. Good thing is that elections are soon to happen. The oposition is against shale gas and separatist.

It is time we make a country out of this province! ;)
 
JayMark said:
Our current governement is very interested in doing so, unlike most of the population. Good thing is that elections are soon to happen. The oposition is against shale gas and separatist.

It is time we make a country out of this province! ;)

Hi JayMark,

Do you sincerely believe that a new government is going to change something for the better?

And do you believe if Québec becomes a country that it will really change something ?

Did Obama change something in the USA for the better ???
 
Gandalf said:
Hi JayMark,

Do you sincerely believe that a new government is going to change something for the better?

Depends on the government itself and it's intentions. I highly doubt they will ever really make all things better but I think they might in regard to certain situations.

And do you believe if Québec becomes a country that it will really change something ?

In this case yes, I sincerly do think it could. Maby not all for the best but again, it depends on the way it is done.

Did Obama change something in the USA for the better ???

I can't say as I do not live there and do not really follow USA politics much.

The danger here (the way I see it) isn't to separate from Canada but rather to stay united with it. Harper is going nuts or if you prefer, his vision is far from being close to ours in Québec. He has the majority so he uses it to do whatever he feels like.

Anyhow, I'm not much into politics. I have my opinions, like to discuss it sometimes but in the end, I do not feel that the world is going to change for the best anyways. And as I do not in any way trust governments to begin with, I tend to try to figure which one would perhaps not be as bad as the others.
 
quote from Gandalf:

Do you sincerely believe that a new government is going to change something for the better?

And do you believe if Québec becomes a country that it will really change something ?

Did Obama change something in the USA for the better ???

JayMark, I could be wrong, but I think that what Gandalf is saying is that the sovereignty of nations have been replaced by that of the financial sector and the corporations. Politicians owe allegiance to these entities, not to the countries or to the people who elected them.

If you are to do any work at all to fight fracking, you really need to know this. Fracking is only one manifestation of the brutal exploitation that countries and citizens are experiencing under corporate and financial rule both entities of which are run by psychopaths.

To think that your elected officials are going to help you because the cause is just is naive. To have any influence at all with politicians you have to have such a groundswell of protest that the politicians can justify that their constituents are forcing them to take a position against fracking, but that won't be the end of it.
The corporations will be back and they will exert more pressure to elect other candidates to do their bidding until they get the results they want

The corporations have written the environmental laws that allow them to poison the planet and right wing activist judges and trade agreements have codified them. It may or may not be possible for the people to challenge and change these laws. I like to think it is - it's the only thing that gives me hope, but I am not counting on it.

There are many many unknowns - some due to purposeful obfuscation and some due to massive public denial which leads to ignorance of the true nature of the world in which we live.

As awful as this situation is, it presents a great opportunity for learning. The more you know, the more you can help others. Knowledge Protects.
 
I think that what Gandalf was saying was until all people really understand what psychopaths are, how they are drawn to power, no matter how the government is changed, it will just be out with the old boss, in with the new boss. Nothing will have changed no matter how much we wish it would.

Added: That should say, in with the new boss, same as the old boss.
 
webglider said:
quote from Gandalf:

Do you sincerely believe that a new government is going to change something for the better?

And do you believe if Québec becomes a country that it will really change something ?

Did Obama change something in the USA for the better ???

JayMark, I could be wrong, but I think that what Gandalf is saying is that the sovereignty of nations have been replaced by that of the financial sector and the corporations. Politicians owe allegiance to these entities, not to the countries or to the people who elected them.

If you are to do any work at all to fight fracking, you really need to know this. Fracking is only one manifestation of the brutal exploitation that countries and citizens are experiencing under corporate and financial rule both entities of which are run by psychopaths.

To think that your elected officials are going to help you because the cause is just is naive. To have any influence at all with politicians you have to have such a groundswell of protest that the politicians can justify that their constituents are forcing them to take a position against fracking, but that won't be the end of it.
The corporations will be back and they will exert more pressure to elect other candidates to do their bidding until they get the results they want

The corporations have written the environmental laws that allow them to poison the planet and right wing activist judges and trade agreements have codified them. It may or may not be possible for the people to challenge and change these laws. I like to think it is - it's the only thing that gives me hope, but I am not counting on it.

There are many many unknowns - some due to purposeful obfuscation and some due to massive public denial which leads to ignorance of the true nature of the world in which we live.

As awful as this situation is, it presents a great opportunity for learning. The more you know, the more you can help others. Knowledge Protects.

Eureka!

Well that's a mind opener. Thanks to you and Gandalf.

I year ya very well pals and it makes a lot of sense. I wasen't really paying attention on some very important facts although I was arleady quite aware of them. In other words, I haden't connected enough dots here. I, indeed, need to go much deeper into the subject of psychopaths and especially the way they operate.

Yeah of course psychopaths are the real power on this planets. Politicians are mere puppets. And I don't think that they are ever going to give up as well. So no matter what happens politically speaking, it is only vaguely an illusion, a smoke screen to prevent us from seeing the true nature of what is really going on behind the curtain.

4D STS ---> Psychopaths ---> Corporations ---> Politicians ---> Laws/Forces ---> Cattle (Humans).

They are not only there for cash as much as most people think. They have very deep, sinister and 'evil' agenda that most people would absolutely refuse to beleive in. What a fantastic deception.

So as far as my political views are concerned, this very moment is a turning point. I no longer see how holding on to them will be of any help anymore. It is time for me to peek behind the curtain and contemplate what's going on and how (emphasis) it is done. That sort of knowledge is far more important to my eyes.

Thanks again. Now the case of politics is getting clearer and will be even more as knowledge is gained and applied.

God I love learning.
 
quote by JayMark:

So as far as my political views are concerned, this very moment is a turning point. I no longer see how holding on to them will be of any help anymore. It is time for me to peek behind the curtain and contemplate what's going on and how (emphasis) it is done. That sort of knowledge is far more important to my eyes.

Thanks again. Now the case of politics is getting clearer and will be even more as knowledge is gained and applied.

God I love learning.

Here's where it gets interesting. The more you know about how the world works, and the more you try to share it with others, the more resistance you may face.

This is because we've all been colonized by the corporations - by that I mean that they have colonized not just the land and the resources, but the mind itself.

The essay below describes what thousands of us in New York have been doing the past three years. If you can stomach this, and want more, I can give you some suggestions on how to skip this part. But beware - even if you understand and accept the arguments below, I wager that you'll have a hard time convincing others.

By What Authority
“HELP! I’VE BEEN COLONIZED AND CAN’T GET UP….”
Take a Lawyer and an Expert To a Hearing and Call Me In a Decade
by Jane Anne Morris
http://www.poclad.org/BWA/2005/BWA_2005_FEB.html

A third of your friends are locked down Reclaiming the Bill of Rights, Building a Movement in an old growth grove or at a corporate headquarters, with law enforcement officers rubbing pepper spray in their eyes. Another third are preparing testimony so you can be persuasive at a generic regulatory agency hearing while you’re begging them to enforce a tiny portion of our laws. The third third are trying to raise money to pay lawyers to get your friends out of jail (after they’ve been released from the hospital) or take the regulatory agency to court (after it declines to enforce the law).

The pepper spray, groveling and money-grubbing might not be so bad if we could honestly say that the earth is better off today than it was four years ago. I can’t honestly say that.

This diatribe is an effort to take a hard look at what we’re doing and insinuate some new elements into the debate. It’s not intended to belittle any of our efforts, point fingers, or assign blame, so don’t take it personally. We are all earthlings.

Our campaigns follow the gambling addiction model. The last bet didn’t pay off but the next one might if… if… if we just had a new, improved tripod, three more experts, more labor or church support, ten more elected officials on our side, a hundred more people at the demo, or a thousand more letters in the mail…. Who are we kidding? We are just doing the “same old thing” over and over again and fooling ourselves that it might work next time.

We are stuck in a feedback loop where our failures are interpreted as signs that we should repeat our failed tactics, but try harder. This is what it is to be colonized. The telltale sign is not that we’re failing, but that we’re fooling ourselves, and don’t see it as a feedback loop.

If our minds are not colonized, then how come almost every Earth First! Journal action piece starts with a banner or a lockdown and ends with a plea to write a letter to a white male bigshot? (Go ahead, look through back issues. It goes on for years and years.)

Over at corporate headquarters they have a steeper learning curve.

Despite the occasional bag of guts on the committee table or clever banner, it must be reassuring for corporate executives and those who serve them to sit back and smile at the success of their containment efforts, and the predictability of our campaigns.

The issue of whose minds are colonized is a delicate one. We all know people whose minds have been colonized. Who are they? They are other people — people out there. They are somebody else. Not us.

It’s time we did the unthinkable and asked ourselves if we have been colonized. What do we see when we compare our strategies to corporate strategies?

Many of our groups are organized to save wolves, butterflies, trees, prairie flowers, rivers, deserts, or estuaries. But corporation executives don’t organize to destroy the wolves, butterflies… flowers… estuaries. Nor do they organize to pollute the air, spoil the rivers, or promote five-legged frogs.

This asymmetry should give us pause as we try to understand why corporations are on a roll while we’re stuck in a feedback loop. Let’s look again.

Corporate strategy leverages their power; their efforts reinforce and magnify each other. Our strategy splits our resources and dissipates our power.

Corporate strategy aims to increase the power that corporations have over people. That means that
when a single corporation gets a victory, it helps all other corporations, too. They are all stronger, they all have more power, and the people have less.

We work on separate harms. When we lock down to one old growth stand, others go unprotected. When we protest about one chemical, others go unprotested. When we testify to preserve one watershed, others are not spoken for.

We have whole campaigns directed at one chemical, one corporation, one species, one grove of trees, one article of clothing.

In doing so, we fracture our resources. While we’re out working on a “Chlorine is Bad” or “Wolves are Good” campaign, we’re not working on all of the other chemicals, animals, trees, etc., that also need attention.

Some of us argue that this fracturing is inevitable, because there’s so much wrong in the world. (Declaring a problem to be inevitable is a great way to justify not talking about it. Another gift to the corporate world view.)

Others of us think that the fracturing results from not being organized enough, or not being organized right. This opens the door for endless bickering about whether we should organize by bioregion or by article of clothing, by species or by chemical, by issue or by occupation. Either way, we’re still fractured.

Being fractured is another way of being colonized.


Another sure sign of being colonized is when you censor yourselves, and don’t even wait for others to do it. Some of our self-imposed limitations are right off of a corporate wish list.

We have a strange “but it’s the law” syndrome. Why can’t we bring up important issues at EPA hearings? It’s regulatory (administrative) law. Why can’t we get our views accurately presented on TV? It’s (corporate) private property law and FCC regulations. Why can’t we imprison corporate executives for what their corporations do? It’s liability law.

So what do we do? We toe the line at the EPA hearing. We dress up as animals to get a moment on TV. We let lying corporate executives lie.

That is, we work around the defining laws that are the groundwork for a rigged system. We’re looking for favors, lucky breaks. We don’t even dream of control, yet we call this a democracy.

This is being colonized.

Corporation representatives do not feel constrained in this way. Nothing is too destructive, too audacious, too outrageous for them to attempt. After all, they have most of us believing and not even objecting to the idea that corporations have “rights.” In early 1998 an association of corporations (itself a corporation that supposedly has “free speech” rights, according to prevailing legal opinion) sued a talk show host in Texas for saying that she’s going to stop eating hamburgers.[1]

Then there’s the Zen of “Describing The Problem.”

We need our storytellers, we need our scribes, we need our analysts, we need our own human fonts of crazy ideas. We needed Silent Spring.[2] By now we have the equivalent of Son of Silent Spring, Daughter of Silent Spring, Second Cousin Once Removed of Silent Spring. But habitat destruction continues as fast as we can describe it, if not faster. Our compulsion to Describe The Problem (something we do really well) serves a purpose, especially for people who think there’s no problem, but the people who need to hear it the most aren’t hearing it. We’re Describing The Problem to each other in lavish detail, which crowds out efforts to rethink our whole strategy.

Are we doing anything other than lurching back and forth between Describing The Problem and then buckling the seatbelt on our feedback loop? I for one think I’ve heard enough “Bad Things About Corporations,” and I’m pretty tired of working on campaigns that will not only fail, but fail in predictable ways.


How have we been colonized? Let me count the ways. We interpret failures as signals to do the same things over again. We are predictable. Our strategies and styles of organizing fracture and dilute our resources. We either accept this dilution as inevitable, or blame each other for not organizing right. We censor ourselves, in thought and action. We act as though if we Describe The Problem to each other enough, it might go away.

And now, we can argue about whether we’ve been colonized or not. Corporate management is popping extra popcorn for this one.

But enough of what we do. What do corporations do? (The question should be, “What do people do behind the fiction of corporations?” One of the signs of our being colonized is that we personify corporations. I’ve been trying to avoid that in this piece but… help, I’ve been colonized and I need help getting up….)

Corporate management figured out a hundred years ago that fighting against each other, competing and diluting their resources was weakening them and limiting their power. So they don’t do that any more.

So what do people do while hiding behind the corporate shield? The short version is that they write a script for us, and we follow it. Then they write a script for themselves, and we don’t even read it.

A big part of the script written for us involves Regulatory Law (including environmental and administrative law). It assumes that corporations have the rights of constitutional “persons.”

It outlines procedures for what We the People can do (not much); what government can do (a little more); and what corporations can do (a lot).

At regulatory agencies, corporate “persons” (that is, corporations) have constitutional rights to due process and equal protection that human persons, affected citizens, do not have. For non-corporate human citizens there’s a “Democracy Theme Park” where we can pull levers on voting machines and talk into microphones at hearings. But don’t worry, they’re not connected to anything and nobody’s listening ‘cept us.


What Regulatory Law regulates is citizen input, not corporate behavior. So when we cooperate in regulatory law proceedings, we are following the script that corporation representatives wrote for us. We’re either colonized, or we’re collaborators. That the regulatory agencies fail to protect the public is clear. Why they fail is another matter.

One reason is that they were set up with the cooperation of and sometimes at the urging of big corporations. Today regulatory agencies and trade associations work together to do the work that the “trusts” of the last century were set up to do.

A second reason for regulatory failure concerns the nature of the corporation, to which we turn briefly.

Corporations are not natural entities, like karner blue butterflies or white pines. Corporations are artificial creations that are set up by state corporation codes. These state laws, plus a bunch of court cases, form the basis for the notion that corporations have powers and “rights.”

THIS LAW IS DEFINING LAW. This law is the script that corporate lawyers write for corporations. This law is the law that we don’t even read.

It’s right there in the law books in black and white, just like the “regs” that we spend so much time on. But this Defining Law is invisible to us because we’ve been colonized and have accepted it as a given. We leave this defining law — in corporation codes, bankruptcy law, insurance law, etc. — to corporation lawyers, who rewrite it every few years without so much as a whimper from citizen activists. Then we wonder why the parts-per-million regulations aren’t enforced.

So, the second reason that regulatory agencies fail to protect the public is that we have allowed corporate lawyers to write the Defining Law of corporations. This law bestows upon corporations powers and rights that exceed those of human persons and sometimes of government as well. It seems pretty obvious, then, that we need to rewrite the Defining Law.


Sooner or later we come up against the claim that all this stuff about “rights” and so on is just too legalistic. None of us wants to be involved in narrow and excessively legalistic strategies.

However, a glance through any Earth First! journal will confirm that we’re constantly dealing with The Law, whether we’re filing testimony or engaged in direct action. As long as we’re in the legal arena, we might as well be dealing with Defining Law, and not the regulatory frufru that we’ve allowed to distract us.

If the civil rights movement had been afraid to touch the deep defining “law of the land” we’d still be laboring under “separate but equal.” For as long as we stick with Regulatory Law and leave Defining Law to corporate lawyers, we’ll have corporate government.

What are we going to do tomorrow morning?

We could keep doing what hasn’t worked in case it works next time; we could denounce people who suggest that what we’re doing isn’t working; we could declare victory so our folks won’t get so depressed and discouraged. I’d like to steer clear of those options.

I’d also like to avoid “negotiating” with corporations as though they were persons with a role in a democratic system, and avoid doing anything else that accepts that corporations have the constitutional rights of human persons.

Here is one cluster of ideas for rewriting the Defining Law of corporations. It’s not a 3-point plan, and it’s not the beginning of a twenty point plan — just some ideas to think about.

1. Prohibit corporations from owning stock in other corporations. Owning stock in other corporations enables corporations to control huge markets and shift responsibility, liability, resources, assets and taxes back and forth among parent corporations, subsidiaries and other members of their unholy families. By defining corporations in such a way to prohibit such ownership, much of the anti-trust regulatory law becomes unnecessary and superfluous.

2. Prohibit corporations from being able to choose when to go out of business (in legalese, no voluntary dissolution). This would prevent corporations from dissolving themselves when it came time to pay taxes, repay government loans, pay creditors, pay pensions, pay for health care, and pay for toxic cleanups.

3. Make stockholders liable for a corporation’s debts. People who want to be stockholders would reallocate their resources to corporations that they knew something about, that weren’t engaged in risky, toxic projects. (This would encourage local, sustainable businesses and healthy local economies. Imagine that.)

These three measures might seem “unrealistic” to some, but it beats the heck out of a voluntary code of conduct, or a wasted decade at a regulatory agency. All three of these provisions were once common features of state corporation codes. No wonder corporate apologists prefer that we hang around in the regulatory agencies with our heads spinning with parts per million and habitat conservation plans.

These three measures were quite effective, which is why corporation lawyers worked so hard to get rid of them. But they address only a tiny portion of what needs to be done.


Here’s another cluster of ideas for ways to shape a democratic process that is about people. (The idea that corporations have “rights” would seem nonsensical to any but a colonized mind.)

1. No corporate participation in the democratic process. Democracy is for and about human beings. Corporations should be prohibited from paying for any political advertisements, making any campaign contributions, or seeking to influence the democratic process in any way.

2. Corporations have no constitutional rights.

A corporation is an artificial creation set up to serve a public need, not an independent entity with intrinsic “rights.”

3. Corporations should be prohibited from making any civic, charitable, or educational donations. Such donations are used to warp the entire social and economic fabric of society, and make people afraid to speak out against corporations.

These probably seem even more “unrealistic” than the first batch. Imagine how good it is for corporate executives that we find these ideas “impractical.” And by the way, these were all once law, too.

The final objection to be raised is that we’ll never get anywhere as long as the “news media” are against us, refuse to cover our issues, and distort our views. Agreed.

But the “news media” are corporations, key players in a system of propaganda that encompasses not only television, radio and newspapers, but also the entire educational system. The “airwaves” belong to the public.

Why have we allowed a puppet federal agency to “lease” the public airwaves to huge corporations? Ya wanna lock down? Lock down to a TV or radio station and make the public airwaves public again. Not for a day but for a lifetime.

Ya like boycotts? What if a regulatory agency gave a hearing and nobody came? The outcome would be the same but we wouldn’t have wasted all the time and resources, nor would we have helped grant an aura of legitimacy to a sham proceeding.

What could we do instead? We could get together with the lawyer and the expert and begin to figure out how to stop being collaborators.

=========

1. The talk show host was Oprah Winfrey. She had the financial resources and popularity to beat the lawsuit. — Ed.

2. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (1962).

=========

* Jane Anne Morris is a corporate anthropologist who lives in Madison, Wisconsin. She is the author of Not in My Backyard: The Handbook, available at America’s biggest unionized book store, Powell’s (http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0962494577-3), and she is a member of POCLAD, the program on Corporations, Law and Democracy (http://www.poclad.org/). Some of her work has appeared previously in Rachel’s (#488, #489, and #502), available at http://www.rachel.org. In its present form, this essay originally appeared in Defying Corporations, Defining Democracy, edited by Dean Ritz (New York: The Apex Press, 2001); ISBN 1-891843-10-9.

PDF format

Note: edit webglider
 
Back
Top Bottom