ECO-TERRORISM: THERE'S NO SUCH THING
By Ted RallTue Mar 11, 7:57 PM ET
Property Rights Extremists Equate McMansions to 9/11 Victims
NEW YORK--The United States should not build housing. Whole neighborhoods in places like Chicago and Dayton and Oakland and Newark and Memphis are dominated by abandoned houses and apartment buildings. Ten percent of our national housing stock--more than 13 million homes, enough to put roofs over the homeless three times over--are vacant year-round. So why do we let developers bulldoze fields and forests to put up soulless monstrosities?
Several "model houses" at a development bearing the typically atrocious name of "Quinn's Crossing at Yarrowbay Communities" at the edge of Seattle's creeping suburban sprawl went up in flames, apparently torched by radical environmentalists. I had two reactions. First, I was reminded of my wonder that such things happen so infrequently.
Then I laughed. I wasn't alone. Time magazine bemoaned "a notable lack of sympathy for the fate of the homes" among residents of Washington state.
Quinn's Crossing, says its website, was "dedicated to the ethos of putting the earth first." In this case, putting Mother Earth "first" led the developers in "energy efficient" 4,500-square-feet McMansions. "The houses are out in the middle of nowhere, on land that used to be occupied by beaver dams and environmentally sensitive wetlands; the site sits at the headwaters of Bear Creek, where endangered chinook salmon spawn," reported Erica C. Barnett for the Seattle weekly newspaper The Stranger. "The houses, and their polluting septic systems, also sit atop an aquifer, which provides drinking water for the area's Cross Valley Water District."
4,500 square feet? My last Manhattan apartment had 725. Visitors (New Yorkers, most of whom live in even tighter quarters) cooed over how big it was. The house in which I grew up had 1,000; it was designed for a nuclear family of four.
What galled ELF was the developers' attempt to pass off self-indulgent, gargantuan McMansions as ecologically friendly. "The builders heavily promoted the 'built green' concept and pointed out that the homes were smaller than the 10,000-square-foot houses on previous Street of Dreams tours," reported The Los Angeles Times.
Barnett's story asked: "Were the Terrorists Right?" She noted: "An energy-efficient mansion will never use less energy than even a large urban apartment."
Right or wrong, they're not terrorists.
The feds say they are. They call Earth Liberation Front, the loose-knit "group" that took responsibility for the blazes in unincorporated Snohomish County, the biggest threat to mom, freedom, apple pie and three-minute pop songs since the Soviet Union closed shop. Six months before 9/11, shortly before the famous "Bin Laden Wants to Kick Our Ass Six Ways to Sunday" memo, the FBI went so far as to list the ELF as a federally designated terrorist organization. Like Al Qaeda.
Terrorism--you can look it up--involves killing people. Hijacking a plane and flying it into a building is terrorism. Destroying property--property that, for the most part, made the world a worse place--is not.
ELF's goal of "inflict[ing] maximum economic damage on those profiting from the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment" has inspired people to set fire to SUVs at a New Mexico car dealership, Hummers in California, and a Vail ski lodge whose construction threatened the lynx, an endangered species. Damage to the Colorado ski project amounted to $12 million.
ELF members are vandals. They're arsonists. But they aren't terrorists.
ELF demands that its adherents "take all necessary precautions against harming any animal--human and non-human." Although it could happen someday, no one has ever been killed or hurt in an ELF action. Equating the burning of a Hummer to blowing up a child exposes our society's grotesque overemphasis on the "right" of property owners to do whatever they want. The word "eco-terrorism" is an insult to the human victims of real terrorism, including those of 9/11.
The closest ELF's critics come to landing a punch is pointing out that fires send crud into the atmosphere. "This is releasing more carbon into the air than they ever would have by building the houses," the listing agent for one of the destroyed "rural cluster development" houses told The New York Times. Newsweek asked: "If their cause is to save the environment, how does burning houses, and thereby releasing carbon and toxins into the atmosphere, help achieve that goal?"
Eye-roll alert: A house fire releases air pollution once. A family living in a house does it day after day for decades. Anyway, why are builders making houses out of toxins?
Property rights extremists raised the same point after ELF set fire to 20 Hummer H2s at a California car dealership in 2004. "There's a lot more pollutants from the fire than the vehicles would pollute during their lifetime," said the West Covina fire marshal. Even if that were true, he forgot where those gas guzzlers would have eventually ended up: in landfills, their nasty chemicals seeping into the ground.
"Think of all the resources those fires wasted," moaned Seattle Times columnist Jerry Large. He explained that lawful means--petitions, politely worded letters to the editor, speaking at public hearings--are the proper way to take a stand against the destruction of the environment. "The development where this latest arson took place, situated atop the area's water supply, has been challenged by other groups, using negotiation and the law," he says approvingly. That's true. The local zoning board heard from hundreds of opponents of Quinn's Crossing before voting, 4 to 1, in favor.
Challenged, yes. But not successfully.
(Ted Rall is the author of the book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Our Educational System, Tampons, and Satirical Videos...
Sorry I haven't been writing too much original stuff. And I'm not going to right now either..
I've been really mixed up lately, trying to decide what I want to do in the future, and what's worth doing, and what I have time for.
anyways, here's a great article - worth the long read.
This is about prescription drugs for children/students and behavior, etc.
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=621
This one, I haven't read myself, but I've read similar writings, is about tampons. Beware!
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1137
And here's the videos. Enjoy.
I've been really mixed up lately, trying to decide what I want to do in the future, and what's worth doing, and what I have time for.
anyways, here's a great article - worth the long read.
This is about prescription drugs for children/students and behavior, etc.
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=621
This one, I haven't read myself, but I've read similar writings, is about tampons. Beware!
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=1137
And here's the videos. Enjoy.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Esperanza delayed/ New Article.
Esperanza is being delayed indefinitely because of outside forces. I'll keep it updated though.
I don't feel like writing. Here' s a pleasant article...
Economic Collapse And Global Ecology
By Dr. Glen Barry
14 January, 2008
Earth Meanders
Given widespread failure to pursue policies sufficient to reverse deterioration of the biosphere and avoid ecological collapse, the best we can hope for may be that the growth-based economic system crashes sooner rather than later
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life.
With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later.
Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure.
Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products.
Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration.
This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption.
We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured.
Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies.
It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil.
Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again.
Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.
A successful revolutionary response to imminent global ecosystem collapse would focus upon bringing down the Earth's industrial economy now. As society continues to fail miserably to implement necessary changes to allow creation to continue, maybe the best strategy to achieve global ecological sustainability is economic sabotage to hasten the day. It is more fragile than it looks.
Humanity is a marvelous creation. Yet her current dilemma is unprecedented. It is not yet known whether she is able to adapt, at some expense to her comfort and short-term well-being, to ensure survival. If she can, all futures of economic, social and ecological collapse can be avoided. If not it is better from a long-term biocentric viewpoint that the economic growth machine collapse now, bringing forth the necessary change, and offering hope for a planetary and human revival.
I wish no harm to anyone, and want desperately to avoid these prophesies foretold by ecological science. I speak for the Earth, for despite being the giver of life, her natural voice remains largely unheard over the tumult of the end of being.
I don't feel like writing. Here' s a pleasant article...
Economic Collapse And Global Ecology
By Dr. Glen Barry
14 January, 2008
Earth Meanders
Given widespread failure to pursue policies sufficient to reverse deterioration of the biosphere and avoid ecological collapse, the best we can hope for may be that the growth-based economic system crashes sooner rather than later
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life.
With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later.
Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure.
Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products.
Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration.
This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption.
We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured.
Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies.
It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil.
Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again.
Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.
A successful revolutionary response to imminent global ecosystem collapse would focus upon bringing down the Earth's industrial economy now. As society continues to fail miserably to implement necessary changes to allow creation to continue, maybe the best strategy to achieve global ecological sustainability is economic sabotage to hasten the day. It is more fragile than it looks.
Humanity is a marvelous creation. Yet her current dilemma is unprecedented. It is not yet known whether she is able to adapt, at some expense to her comfort and short-term well-being, to ensure survival. If she can, all futures of economic, social and ecological collapse can be avoided. If not it is better from a long-term biocentric viewpoint that the economic growth machine collapse now, bringing forth the necessary change, and offering hope for a planetary and human revival.
I wish no harm to anyone, and want desperately to avoid these prophesies foretold by ecological science. I speak for the Earth, for despite being the giver of life, her natural voice remains largely unheard over the tumult of the end of being.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Viva la Esperanza!
http://esperanzasc.org/index.php?page_name=home
Heading to this intentional community, working it's way to living off the grid entirely on the fringes of a self-destruction civilization at it's weakest point! I'll be gone for a good portion of the weekdays and I'm bringing my bud Brandon along with, who is actually looking into living there.
It should be a ton of fun.
Oh, I've officially graduated high school. Yes.
Adios,
Clayne
Heading to this intentional community, working it's way to living off the grid entirely on the fringes of a self-destruction civilization at it's weakest point! I'll be gone for a good portion of the weekdays and I'm bringing my bud Brandon along with, who is actually looking into living there.
It should be a ton of fun.
Oh, I've officially graduated high school. Yes.
Adios,
Clayne
Monday, January 14, 2008
Ken Wilber - Integrative or permanent "regression"
I've been reading this blog titled the Edge of Grace by someone who spent a year at Teaching Drum. He wrote some segments on the "Evolution of Consciousness" in which he questions the primitivist thought that says we aren't developing in any way.
Does he have a point? I don't know. I'm thinking a lot about this.
Does it matter? Won't one of the two, if not extinction, just happen? There isn't really a right or a wrong - there is just what WILL happen and what WON'T happen...
One thing I want to point out is the main premise of this and similar writings...that there HAS been a shift in consciousness. It seems to be assumed that there was, but I'm less sure. At the same time, though, where is that line of shift? Is it from tribal living the civilized living? I would doubt that. While I agree there was a sense of oneness with the earth during tribal living, I don't think there's any permanent mental shift from that to our disconnected civilized state we experience today. So where is this shift? Maybe earlier on the scale of evolution - when we weren't considered 'human' - maybe at that point we lived more subconsciously. If that's the case, then this is where this following debate comes from.
Is the civilized mess we see today a tough transition of a subconscious state of living to a fully conscious state of living? Only to be on it's way to some trans-conscious state of living that integrates the two? If that's the case, then civilization isn't the mistake a lot of primitivists would like to believe it is. Most believe that we took a wrong turn and much reconnect/rewild. Or we can say what the following quote is saying...that we must "regress" to fix what our "mistake", as in regress to hunter-gatherer, but instead of stay there, we will then integrate our subconscious and conscious, now fixed, into a new state of being.
I don't know which it could be. A large part of me, still, thinks it doesn't matter - that in the meantime, we still need to reconnect ourselves, no matter which answer it is. We need to stop fucking things up. I think that's all that matters to the generations that live now. Anyways, here it is:
"Whenever evolution produces a new differentiation, and that differentiation is not integrated, a pathology results, and there are two fundamental ways to approach that pathology.
One is exemplified by the Freudian notion … of “regression in service of ego.” That is, the higher structure relaxes its grip on consciousness, regresses to a previous level where the failed integration first occurred, repairs the damage on that level by reliving it in a benign and healing context, and then integrates that level — embraces that level, embraces the former “shadow” — in the new and higher holon of the ego (or total self-system). For the ego’s problem was that during its formative growth, where it should have transcended and included its lower-level drives (such as sex and aggression), it transcended and repressed them, split them off, alienated them — one of the prerogatives of a higher-level structure with its greater relative autonomy, but a prerogative, we have seen, that is bought only and always at the price of pathology. Thus the cure: regression in service of a higher reintegration — a regression that allows evolution to move forward more harmoniously by healing and wholing a previously alienated holon.
The other general approach is the retro-Romantic, which often recommends regression, period. This approach, in my opinion, simply confuses differentiation and dissociation, confuses transcendence and repression. Thus, whenever evolution produces a new differentiation, and that differentiation happens to go into pathological dissociation, then this approach seeks to permanently turn back the pages of emergent history to a time prior to the differentiation. Not prior to the dissociation — we all agree on that! — but prior to the differentiation itself!
That will indeed get rid of the new pathology, at the cost of getting rid of the new depth, the new creativity, the new consciousness. By that retro-Romantic logic, the only way to really get rid of pathology is to get rid of differentiation altogether, which means everything after the Big Bang was a Big Mistake."
Enjoy,
Clayne
Does he have a point? I don't know. I'm thinking a lot about this.
Does it matter? Won't one of the two, if not extinction, just happen? There isn't really a right or a wrong - there is just what WILL happen and what WON'T happen...
One thing I want to point out is the main premise of this and similar writings...that there HAS been a shift in consciousness. It seems to be assumed that there was, but I'm less sure. At the same time, though, where is that line of shift? Is it from tribal living the civilized living? I would doubt that. While I agree there was a sense of oneness with the earth during tribal living, I don't think there's any permanent mental shift from that to our disconnected civilized state we experience today. So where is this shift? Maybe earlier on the scale of evolution - when we weren't considered 'human' - maybe at that point we lived more subconsciously. If that's the case, then this is where this following debate comes from.
Is the civilized mess we see today a tough transition of a subconscious state of living to a fully conscious state of living? Only to be on it's way to some trans-conscious state of living that integrates the two? If that's the case, then civilization isn't the mistake a lot of primitivists would like to believe it is. Most believe that we took a wrong turn and much reconnect/rewild. Or we can say what the following quote is saying...that we must "regress" to fix what our "mistake", as in regress to hunter-gatherer, but instead of stay there, we will then integrate our subconscious and conscious, now fixed, into a new state of being.
I don't know which it could be. A large part of me, still, thinks it doesn't matter - that in the meantime, we still need to reconnect ourselves, no matter which answer it is. We need to stop fucking things up. I think that's all that matters to the generations that live now. Anyways, here it is:
"Whenever evolution produces a new differentiation, and that differentiation is not integrated, a pathology results, and there are two fundamental ways to approach that pathology.
One is exemplified by the Freudian notion … of “regression in service of ego.” That is, the higher structure relaxes its grip on consciousness, regresses to a previous level where the failed integration first occurred, repairs the damage on that level by reliving it in a benign and healing context, and then integrates that level — embraces that level, embraces the former “shadow” — in the new and higher holon of the ego (or total self-system). For the ego’s problem was that during its formative growth, where it should have transcended and included its lower-level drives (such as sex and aggression), it transcended and repressed them, split them off, alienated them — one of the prerogatives of a higher-level structure with its greater relative autonomy, but a prerogative, we have seen, that is bought only and always at the price of pathology. Thus the cure: regression in service of a higher reintegration — a regression that allows evolution to move forward more harmoniously by healing and wholing a previously alienated holon.
The other general approach is the retro-Romantic, which often recommends regression, period. This approach, in my opinion, simply confuses differentiation and dissociation, confuses transcendence and repression. Thus, whenever evolution produces a new differentiation, and that differentiation happens to go into pathological dissociation, then this approach seeks to permanently turn back the pages of emergent history to a time prior to the differentiation. Not prior to the dissociation — we all agree on that! — but prior to the differentiation itself!
That will indeed get rid of the new pathology, at the cost of getting rid of the new depth, the new creativity, the new consciousness. By that retro-Romantic logic, the only way to really get rid of pathology is to get rid of differentiation altogether, which means everything after the Big Bang was a Big Mistake."
Enjoy,
Clayne
Sunday, January 6, 2008
A small update.
I just started reading Walden and Other Writings by Thoreau.
I've been quite distracted, but not regrettably, because I've met a wonderful person that I love to be with and talk to. She's amazing.
Anyways, two weeks of school left.
Two. Weeks.
That hasn't really sunk in. I can't even imagine a life without school. I'm also going to have to get a job soon, for in the meantime.
I just found out that the yearbook staff has included a section for environmental things. They've quoted me talking about veganism and this destructive culture. Unfortunately, they've seemed to downplay my message. The first thing they said we can do is, "use bottles that have less plastic". I didn't read that list thoroughly, although I think it was all pretty trivial *sigh*.
Anyways, they asked for a photo of myself, so I had one taken of me with my bike at the lake. I hope that'll suffice.
***
I've been pushing everything to the side. Reading. Finishing applications. Activism (what can I do in this town?? This city?! I don't know of anything in Dallas).
That's it for now.
Take down some infrastructure for me.
: /
Love and Rage,
Clayne
I've been quite distracted, but not regrettably, because I've met a wonderful person that I love to be with and talk to. She's amazing.
Anyways, two weeks of school left.
Two. Weeks.
That hasn't really sunk in. I can't even imagine a life without school. I'm also going to have to get a job soon, for in the meantime.
I just found out that the yearbook staff has included a section for environmental things. They've quoted me talking about veganism and this destructive culture. Unfortunately, they've seemed to downplay my message. The first thing they said we can do is, "use bottles that have less plastic". I didn't read that list thoroughly, although I think it was all pretty trivial *sigh*.
Anyways, they asked for a photo of myself, so I had one taken of me with my bike at the lake. I hope that'll suffice.
***
I've been pushing everything to the side. Reading. Finishing applications. Activism (what can I do in this town?? This city?! I don't know of anything in Dallas).
That's it for now.
Take down some infrastructure for me.
: /
Love and Rage,
Clayne
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
