Do Ecosystems Have Rights?

Why do corporations have rights when living ecosystems do not?

Please watch this very important, interesting, and powerful speech by Mari Margil.

Mari Margil speaks to the 2009 Bioneers conference in the spirit of The Lorax:
Protecting Against Environmental Degradation by Recognizing the Rights of Nature

I am also reminded about another set of important videos that have powerful ideas to share.

The Story of Stuff. And also The Story of Cap and Trade.

There are also a couple other videos in the production queue.

This is really really awesome work by Annie Leonard. Please also take time to see these important videos. http://www.storyofstuff.com/

It's all good food for thought.

Who Would Jesus Bomb

Who would Jesus bomb?

Christmas Day, 2009

Olympia Fellowship of Reconciliation Peace Vigil

Percival Landing, Olympia, Washington

War is immoral. All war begins with aggression. Aggression is immoral. Military aggression is widely considered immoral, and there are numerous international legally binding treaties established against war of aggression. It is probably unanimous amongst international political bodies that aggression is immoral and illegal. How could it not be? If stealing is illegal, if rape is illegal, if murder is illegal - then how could the most horrendous violence possible - the violence of a war of aggression - ever be considered legal.

Self-defense is one thing. A reasonable and proportional self-defense against immediate attack. But the wars of the United States of America are a different beast. The wars of the USA are not truly self-defense - nor a legitimate protection of "national interest." What the wars of the USA defend is the selfishness and the greed of the USA. The wars are an effort to further international policies of and practices of oppression and exploitation, under which the USA operates. The wars of the USA do not truly defend the national interest. The wars and international policies of the USA defend the corporate interest - the interest of the most influential and powerful (typically multi-national) giant corporations.

War is immoral. For good reason. War is the worst violence known to humanity. War is waste. It is oblivion. War is destruction defined.

People and nations have a right to defend themselves. But people and nations do not have a right - and in fact they betray the rights of all people - when they commit the crime of a war of aggression.

The wars of the USA are aggressive wars - imperialistic wars - wars designed to further the establishment of dominance - of global hegemony.

I believe that the imperialism of the USA, and the giant corporations that are its keepers, is the worst violence known to modern humanity.

But this perspective - these truths - are very effectively kept away from the American people by a revolving door between cultural affectation, and a media structure that feed off of, and create, each other.

There is a horrible myth in today's America, and to a lesser extent in today's world. It is the myth that America is the greatest nation on Earth - when in reality, the very opposite may be true. It may be more true that America is the worst nation on Earth - that America is the world's greatest perpetrator of violence and oppression - even to the point of wars of aggression, conquest and imperialism.

In America, terrible violence is part of mainstream culture. In America, there is a disparity in wealth between rich and poor that is maintained through systematic oppression.

In America, some people make profit when bombs are dropped. People profit when wars are waged. People profit from all sorts of harmful, destructive and violent economic (and anti-economic) activities!

So, really, I ask you to please answer this question: who would Jesus bomb?

State Violence Against Civilians

Went to Tacoma in the past couple days to observe a trial brought by protesters of military shipments at the Port of Olympia against members of the Olympia Police Department. The allegation was use of excessive force.

I wrote more about the trial, about the protests, and about society in relation to those two topics, on OlyBlog: olyblog.net/protesters-v-police-—-use-excessive-force-allegations

Hold the Torturers Accountable

Hold the Torturers Accountable

Video in which Cheney admits to criminal activity:


Here's another version of the video, direct from FNS:

Laura Nader | When the Rule of Law is Illegal

Precautionary Principle

According to Wikipedia, there are already some jurisdictions in Europe use the precautionary principle as a matter of policy. It would be great to get the precautionary principle into the legal structure here in the USA. I was alerted to this concept most recently by reading this article, First, Do No Harm, in the January/February 2006 issue of World Watch Magazine.



I found this copy of the magazine at the Free Store, which has all sorts of stuff that people drop off and leave for others to pick up for free.

Here's the Wikipedia precautionary principle article introduction:

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.[1] The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
date accessed: July 23, 2009

New FBI Rules would Draw Ire of Civil Rights Advocates, and Instill Fear

The Bush Administration reaches for further authoritarian controls:

Proposed new FBI rules draw civil liberties worries
Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:17pm EDT
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department unveiled proposed new rules on Friday for FBI investigations, changes a civil liberties group criticized for giving agents powers to investigate Americans without proper suspicion.

In its first major change in years, the Justice Department proposed a consolidated set of guidelines for domestic FBI operations, seeking to apply the same rules for criminal and terrorism cases, and for collecting foreign intelligence.

The guidelines were first adopted in the 1970s following disclosures that the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover had run a widespread domestic surveillance program that spied on civil rights activists and political opponents.

Officials said the new guidelines, which total 45 pages, were still being revised after consultations with Congress and civil liberties groups. The new rules are expected to take effect on October 1.

Justice Department and FBI officials told a news briefing the changes would allow agents in some terrorism cases to use informants, do physical surveillance and conduct interviews without identifying themselves or their true purpose.

They said such techniques currently could be used in ordinary criminal cases, but not for those involving national security, before an investigation has begun.

The American Civil Liberties Union expressed concern the rewritten rules had been drafted in a way to allow the FBI to begin surveillance without factual evidence to back it up.

It said that under the new guidelines, a person's race or ethnic background could be used as a factor in opening an investigation, a move the ACLU believes will institute racial profiling as a matter of policy.

ACLU Washington legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said, "Agents will be given unparalleled leeway to investigate Americans without proper suspicion, and that will inevitably result in constitutional violations."

Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said, "Issuing guidelines that permit racial profiling the day after the 9/11 anniversary and in the midst of a historic presidential campaign is typical Bush administration stagecraft designed to exploit legitimate security concerns for partisan political purposes."

Department officials said the guidelines would not allow an investigation based solely on a person's race or religion. "We are not changing our basic approach when race, religion or ethnicity may be taken into consideration," said one official who declined to be identified.

"The Department of Justice has long been concerned about the use of race or ethnicity in investigations. But it is simply not responsible to say that race may never be taken into account when conducting an investigation," spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement after the briefing.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

City of Olympia Nuclear Free Zone Act Repeal

The Olympia City Council just voted to repeal the 2005 Nuclear Free Zone Act. It seems that the City of Olympia no longer feels that it is important, or appropriate, to legislate against the nuclear weapons establishment. There were many arguments in opposition to the repeal, and many similar arguments in favor of retaining the ordinance. Many people turned out to express their opinion. I wasn't counting, but it seemed like there were about 40 who went on record in support of retaining the ordinance. There were exactly two people at the meeting who expressed approval for repealing ordinance.

Wow. I was shocked when I heard of the motion to recommend repealing the ordinance. Now I am shocked again by the seemingly sudden decision to repeal. Let me say to make it plain and clear that it is my opinion that the Council Members did not adequately address the arguments of the citizens whom were gathered to express opposition to the repeal.

The meeting got underway at about seven. There were a few items of business before public comment. And an interesting matter of note occurred before public comment. Two Council Members spoke up to express their concern over the new council's practice of limiting public comment to 30 minutes. With two contentious issues (the noise ordinance was also on the agenda to be decided) on the meeting agenda tonight, there were a lot of people who wanted to speak. Many people were turned away at the door, told that they would not be allowed into the council chambers.

Frankly, I am in shock. This new council seems bent on changing Olympia. It's not [only] the repeal. It's the special maneuvering to enter the motion to repeal on the consent calendar (i.e. to pass it without discussion). It's the Council Members' inadequate rebuttals of their constituency's statements of support for the ordinance. It's a lot of things.

I have a lot to say about this and I will probably write more. You may have already read the letter I sent to the Council last week. I also provided oral testimony at tonight's meeting, and submitted a written version of that testimony. Maybe I will post a copy of that tomorrow, but hopefully that will show up in the public record in relation to tonight's decision to repeal the NFZ ordinance. This meeting will definitely provide for your entertainment. It was riveting at many points. Almost non-stop great testimony, so much eloquence on the part of citizens for a City Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons.

I seriously wonder what is going on. What is going on with Olympia? I am pretty much ready to wonder if our Council Members are serving the public interest.

One of the things that Mayor Mah said is that if the people who support the NFZA ordinance were to put as much energy into it at the national level, that he thinks something might come of it. All I have to say is that believe me. Our elected officials at the national level are not hearing this argument. Nor are they interested in establishing a nuclear free zone. That's why the local aspect is important.

If enough localities take important stands against the immoral and unethical manufacture and maintenance of nuclear weapons, then it makes it more possible for those at the national and international levels to take action. This is about principled leadership. This is about setting an example. This is about empowerment, and education. This is about knowledge, and awareness. This is about respect for history and a desire to see a better tomorrow - to create a better world. A world that is rid of the subtle yet pervasive looming threat of nuclear Armageddon.

Lots of emotion. Lots more rebuttals. This is a rough draft. I am going to publish it now. But know, please, that there is a lot more. I want answers. I want to be represented.

Public officials at the national level are not doing their job. They are not promoting the important tasks of nonproliferation and disarmament. Instead of doing those things, they are actually using the threat of nuclear weapons to intimidate their adversaries. Hardly fulfilling the public interest. For three years we had representation at the local level here in the City of Olympia. Now this. Sad. Shocking. To whom or what can we now turn for representation on this important issue?

You'll be able to find a link to a page with a link to video of the meeting at this page: City of Olympia Council

Here's a more direct link to the video: City of Olympia September 9, 2008 City Council Meeting Video

plain url (maybe subject to change): http://olympia.granicus.com/mediaplayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=386

[This move has aspects that are reminiscent of shock doctrine.]

[updated september 10th, 2008]

Sign the Kucinich Impeachment Petition

Hello - !!! - Have you signed Dennis Kucinich's petition to impeach President Bush? If not, please sign the petition, http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/ - hyperlinked: Kucinich petition to impeach President Bush.

It reads:

WHEREAS, in his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed abuses of power.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and that he be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Signed by me and who knows how many others who are pro-troops, pro-impeachment, pro-justice, pro-peace, pro-nonviolence, pro- rule-of-law, etc....

Bacevich on Democracy Now

Andrew J. Bacevich appeared on last Friday's edition of Bill Moyers Journal. It was a great interview. He has recently written a book that explores and examines various aspects of US Foreign Policy - especially as it relates to cultural themes of consumerism and the American mentality of entitlement...

Today he appeared on with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! check it out: The Limits of Power: Andrew Bacevich on the End of American Exceptionalism

Andrew Bacevich is a conservative historian who spent twenty-three years serving in the US Army. He also lost his son in Iraq last year. In a new book titled The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, Bacevich argues that although many in this country are paying a heavy price for US domestic and foreign policy decisions, millions of Americans simply continue to shop, spend and satisfy their appetite for cheap oil, credit and the promise of freedom at home. Bacevich writes, “As the American appetite for freedom has grown, so too has our penchant for empire.” [includes rush transcript]

I urge you to check out the interview. It is so timely, relevant and really just important...

Karl Rove Arrest Attempt

[UPDATE Wednesday July 30th: the House Judiciary Committee has voted to recommend holding Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena to appear and testify. Apparently, the contempt charge will move to the full house for a vote.]

Human Rights Peace Activists attempted to arrest Karl Rove for his alleged criminal involvement in various frauds and abuses of power during his time in the White House:

go to original

Group Attempts Citizen's Arrest Of Karl Rove

July 28, 2008 8:28 a.m. EST

Amy Beeman - AHN

Des Moines, Iowa (AHN) -- Four people were arrested Friday for attempting to make a citizen's arrest on Karl Rove.

The group of three Catholic workers and a retired Methodist minister and Peace and Justice Advocate were cited for trespassing and released after trying to enter the Wakonda Country Club in Des Moines where Rove was scheduled to speak at a Republican Fundraiser.

The small group were acting under Iowa law that states private citizens have a responsibility to arrest someone if they believe a felony has been committed. That person is then turned over to police officials and a judge for formal indictment. Under the law a federal judge must evaluate the charges and decide if an indictment should be made.

This is the second attempt by two members of the group to arrest Rove, whom many believe should be held accountable, along with other members of the Bush administration, for war crimes, murder and lies to the public related to the Iraq war.

The retired minister, Rev. Chet Guinn, 80, told reporters who were on site for the pre-arranged arrest that everyone who remains silent when major crimes are being committed against all humanity becomes an accomplice.

Law and Morality, Truth, Love, Peace and Justice

Yesterday at a peace vigil, which I regularly participate in, I was holding a sign that reads, The War is Illegal. I believe that it is true that the war is illegal, because if President Bush did as we can rightly assume he did, based on obvious evidence that exists in the public realm, to intentionally - knowingly and deliberately - mislead Americans about the nature of a threat from Iraq, then he broke the law - egregiously and grievously. Thousands of people have died and suffer as a result.

The war is illegal because members of the Bush Administration took the USA to war based on fraudulent representation of a threat posed by Iraq. They took us to war on a lie. Thousands of soldiers have been killed and many thousands more now suffer grievous injury to mind and body. The situation of the people of Iraq is even worse.

Laws are based on morality. The search for a moral, ethical and benign society is what (supposedly and ideally) dictates the formation of law. Furthermore, Morals are based in essential principles like Love, Truth, Peace and Justice.

So, while holding my sign, which read the war is illegal, I did my best to feel Love toward my fellow human beings. I liked the effects. People seemed to respond and really take notice and appreciate me and the sign I was holding. You might try something similar in your life. Try to feel Love (platonic is usually the preferred sort) toward your fellow human beings - in all of your interactions. Maybe treat it like an experiment. See if you get along better while maintaining a feeling of Love toward others.

Chiroux on Democracy Now

Here's a link: www.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/us_army_sergeant_matthis_chiroux_refuses

from the show:

SGT. MATTHIS CHIROUX: Well, I’m not absent without leave until they tell me I’m absent without leave. To me, I’m following the US Constitution. I’m upholding the law, and I’m going to continue behaving as such. I refuse to be labeled or be shamed by these actions. I refuse to behave like a criminal. I am going to stay here in Washington, D.C., until at least Thursday. I’ve been here for the past two-and-a-half weeks lobbying members of Congress to come out in official support of resisters to the Iraq occupation for cause of its unconstitutional nature, as well as being waged in violation of international laws and the like. I believe we’ve made progress, and I believe—Thursday, I believe members of Congress will be coming out in support of war resisters.

A Couple of New Blog Posts

I posted a couple new entries over at OlyBlog just now. One is about a visit by Cindy Sheehan to Olympia this past weekend. The other is about 35 Articles of Impeachment, which Congressman Dennis Kucinich presented to the US House of Representatives yesterday. I hand delivered a copy of the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment to my Congressman Brian Baird's office this morning. Baird is currently in Washington D.C., so I asked his staffer to fax a copy of my cover letter and the full text of the articles to him in D.C..

Here's a link to the post about the Kucinich Articles of Impeachment: http://olyblog.net/impeachment-articles-delivered

Here's a link to the post about the Cindy Sheehan visit: http://olyblog.net/cindy-sheehan-visit-olympia

Jail to the Chief

Upon suspicion of serious crimes, like murder or robbing a bank, suspects - in the USA - are customarily sought for apprehension and (when apprehended) confined until a trial can be convened so that they can either be proven guilty, or declared innocent, based on evidence presented in a court of law.

Why the case is different when an acting President of the USA is suspected of grievously breaking the most serious laws that govern our nation, and indeed the world, is very frustrating.

Upon suspicion of breaking the nation's highest laws in a most heinous and grievous manner; on suspicion of committing the most serious criminal offenses possible, namely aggression (a war crime with all of its consequential violence, death and destruction): this is a call to Jail the Chief!


photo © Robin Dude All Rights Reserved.

The War is Illegal

This is something that I whipped up on the "haloscan" comments section of The Olympian newspaper. I have edited it slightly for publication here:

The war can reasonably be understood to be illegal. Let me illustrate by using a couple of examples. Say that an underage person enters a tavern and uses a piece of fake identification to purchase and consume an alcoholic beverage. The purchase and consumption by an underage patron is not lawful, even if he or she is never called into question. Another example: if a corporation or other entity uses false evidence and makes false claims in order to justify a particular action - then its actions can rightly be understood to be illegal - it's called fraud.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, prominent officials within the Bush Administration made (and continue to make) false claims about the threat that Iraq posed (primarily via WMD.)

Just because Congress (in a condition of delinquency) has not exercised appropriate and necessary oversight authority - just because the Bush Administration's conspiracy to defraud the Congress and the People has not been tried in a court of law - doesn't mean that the Bush Administration has not violated relevant laws. The law of the land is clear. To wage an aggressive military action is highly illegal (and immoral.)

Because the matter has not (to my knowledge) been reconciled in an appropriate court of law, and because Congress has failed to exercise appropriate oversight authority, the burden falls on The People.

There were no WMD in Iraq to threaten either the USA or its allies. There was not proper justification for the invasion.

It can be rightly understood that the invasion was an aggressive military action - motivated by the aspiration amongst certain prominent Bush Administration officials to control the petroleum resource of Iraq.

Therefore, the use of the municipal Port of Olympia to further and enable the continuously aggressive occupation of Iraq is inappropriate, and unlawful, in a very real sense.

Millions of people in Iraq are suffering right now, because of the belligerent war making of the Bush Administration.

The Uniformed Services of the USA are being misused and abused to further an aggressive foreign occupation.

We have an opportunity, right here in Olympia, to do something about it.

Rather than recouping the costs from PMR Protesters whose only motive was to further the causes of peace and justice, I argue that the costs of the protests should be paid by those who profit off of an unjust and unlawful aggressive military action.

Taking the Bush Administration to Task, Taking the President, et al., to Court

Why hasn't the Bush Administration, or Prominent Officials therein, been taken to task - and taken to court - over alleged improprieties relating to the invasion of Iraq? These allegations include, but are not limited to, the deliberate falsification of facts, and "evidence," in order to "justify" invasion and occupation.

I wish that a Federal Court would hear a case in regard to the various alleged improprieties of the Bush Administration.

The case that the Bush Administration made false claims about the threat from Iraq in order to justify invasion is very strong. Look at some of the reasons that this case hasn't been tried in court.

We have to take into consideration the reasons that such a case hasn't materialized (at least to my knowledge.) I think first and foremost among these reasons is that such a case might be considered political (which it is not.) But the claim that it might be motivated by politics might enable a court to avoid hearing it. Also, look at who has the legal resources in this country and who doesn't. The people who are suffering the most from this war do happen to be the people who have comparatively less access to legal recourse. Also, I think that it can be difficult to try a case of this nature because of the general nature of the claim (I very well might be wrong about this though - certainly there are enough specific examples of alleged wrongdoing to build an effective claim, or set of claims...).

I am not a legal expert. But I know that such a case might be difficult to approach for a number of reasons. Care to chime in?

This post was inspired by commentary on OlyBlog regarding the recent violent opposition by the Olympia Police Department to the nonviolent attempts of peace activists to stop the war in Olympia Washington.

Raed Jarrar: Oil Law Will Increase Violence in Iraq

From Raed in the Middle:

go to original

An English version of a new Iraqi oil law leaked in mid 2006. This leaked English version shocked a number of specialists, like Erik Leaver from the institute for Policy Studies, because it had some exact text from a previously leaked seminar papers produced by a private contracting company called “Bearing Point”. Taking in consideration that the law privatises Iraq’s oil and opens the doors for U.S. companies to sign long term contracts controlling Iraq’s oil resources and infrastructure, this law is in violation of existing U.S. Public Law No: 109-234 that says: “To provide that no funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.” U.S. contractors, such as Bearing Point, have been working with the U.S. State Department to draft the Iraqi Oil law and the State Department has been pushing for the privatization of Iraq’s oil in plans dating as far back as 2002.

In February 2007, a leaked Arabic copy of the Iraqi oil law was published on Al-ghad.org, an Iraqi website. I translated this leaked copy to English. My translation was based on the previously leaked English version of the law. From what I can tell, the Arabic language was not native, it looked weak and translated. I have no doubt that the English version of the law is the original one, and that the Arabic one is nothing more than an edited translation of the English origin. The few changes in the content, between the Arabic and English versions show clearly that the Iraqi lawmakers who worked on the law did not change any of the parts that relates to foreign investments. The majority of the changes from the original English version were linked to decentralizing authorities and reducing central powers.

A Principled and Patriotic Call for Withdrawal from Iraq

A soldier's statement relating to his signing of An Appeal for Redress (a petition for withdrawal from Iraq):

"Sgt. Gary"--21 years old. US Army. Deployed with 20th Infantry Regiment, near Mosul, Iraq:

I joined up in 2001, still a junior in high school. I felt very patriotic at the end of my US History class. My idea of the Army was that you signed up, they gave you a rifle and you ran off into battle like in some 1950s war movie. The whole idea of boot camp never really entered my head.

I supported the war in the beginning. I bought everything Bush said about how Saddam had WMDs, how he was working with Al Qaeda, how he was a threat to America. Of course, this all turned out to be false.

This is my second tour, and as of a few days ago it's half-over. Before I deployed with my unit for the second time I already had feelings of not wanting to go. When in late September a buddy in my platoon died from a bullet in the head, I really took a long hard look at this war, this Administration, and the reasons why.

After months of research on the Internet, I came to the conclusion that this war was based on lies and deception. I started to break free of all the propaganda that the Bush Administration and the Army puts out on a daily basis.

So far in three years we have succeeded in toppling a dictator and replacing him with puppets. Outlawing the old government and its standing army and replacing them with an unreliable and poorly trained crew of paycheck collectors. The well is so poisoned by what we have done here that nothing can fix it.

Sgt. Gary: Thank you for your principled stand. You do honor to your profession, your country, and most importantly - yourself.