Europe out on a limb

SUBHEAD: What must be a spiritual, life-changing process can come about by abandoning past assumptions.  

By Jan Lunberg on 27 July 2012 for Culture Change -  
 (http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/847/65/)

  Image above: Young Europeans of the opinion "Catalonia is not Spain". From (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Catalonia_is_not_spain-1-.jpg).

 The time for a revolution of a deeper sort comes when the imbalance of unequal sharing of the land and its resources reaches the ultimate crisis point. People don't want to contemplate this, but at least the unprecedented socioeconomic disintegration ahead will be the portal to achieving real sustainability.

This will occur despite any redistribution of present wealth through compassionate reforms or wrenching de-classism. For the hour is too late ecologically. This applies to the entire modern industrialized world.

A great measure of middle and working class affluence has brought European nations together. Rather than serving lofty goals of advancing civilization and peace, it was more to convenience the region's powerful corporations and increase Europe's bargaining muscle for importing energy. Digging deeper into the seamy side, the elevated material life was accomplished largely by borrowing money and wasting material resources (albeit only half as recklessly as the U.S., per capita).

The come-down will be far more painful and chaotic than what has been glimpsed, such as the Spanish miners' objections to their getting squeezed. The bright side is that the failure of affluence -- of the post-war European Dream -- will give way to strong local economics and bioregional power.
So the Basques will finally get their country back, as will the Catalans. Native citizens of those quasi nations may have gone along with integration while there was little point in resisting, but when the financial meltdown quickens and economic collapse is more than bitter, they will not tolerate any extra austerity as a sacrifice for struggling southern Spaniards or Greeks.

The progress with renewable energy in several countries, led by Germany, has given hope for a painless transition away from fossil fuels and nuclear power. This attitude may extend to imagining an orderly socioeconomic solution to the brewing financial turmoil. But today's conditions and the heavy dependence on scarcer resources are the opposite of real progress toward sustainability. I base this partly on personal observation; I lived in and visited Europe from 1966-1974. That period wasn't "the bad old days" because there was no solar or wind power then. Rather, the period's lower population (Europe had almost 100 million less than today) and the more open future of four decades ago amounts to an irretrievable past advantage that cannot ever be regained -- unless wrenching transformation will be accompanied by great luck in climate stability.

Except for the hapless Greeks and the poor minority elsewhere in Europe, the people of the Continent still enjoy a splendid material life post post-war. Much of Europe has become a kind of civilized paradise in the minds of many. But the coming loss of affluence will be total, as growth and wealth have almost all come as a result of high net-energy, fossil-fuel exploitation that can't be extended long.

This means that around the corner there will be more than mere mass protest and election surprises. We have only been seeing the calm before the storm. Like North Americans, the practical skills of great-grandparents have been heedlessly forgotten among comfortable, specialized Europeans. As an elderly Basque farmer told me, today's young people have lost the knowledge of living.
The revolution ahead will be of a different nature than the prior political and economic changings of the guard. If in the past a Castro and Guevara could trigger a lasting takeover by invading a colonial outpost, can today's conditions see an ecological and artistic infiltration and takeover? Can the most affluent dominators of nature and their wage-slaves see a better way by joining in the creation of an egalitarian, cooperative society?

It will have to be so, and not because one may want it desperately. The question is whether any awakening and restructuring shall occur before total collapse and chaos, or afterward instead. The impediments to a rational, wise approach are formidable. Foremost of these is petroleum dependence, because of its pervasiveness. When seen only as a long-term issue requiring gradual disengagement, we find we are besieged by alarming -- but in a sense "peripheral" -- threats: nuclear radiation, war, microwaving of our genes, the plastic plague upon our bodies and oceans, sinister alteration of food, water, air and the climate, and shinking civil freedoms.

The climate can be chosen as the prime issue to address, but success may depend more on a wider, deeper approach than a concentration on climate issues. This is because total "lifestyle-naturizing" is neglected and suppressed, even though it gets to the root. As long as we are separate from nature in our minds or in practice, we are unwelcome invaders in what could be our ever-nurturing home as equals with all other species.

The ecovillage movement can serve as a catch-all for wider adoption of permaculture and communal living. In today's consumerist world, it is unfortunately still a miniscule development. The question is whether it will spread before collapse, to a visible extent, or it must wait until after collapse when eco-living in community is the only game in town.

In comparing Northern American and European subcultures of modernity, one finds in the more sophisticated Old World only a partial escape from the crass commercialization of individualistic, narcissistic living in, even, California. To ask comfortable Europeans as First World citizens to reject technological, exuberant living is on the order of asking the SUV-driving, cancer-ridden consumers of anywhere in the U.S. to abandon unsustainable practices and get back to nature. But if you had to bet which of the two regions has more resiliency, go with the less-corporatized one. And go with the one with closer family relations.

Both of these spell community. It's Europe. And it's other regions even more so, not the hapless U.S.A. Preserving convivial public spaces is another European urban attribute, featuring efficient, elegant, accessible use of land and nature. This fosters community that will come in handy as material wealth subsides and ushers itself into history.

The U.S., as the highest per-capita waster of nature's bounty, has simply twice as far to go as the twice-as-energy-efficient Western Europe. But the slightly less oppressed European citizens, with better health care and more liberal vacation rights, might see their advantages erode ever more rapidly; using only half of what a glutton does just ain't enough. For U.S. consumers facing the end of petro-affluence, it is pitiable that a 50% reduction in energy use is no longer a reasonably sufficient goal. Yet, what we hear from quasi-green leaders such as the Sierra Club is that Americans simply must drive, so the only choice is to give them more-efficient electric cars as a [non]solution.

The rising police state, to the liberal or radically minded activist anywhere, is understandably alarming and deserves resistance or avoidance. To stand up in its way may be folly and misdirected, unless martyrdom or educating the masses is all important. We must fact the fact that, for better or worse, order must be somehow maintained when untold millions of people want their accustomed subsistence and convenience -- especially as deprivation sets in. It's not going to get any prettier for quite a while. The accomplishments of technological progress and civilization are fleeting, as history will show. Momentary compassion for suffering multitudes is commendable, but should not blind us to reality or a longer-term vision that truly ensures compassion.

There is no answer to any of this modern dilemma of ballyhooed prosperity amidst planetary exploitation, oppression and corruption. Yet, jettisoning the fear of losing both central banking and the Euro may be aided by considering better alternatives, such as the advantages of local currencies for towns. Consider the Argentines' surmounting the collapse of the nation's neoliberal economy over a decade ago.

The individual caught in today's global economy can, in the absence of a triumphant Occupy movement that goes beyond opposing austerity, make liberating strides for survival. What must be a spiritual, life-changing process can come about by abandoning past assumptions of incremental steps toward better governmental representation. Self-rule is possible to a greater degree in almost everyone's case.

When enough people participate and find each other, there can be hope for finding no end of solutions for more healthful, healing co-existence. It will not and cannot be provided by leaders, who can only point the way (if they only would!). Bravo to all the struggling souls feeling the need for overdue fundamental change.
.

Say it ain't so Kipukai

SUBHEAD: It's become obvious to some that Kipukai Kualii has now gone over to the dark side.  

By Andy Parx on 13 August 2012 for Parx News Daily - (http://parxnewsdaily.blogspot.com/2012/08/did-you-know-or-no-ya-know.html)

 
Image above: Kipukai Kualil and Shaylene Carvalho pose as Starwars Imperial henchpersons. Mashup by Juan Wilson.

The more you know the less you know because as you come to know what you now know you also come to know what you don't know. The trick is to know now what you don't know now and what you didn't know then... ya know? Didn't think so. What we do know is that even a gallon of hot sauce isn't going to make our keyboard more palatable after our misguided ingestion pledge last week. Civil Beat's (CB) robo-calling poll accurately predicted an astonishing 20+ point win by Tulsi Gabbard (54.0%) over Mufi Hannemann (33.6%) in the 2nd US Congressional District Democratic Primary, proving to be more accurate than the Honolulu Star-Advertiser "real live person" poll, which had Mufi up by10.

The fact that the difference was apparently due to exceptionally low totals for Esther Kiaaina (5.7%) and Bob Marx (3.7%)- who had been predicted to come in closer to 10% each- doesn't make our esophagus any wider or teeth any sharper. But the results may have had little or nothing to do with the polling method because in the US Senate race it was the reverse with CB predicting a virtual tie and the S-A prognosticating a 12% margin for Mazie Hirono who actually won by 17% over Ed Case. Go figgah.

Another thing we we got wrong, albeit a year ago, was our support for the winner of this year's Corrupt Pol of the Year award, Kauai Councilmember KipuKai Kualii. Though he didn't actually win in 2010 he wound up being appointed to the council. But the worst part is that he finished in the money this Saturday with an appropriate 666 finish - 6th place with 6.6% of the vote. We do know now what we didn't know then- that asking people to "plunk" for Kualii in 2010 joins our qwerty-chewing pledge as one of our more bone-headed moves because he's turned out to be a first-class hack who's traded in his political soul in support of Prosecuting Attorney Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho's prosecutorial crime spree. He now blindly follows Iseri adherent, her boot-licker-in-chief Mel Rapozo.

Together they lead the goose-stepping cadre that champions our favorite race-baiter, "Ms Shay it, don't spray it." That support grew out Kipukai's apparent back room deal for the redirection of a Victim-Witness program grant from Iseri's office to Kualiis employer at the YWCA. It's become laughingly obvious to anyone who watches the council in action that Kipukai has now gone to the dark side. But not only did he trade various votes to allow Iseri to get away with a slew of shenanigans and outright unlawful activity, it has cost the county a hefty chunk of cash in the form of an EEOC settlement for the firing of Victim Witness Counselor Erin Wilson.

Wilson was succinctly described by Joan Conrow as "the single mom who moved here all the way from Colorado to work as a victim witness coordinator, only to be fired a couple of months into the job because there supposedly wasn't enough work." Of course there wasn't enough work because Iseri shuffled the job over to the "Y" in exchange for Kipukai's undying support for Iseri in the slew of past, present and we presume, future Shay-related scandals. We do know that, unbelievably enough, for now, Kualii finished 1/10% (102 votes) ahead of Gary Hooser and 2/10% (152 votes) ahead of Tim Bynum in Saturday's useless election. What we don't know is how to make sure that by Nov. 6 everybody knows about Kualii's little pact. .

Cost of Industrialization

SUBHEAD: Can we bear the legacy costs of industrial society's toxic pollution?  

By Kurt Cobb on 12 August 2012 for Resource Insights -  
 (http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2012/08/can-we-bear-legacy-costs-of-industrial.html)


Image above: Drums of nuclear waste stacked in a storage area - for how long? From (http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/securing-long-term-nuclear-waste-storage-not-an-urgent-problem.html).
 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stunned the nuclear industry last week by putting power plant licensing decisions on hold while it reconsiders rules on nuclear waste storage struck down by a federal appeals court in June. At issue is the NRC's 2010 ruling that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored on a plant site for 60 years after the closing of the plant. The question is whether that ruling will withstand the scrutiny inherent in a full environmental impact statement that the court says is required by law.

The issue is part of the much larger and troubling question about the legacy costs--economic, social and environmental--of toxic industrial pollution that are mounting with each day. We'd like to think that we can simply take our industrial wastes and throw them away somewhere. But increasingly, in what economist Herman Daly calls our "full world," (PDF) there is no "away." Hazardous wastes that we thought we could safely sequester deep in the Earth via injection wells are already coming back to haunt us.

If wells drilled to date for hazardous waste disposal are already poisoning drinking water, what will be the consequences of drilling hundreds of thousands of additional oil and natural gas wells around the world into newly accessible shale deposits--a process that involves injecting millions of gallons of toxic, chemically-laced water into each well to fracture the shale and thereby gain access to the hydrocarbons? The evidence is not reassuring. And, in any case, the well casings, which are meant to protect seepage into groundwater, will in the long run (hundreds of years) simply deteriorate. Those of us alive today will be long gone when our descendents must deal with widespread groundwater pollution that may render many places around the world uninhabitable.

But even if we believe that our modern technical society will survive the effects of climate change and resource depletion, the legacy costs of cleaning up our drinking water, both in terms of energy and money, are likely to outweigh by far the seeming benefits we are currently getting from drilling deep shale layers for oil and natural gas. The legacy costs associated with storing and guarding nuclear waste may continue for thousands and even tens of thousands of years, a period potentially much longer than the entire span from the beginning of agriculture and settled life to today. In that period, many civilizations have come and gone. Do we really expect ours to maintain its stability for tens of thousands of years?

The answer is that we almost never think in these terms. We are now engaged in a dangerous and morally bankrupt can-kicking exercise, hoping to put off the worst effects our waste-handling practices until we are gone and someone else has to deal with the problems we've created. A friend once related that a scientist she knows said that more than climate change, more than population growth, and more than resource depletion, he fears the toxic wastes we've dumped into the environment and those which are still stored at industrial sites including nuclear power plants. He said these wastes have the potential to do more damage to life on earth than all other hazards combined.

While that assessment may or may not be correct, it does offer a perspective that would be useful for us to ponder. What if we survive as a species far into the future, but lack the means--financial, technical, or organizational--to contain those wastes? Given our record to date, that question by itself should caution against an optimistic assessment of whether we can bear the legacy costs of industrial society's toxic pollution.
.

Nihoa Millerbirds

SUBHEAD: An island neighbor to Kauai is key to the future of this threatened bird species. By Jan TenBruggencate on 10 August 2012 for Raising Islands - (http://raisingislands.blogspot.com/2012/08/nihoa-millerbirds-repopulate-laysan.html) Image above: Nihoa island as it is approached from the south by boat. From (http://darrenrobertsskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/05/trip-to-nihoa.html). Researchers leave today (Aug. 10, 2012) for Nihoa Island to collect native Nihoa millerbirds, to help repopulate the species on Laysan Island.
Millerbirds became extinct on Laysan, in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, after introduced rabbits destroyed the island’s vegetation a century ago. The rabbits have long since been removed, and Fish and Wildlife Service teams have been working for two decades to restore some of the native vegetation there.
Meanwhile, the endangered millerbird has been vulnerable, since its only population in the world has been on that single, tiny, volcanic island from which it gets its name.
Nihoa lies 150 miles to the west of Kauai, and is the easternmost island of the 1,000-mile long Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument , which encompasses the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
Researchers last year made the first transfer of the birds from rocky Nihoa Island, where they still thrive, to sandy Laysan, which lies 650 miles to the west. Those birds have done well. Twenty-four were moved onto Laysan Sept. 10, 2011, and they have already produced 17 young.
Image above: A team transfers captured millerbirds from Nihoa to a waiting small boat during the first Laysan repopulation effort. Credit: USFWS Pacific. From original article.
This translocation is a project of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), American Bird Conservancy (ABC), and other organizations. It takes place entirely within the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument and World Heritage site.
Much of what is known about Nihoa millerbirds was discovered by pioneering zoologist Sheila Conant, a University of Hawai`i professor who studied them extensively starting in the 1980s. She continues to be involved.
“The reproductive success of the first group of birds moved to Laysan is very encouraging and demonstrates that Laysan is quite a hospitable island for millerbirds from Nihoa,” she said. “This second translocation will provide this tiny, new population with the best chance of flourishing. The reestablishment of millerbirds on Laysan is an extraordinary and long-needed step in the species’ recovery.”
The project hopes to capture another 26 birds to bring the total number of transferred millerbirds to 50. A biologist will overwinter on Laysan to monitor the birds.
Habitat restoration and restoring species to their former habitats is a rare conservation event, but it has shown considerable success with birds like the Hawaiian goose or nene, once not present but which is now thriving on Kaua`i. In another example, during the past decade, Laysan ducks have been restored to Midway Atoll, and they appear to be responding well to the new habitat. Image above: Nihoa millerbird takes flight From (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/news/episodes/bu-04-2012/story1/index.html).
“This type of restoration work is sorely needed for other Hawaiian birds,” Conant said.
.

Credibility & Expectations

SUBHEAD: These are the keys to understanding the collapse of the status quo.  

By Charles Hugh Smith on 12 August 2012 for Of Two Minds -  
(http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-keys-to-understanding-collapse-of.html)

 
 Image above: A sandcastle amidst the rising tide. From (http://writing.wikinut.com/img/2u4biiy4yg68mw6p/Amidst-Sandcastles).
 
When expectations are raised to impossible heights based on the promise of exponential financialization, the credibility of the Status Quo is doomed.

 
Data is important, but not all trends can be quantified. Longtime readers know that I value data and often use charts to explain the forces of transition/collapse. But there are profound dynamics that are not easily quantified, instances in which quantification may obscure our understanding. Credibility and expectations are two such dynamics. Both credibility and expectations are very real forces, despite their status as inner states immune to direct measurement. Beneath the surface of financial statistics, the real bedrock of any political and financial Status Quo is its credibility in the minds of its subjects. Once the people lose faith in the system, it will collapse under its own weight, a process I described inWhen Belief in the System Fades (March 12, 2008).
The corollary to this structural need for highly motivated, dedicated people to work the gears is that if their belief in the machine fades, then the machine grinds to a halt.
The loss of credibility in the European Union, China, Japan and the U.S. is now in full swing. Credibility is like a sand castle; every false promise, every half-truth, every simulacra "solution," every secret deal, every surrender to vested interests, every politically expedient but ultimately disastrous "fix" removes a handful of sand from beneath the sand castle. When enough sand has been removed, the castle collapses under its own weight. The most interesting characteristic of this hollowing out process is the apparent stability of the Status Quo until the sudden "nobody saw it coming" collapse. In the current era, the Arab Spring is a regional example of this hollowing out of credibility; in the late 1980s, the process was exemplified by the "nobody saw it coming" implosion of the Soviet Empire. In 2007-08, the exposure of phantom wealth tracked a similar pathway, with apparently "solid" institutions imploding "unexpectedly."

Can anyone seriously claim the European Union, the European Central Bank and its alphabet-soup programs still retain a shred of credibility? Every EU/ECB "save" is fictitious, every "fix" expedient, every promise empty, every face-saving summit a living lie. Ultimately, all the posturing, promises and saves come down to an impossibility:"rescuing" phantom assets purchased with astounding levels of debt by issuing even more astounding levels of debt.

Does anyone truly believe this absurdity is anything more than a transparent fraud designed to extend the life of a failed, corrupt system constructed on fantasies and lies? Those with assets are fleeing for less fantastic and dangerous climes. The handful of French millionaires who are supposed to magically bail out a failed-state that absorbs 55% of GDP are busy transferring their assets out of France, a mass exodus of capital that is also playing out in China, where those who embraced the slogan "to get rich is glorious" are transferring their wealth, ill-gotten or well-earned, overseas. So vast is this outflow of wealth that for the first time the outflow of capital from China exceeds the inflow of investment capital. The smart money is exiting, and the last batch of credulous "China story" rubes are dumping their capital down a rathole.

The same process is visible in global stock markets, where the smart money is selling. The loss of credibility in the digital bucket shop known as the U.S. stock market is evidenced by the outflow of some $200 billion over the past few years. To some degree, this has been offset by the influx of foreign capital desperate to escape the black hole of the euro, but the steady erosion of faith in the U.S. stock market is striking: as noted last week, 80% of the trading is either invisible, officially sanctioned manipulation or computers trading.

If the U.S. legal system weren't hopelessly compromised, the U.S. stock markets would be shuttered as corrupted beyond redemption. Globally, the erosion of petrocapitalism (more on that later this week, via correspondent Ray W.) and the self-destruction sequence of financialization are laying waste to the credibility of politicos' promises. It was so easy to be a politico when financialization (exponential expansion of debt and leverage) raised the global tide, lifting all boats; extravagant promises based on everlasting "growth" could be issued, votes bought and the vested interests of crony-capitalist cartels and public employees lavishly rewarded. In this environment, expectations were raised to impossible heights.

Expectations are the yin to credibility's yang: together they form a unity, as credibility is linked to the fulfillment of expectations. If expectations are raised and then dashed, credibility is eroded and then lost entirely. Expectations everywhere have been raised to heights so lofty that the air has become thin: all these expectations are like debt-money claims on the real world: the claims can expand to near-infinity, but the real world remains stubbornly limited. As lofty expectations are unmet, the credibility of the Status Quo inevitably decays and implodes. We are as yet in the early stages of this process. Let's check back in 2014 to see if the sand castle of the Status Quo has collapsed in a heap of wet sand, or if it is merely sagging in the pre-collapse phase.

Toxic Pacific Rainbow

SUBHEAD: UH agronomists said that on Kauai Agent Orange was effectively combined with Agent Pink, Purple and Blue.

 By Kyle Kajihiro on 10 August 2012 for DMZ Hawaii - 
  (http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?p=10621)

   
Image above: An estimated 49.000 gallons of Agent Orange was shipped to Johnson Island (800 miles from Hawaii) from Okinawa. Note this storage was only a few feet above see level. and a few yards from the shore. Pity the poor forklift operator. Some Agent Orange was left in a Matson container on Kauai for a decade. From original article.
 
Another horror of war and militarization has lately been on my mind and in the news: Agent Orange. As Beverly Keever revealed years ago “University vulnerable to pitfalls of secret experiments” (March 27, 2005), Hawaiʻi has the dubious distinction of being one of the places where Agent Orange was developed and tested under the cover of agricultural research. Two UH researchers who were doused by Agent Orange during field tests later developed cancer and tried to sue for compensation. There is also an Agent Orange spill site on Kauaʻi near the Wailua river.
Oshita and Fraticelli marked their bulldozers with flags to serve as targets and stayed there while the planes swooped down to spray the defoliants. “When the plane came to spray, someone had to guide him,” Oshita told a reporter in a Page 1 report in the campus newspaper, Ka Leo O Hawaii, on Feb. 3, 1986. “We were the ones.”=
Testing was done without warning UH employees or the nearby Kapaa community even though in 1962, just months before being assassinated, President Kennedy was told that Agent Orange could cause adverse health effects, U.S. court documents show. And a 1968 test report written by four UH agronomists said that on Kauai Agent Orange, alone or combined with Agent Pink, Purple or Blue, was effective and “obviously may also be lethal.”
When the testing finished in 1968, five 55-gallon steel drums and a dozen gallon cans partially filled with the toxic chemicals were buried on a hilltop overlooking a reservoir. There they remained until the mid-1980s when the Ka Leo reporter’s questions led to their being excavated, supposedly for shipment to a licensed hazardous waste facility. They left behind levels of dioxin in some soil samples of more than five times normal cleanup standards.
The barrels were then placed in a Matson shipping container. There, instead of being shipped out of state as promised, they sat for another decade. Then, in 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health discovered that UH had failed to dispose properly of the hazardous materials and included this infraction along with a Big Island one in a $1.8 million fine against the institution. In April 2000, the barrels were finally shipped out of state.
Oshita and Fraticelli have since died. A year after his Agent Orange work, Oshita was diagnosed with liver dysfunction, bladder cancer, diabetes, chronic hepatitis and a severe skin disease called chloracne. Fraticelli died in April 1981 from lung and kidney cancer; he also had bladder cancer and a brain tumor, court documents indicate.
Today, the AP reported that the U.S. is finally planning to address Agent Orange in Vietnam – “U.S. plan to clean up Agent Orange dioxin ‘better late than never’” (August 9, 2012):
Vo Duoc fights back tears while sharing the news that broke his heart: A few days ago he received test results confirming he and 11 family members have elevated levels of dioxin lingering in their blood.
The family lives in a twostory house near a former U.S. military base in Danang where the defoliant Agent Orange was stored during the Vietnam War, which ended nearly four decades ago. Duoc, 58, sells steel for a living and has diabetes, while his wife battles breast cancer and their daughter has remained childless after suffering repeated miscarriages. For years, Duoc thought the ailments were unrelated, but after seeing the blood tests he now suspects his family unwittingly ingested dioxin from Agent Orange-contaminated fish, vegetables and well water.
Dioxin, a persistent chemical linked to cancer, birth defects and other disabilities, has seeped into Vietnam’s soils and watersheds, creating a lasting war legacy that remains a thorny issue between the former foes. Washington has been slow to respond, but today the United States for the first time will begin cleaning up dioxin from Agent Orange that was stored at the former military base, now part of Danang’s airport.
The article continued:
Over the past five years, Congress has appropriated about $49 million for environmental remediation and about $11 million to help people living with disabilities in Vietnam regardless of cause. Experts have identified three former U.S. air bases – in Danang in central Vietnam and the southern locations of Bien Hoa and Phu Cat – as hotspots where Agent Orange was mixed, stored and loaded onto planes.
The U.S. military dumped some 20 million gallons (75 million liters) of Agent Orange and other herbicides on about a quarter of former South Vietnam between 1962 and 1971.
The defoliant decimated about 5 million acres (2 million hectares) of forest – roughly the size of Massachusetts – and another 500,000 acres (202,000 hectares) of crops.
After years of denying veterans’ medical compensation for Agent Orange contamination, much less the environmental health concerns of Vietnamese people, why the change in tune? One possible explanation is that the U.S. is seeking closer ties with Vietnam (including negotiating the use of ports for U.S. war ships) in order to counter the growing power of China:
Military ties have also strengthened, with Vietnam looking to the U.S. amid rising tensions with China in the disputed South China Sea, which is believed to be rich in oil and gas reserves and is crossed by vital shipping lanes.
Although Washington remains a vocal critic of Vietnam’s human rights record, it also views the country as a key ally in its push to re-engage militarily in the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. says maintaining peace and freedom of navigation in the sea is in its national interest.
But, the U.S. has not even acknowledged the use or storage of Agent Orange in Okinawa. Jon Mitchell reveals in the Japan Times “25,000 barrels of Agent Orange kept on Okinawa, U.S. Army document says” (August 7, 2012). Those barrels were later shipped to Kalama (Johnston Atoll) 800 miles from O’ahu and once a part of the Hawaiian Kingdom:
During the Vietnam War, 25,000 barrels of Agent Orange were stored on Okinawa, according to a recently uncovered U.S. Army report. The barrels, thought to contain over 5.2 million liters of the toxic defoliant, had been brought to Okinawa from Vietnam before apparently being taken to Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean, where the U.S. military is known to have incinerated its stocks of Agent Orange in 1977.
The army report is the first time the U.S. military has acknowledged the presence of these chemicals on Okinawa — and it appears to contradict repeated denials from the Pentagon that Agent Orange was ever on the island. The discovery of the report has prompted a group of 10 U.S. veterans, who claim they were sickened by these chemicals on Okinawa, to demand a formal inquiry from the U.S. Senate.
The army report, published in 2003, is titled “An Ecological Assessment of Johnston Atoll.” Outlining the military’s efforts to clean up the tiny island that the U.S. used throughout the Cold War to store and dispose of its stockpiles of biochemical weapons, the report states, “In 1972, the U.S. Air Force brought about 25,000 55-gallon (208 liter) drums of the chemical Herbicide Orange (HO) to Johnston Island that originated from Vietnam and was stored on Okinawa.”
In a companion article “Poisons in the Pacific: Guam, Okinawa and Agent Orange” (August 7, 2012) he describes how the use and storage of Agent Orange on Guam as well as Okinawa has taken a heavy toll on many of the GIs who were exposed to the deadly toxins:
Within days of starting the assignment, Foster developed pustules and boils all over his body that were so severe he bled through his bed linen. Then during the following years he fell ill with a litany of sicknesses, including Parkinson’s and ischemic heart disease, that he believes were caused by the highly toxic herbicides he was ordered to spray. Foster also contends that Agent Orange’s dioxins — long proven to damage successive generations’ health — have also affected his daughter, who had to undergo cancer treatment as a teenager, and his grandchild, who was born with 12 fingers, 12 toes and a heart murmur.
According to Edward Jackson, a sergeant with the 43rd Transportation Squadron assigned to Guam in the early 1970s, these herbicides were a common sight. “Andersen Air Force Base had a huge stockpile of Agent Orange and other herbicides. There were many, many thousands of drums. I used to make trips with them to the navy base for shipment by sea,” Jackson told The Japan Times.
Knowing what we do now about the toxicity of these chemicals, it is easy to imagine that service members handled them wearing protective clothing. But for years the military and manufacturers suppressed the research on their dangers. “They told us Agent Orange was so safe that you could brush your teeth with it,” says Stanton.
Not only did this lackadaisical attitude apply to the usage of these herbicides, it also applied to their disposal. Just like on Okinawa, where veterans have claimed Agent Orange was buried on Hamby Air Field (current-day Chatan Town), Kadena Air Base and Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, former service members on Guam say they engaged in similar practices.
According to Jackson, the barrels of herbicides were sometimes damaged during transit so they were dumped on Andersen Air Force Base. “I would back my truck up to a small cliff that sloped away towards the Pacific Ocean. I personally threw away about 25 drums. Each individual drum was anywhere from almost empty to almost full,” Jackson explains.

In the 1990s, the U.S. government cracked down on such methods, and after conducting environmental tests on the site where Jackson dumped the barrels, that area was found to be so severely polluted that it was listed for urgent cleanup by the Environmental Protection Agency. Across the tiny island, almost 100 similarly tainted sites were identified, including one where dioxin contamination in the soil of 19,000 parts per million (compared to a recognized safe level of 1,000 parts pertrillion) made it one of the most toxic places on the planet. Further alarming residents was the proximity of many of these sites to the Northern Guam Lens, the aquifer that supplies the island with its drinking water.
How did the military rationalize this kind of environmental practice?
The heavy loss of G.I. blood on both islands imbued in many U.S. leaders a sense of entitlement to the hard-won territories. Following the end of World War II, the islands were gradually transformed into two of the most militarized places on the planet — Guam became the “Tip of the Spear” and Okinawa the “Keystone of the Pacific.”
[. . .]
The fates of Guam and Okinawa have been entwined in the Gordian knot of the planned relocation of thousands of U.S. Marines within the Pacific theater. Associate professor Natividad believes that this plan has made Guam’s leaders reluctant to push the Pentagon for full disclosure about its poisoning of the island. “Our former governor was too afraid of making waves with Washington for fear of jeopardizing the realignment. Our current governor is more confident but even if he pressured Washington for an admission, they’d just send him a letter saying that they’ve cleaned up the contaminated sites.”
While it now seems clear that America’s reasons for bringing Agent Orange to Guam and Okinawa were rooted in the Cold War past, Washington’s increasingly implausible refusals to admit to the presence of these toxic substances on either island are tightly interwoven with its 21st century military strategy for the region.
“We veterans have become a political pawn between the U.S. and Japan,” says Jackson, the former air force sergeant. “We’re an army waiting to die.”
What about the Agent Orange, chemical weapons and nuclear waste on Kalama (Johnston Atoll)?
Ed Rampell wrote “The military’s mess: Johnston Atoll, the army’s ‘model’ chemical disposal facility, is an environmental disaster” (PDF) (January 1996):
According to “Mr. D.,” a defense industry source knowledgeable about JACADS, speaking on condition of anonymity, a nuke “went off the launch pad and cracked … The missile did not go off, but it cracked the casing, releasing plutonium.” The radioactive area, he said, is “still offlimits via a chain link fence.” In what amounts to the world’s first and largest plutonium mining project, the U.S. is spending $10 million to separate contaminated soil at the atomic atoll.
Plutonium is not the only lethal substance to leak into Johnston. In the 1970s, the U.S. shipped to the atoll millions of gallons of dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange, the birth defect-causing defoliant used in Vietnam. According to Mr. D., “The Agent Orange was stored in 55-gallon drums, which rusted, and the Agent Orange leaked into the soil.” This still-contaminated area is also fenced off. According to Wilkes, the herbicide was finally burned in 1976 on the Vulcanus II incinerator ship, which he calls “notoriously inefficient.” He adds, “Here, to an extreme degree, the U.S. military does anything that is too unpopular, too dangerous and too secret to do elsewhere in the Pacific.”
See http://guamagentorange.info/johnston_island

.

A Future Divided

SUBHEAD: It will be chaotic, but there seems to be no way that certain regions will not fall prey to a new nationalism.

 By Raul Ilargi Meijer on 10 August 2012 for the Automatic Earth - 
  (http://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/eurodystopia-a-future-divided.html)

 
Image above: Detail of Alfred Heineken's map of Eurotopia. Click to enlarge or for complete map visit (http://cloud.bmoregeo.com/media/uploads/portfolio/europe-Large.png).

 Just about everyone will recognize the family name. Fewer will be familiar with the man behind it. But Alfred (Freddy) Heineken was an interesting man regardless. Starting in 1941, he took over the family firm founded by his grandfather, bought back shares and never looked back. Freddy built the Heineken brand into one of the best marketed ones in the world for any product, and today, 10 years after his death, it is still in the very top of world breweries.

But Heineken didn't just think about beer. When the European Union was formed, he devoted time to letting his light shine on that project too (Heineken was a known Europhile). What he brought to the table was that, of course, he knew Europe well, from his own unique personal business experience. He oversaw, hands on, not just sales, but also marketing in all the different European languages and cultures.

Heineken didn't trust that the European Union would work the way it was proposed - and eventually organized -. According to him, if Europe were to be a success, it would have to be divided in far smaller units than the nation states that had been formed post-WWII.

It's reminiscent a little of Joel Garreau's "Nine Nations of North America", published in 1981. I don't know if Heineken knew the book, but given his overall curiosity and his wide array of contacts with business leaders, politicians and artists all over the world (Heineken was a very wealthy man), it wouldn't surprise me. Then again, his vision is based on completely different ideas than Garreau's.
For those who are not familiar with Garreau's work, here's a map of how he "envisioned" North America:


Image above: North America divided by cultural and economic interests. From original article.
 
Garreau divided the continent into units that he thought would be most coherent from the point of view of culture, political ideals and economic interests. Interesting notions, and a good book to pick up.

Back to Heineken, who would have found Garreau's units far too sizeable for his liking. He was thinking along the lines of optimally manageable untis.

Immediately after the 1992 Maastricht Treaty saw European nations sign away the first real chunks of sovereignty, Freddy Heineken published his pamphlet The United States of Europe (A Eurotopia?), written with Dutch historians Henk Wesseling and Wim van den Doel. The underlying idea here is that the individual units (statelets) should have no more than 5-10 million inhabitants.

Philip Ebels revoked the idea in an article written for EU Observer last week:

[..] If the EU was considered a country, it would be seventh on the list of biggest countries and third on the list by population size. And, as officials in Brussels never tire of repeating, first on the list of biggest economies.

The time is [..] gone when people were ignorant and obedient. The time when they did not annoy their leaders with demands of transparency, efficiency, democracy and accountability.
Technological progress has always led to political turbulence, often at the expense of those in power. The Internet, just like the printing press before, gives people access to information and the power to create and distribute, undermining establishments everywhere - not only in the Arab world.

That is why states are doing what they need to accommodate an ever more demanding and emancipated people: decentralise. The UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy: all have passed down powers over the last couple of decades. The closer the power, the more transparent, efficient, democratic and accountable it is.

Everything which has a function, one could argue, has an optimal size. A pen can be bigger or smaller, you still need to be able to use it. The European welfare state has multiple functions. It needs to protect its territory from outside, uphold the rule of law, provide healthcare, education, take care of the roads and the forests and - to a more or lesser degree - distribute wealth.

The problem is that each of those functions has its own optimal size and that, as the world continues to change, they continue to diverge. The result is not that the state does not work anymore - it just does not work very well. Like a pen as big as a broom or as small as a splinter - you might still be able to use it, but it is not very practical.

It is a trend that will continue as long as technology continues to progress. China and other rising giants will continue to rise; the ruled will continue to undermine their rulers. And then there will come a day - or has it come already? - that the European states of today do more harm than good [..] 

Heineken called it "Eurotopia" - a contraction of Europe and utopia. He was well aware of the skepsis the idea would garner. But radical times call for radical measures. And the way things are going, I prefer utopia over dystopia.

More background comes from Peter Jan Margry in 2008:

"(...) Heineken was convinced of the positive consequences of this process of the decay of centralism in favour of a Eurotopia as he called it. Immediately after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 many were already afraid of a Europe that was becoming too large and too powerful, despite the fact that, as an antidote for this, a representational Committee of the Regions had been included in the Treaty in order to weaken these tendencies and, at the same time, answer the call for more regional autonomy. 

Initially, as a hypothetical response to this, Heineken went public with his plan for a United States of Europe. This involved a union composed of 75 independent states, created on the basis of political, historical, linguistic, cultural and ethnic affinities and sensitivities. Taking cultural differences into account in precisely this way would strengthen Europe as an entity. Although nothing was ever done politically as a consequence of this idealistic proposal, the underlying analysis is not inconsistent with developments in the years that followed – on the contrary.

The proposed decentralization and federalizing of Europe on the basis of smaller geographic units proceeded from the central idea that it would prevent conflicts and promote stability and equality. This assumption was based, on the one hand, on the theory of the British historian C Northcote Parkinson that smaller national units could be less centralized, more efficient and therefore more stable, and, on the other hand, on the thesis of the Austrian sociologist Leopold Kohr (1957) that ‘bigness is a problem’. In effect, both embroider [Denis] de Rougemont’s initial preference for a regionalized, federalist Europe.

As early as the late 1960s, as a result of the European Communities, a process of growing regional autonomy had slowly got under way. The converging supranational and diverging national forces would, it was supposed, bring Europe more to its ‘natural state’, preserving the various regional identities. Because of regionalist tendencies the nation-state network was breaking down, and within various member states regions were gaining far-reaching autonomy.
According to an almost apodictic commentary in The Economist, if the logic for splitting up Czechoslovakia could be carried through, then there was all the more reason that the same should be done in Belgium, with its even greater language and economic divisions. Meanwhile, Spain fears the regional autonomy claimed by the Basques and Catalans, while France has to deal with a Corsican struggle for autonomy; similar claims are made by the Scots, Hungarian minorities throughout the Balkans, and so on."

So why all this attention for a billionaire beerbrewer's spare time activities? The answer lies in those last lines.  
"Spain fears the regional autonomy claimed by the Basques and Catalans, while France has to deal with a Corsican struggle for autonomy; similar claims are made by the Scots, Hungarian minorities throughout the Balkans, and so on."
The map of Heineken's utopia could quite feasibly serve as the blueprint for a dystopia. When the financial crisis starts to bite for real, and it will, count on it, it appears inevitable that nations and/or parts of nations begin preparing for independence. There are plenty of regions in Europe that hang on as parts of larger entities only for economic reasons. When these reasons no longer exist, appeals for separation will become louder.

It won't be a coherent movement, far from it. It will be chaotic. But there seems to be no way that certain regions will not fall prey to populists, nationalists, and in general the resurrection of age-old ideas that never disappeared, but that simply lay dormant under a thin veneer of riches.

Why would the Catalans or the Basques elect to continue to be a part of Spain, when the government in Madrid has nothing to offer but empty coffers? Why would they let others decide for them when that brings them no economic advantages? Any charismatic leader might convince them that they would be better off as a separate unit. And that leader might be right to boot.

Why should the Scots remain in the United Kingdom? And what might happen in for instance Galicia, Silesia, Moravia, regions that have seen many different rulers in recent history only? What ancient cultural, religious or other divides will rise to the surface all over again?

It is not at all imaginary that regions want (back) their independence. And neither is it that borders between regions will be contested, that people will be told that only warfare will be sufficient to show "those over there", who committed untold horrible if not unspeakable atrocities an untold number of years ago, that now is the time to avenge the ancestors who died to defend the land they now live on.
For obvious reasons, we call this scenario the Balkanization of Europe.

It will not develop exactly along the lines and borders that Freddy Heineken saw as desirable. But we may well one day think back of that map, and not for the reasons Heineken meant it for. I think along those lines on a regular basis when I see the likes of Monti, Draghi and Rajoy present their grandiose plans to save the union, and their place in it, far more costly than any can afford, as it's sinking ever deeper into its overwhelming debt morass.

See also:
 Ea O Ka Aina: A Crisis of Ligitimacy 8/9/12
Ea O Ka Aina: The Divided State of America 9/28/11
 Ea O Ka Aina: Real US Map of Regions 10/5/11
Island Breath: The State of Jefferson 10/5/08
Island Breath: Hawaiian Sustainability & Sovereignty 11/5/07
Island Breath: Jumping the Ship of Empire 11/1/05  
.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

SUBHEAD: It could split the USA apart and into smaller nations along regional lines.  

By John Michael Greer on 9 August 2012 for Archdruid Report -  
(http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-crisis-of-legitimacy.html)  

[IB Editor's note: Hey! Maybe Hawaii can catch a break and be free of GMO's and the US Navy!]

Image above: Russian quitetly marks 20th anniversary of coup ending Soviet Union on 8/19/91 Boris Yeltsin, president of Russian Federation, left, reads a statement from atop a tank in Moscow as he urges the Russian people to resist a hardline takeover of the central government. Note weeping Soviet soldier. From (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/19/russia-quietly-marks-20th-anniversary-soviet-coup-1214652530/).

Over the last week or two, the peak oil scene has been going through another round of its ongoing flirtation with fantasies of overnight collapse. This time the trigger was a recent paper by David Korowicz of Feasta, which I discussed a few weeks back and which you can download in PDF format here.

As I mentioned in that earlier post, it’s a well-written study, limited only by a few frankly unrealistic assumptions about how governments tend to react when faced with an immediate threat to national survival, and Korowicz detailed his presuppositions clearly enough that a thoughtful reader can easily bracket the improbable parts of the study and extract the very real value to be found elsewhere in it. Korowicz is quite correct in suggesting that the current global financial system is a house of cards that could easily come crashing to the ground, taking a quadrillion dollars or so of imaginary wealth with it and dealing the world’s industrial societies a staggering blow.

It’s purely his suggestion that this could cause the global economy to freeze up, not for weeks, but for years or even longer, that strays out of the realm of realism into territory mapped out well in advance by Western civilization’s penchant for apocalyptic fantasies. In the real world, of course, governments facing sudden financial collapse don’t just sit on their hands and make plaintive sounds; they take action, and there are plenty of actions they can take, since a financial collapse doesn’t actually make anything of value go away.

Money, let us please remember, is not wealth; it’s a set of arbitrary tokens people in complex human societies use to manage the distribution of real wealth; if a monetary system breaks down, other ways can readily be jerry-rigged to keep real wealth moving. Glance through the last century of economic history and you’ll find plenty of examples of governments responding to sudden financial crises with equally sudden, drastic measures that worked, at least in the short term—and while it’s always popular to say "It’s different this time," I hope my readers recall how often, and inaccurately, these same words get used in the not unrelated field of speculative bubbles.

The parallel’s not inappropriate, since the believer in the latest speculative delusion uses those words to convince himself that he doesn’t have to put up with the common but unwelcome experience of having to work hard to become wealthy. In the same way, I suspect, much of the popularity of fast-collapse scenarios come from the fact that many people want to convince themselves that they don’t have to put up with the common but unwelcome experience of the decline and fall of a civilization.

The temptation to I mention all this again because the theme of this week’s post centers on another kind of sudden disruption that occurs tolerably often in history, one that we’re probably going to see repeated in the not too distant future here in the US and elsewhere. Just as financial systems routinely come unglued, so do political systems; in both cases, though it takes years of mismanagement to build to the point of crisis, the crisis itself can hit suddenly and bring shattering change in a very short time; in both cases, in turn, the aftermath involves substantial losses, a great deal of frantic jerry-rigging and damage control, and then a return to Political power’s a remarkable thing.

Though Mao Zedong was quite correct to point out that it grows out of the barrel of a gun, it has to be transplanted into more fertile soil in short order or it will soon wither and die. A successful political system of any kind quickly establishes, in the minds of the people it rules, a set of beliefs and attitudes that define the political system as the normal, appropriate, and acceptable form of government for that people.

That sense of legitimacy is the foundation on which any enduring government must build, for when people see their government as legitimate, no matter how appalling it appears to outsiders, they will far more often than not put up with its excesses and follow its orders. It probably needs to be said here that legitimacy is not a rational matter and has nothing to do with morality or competence; great nations all through history have calmly accepted the legitimacy of governments run by thieves, tyrants, madmen and fools. Still, a government that has long held popular legitimacy can still lose it, and can do so in a remarkably short time.

 Those of my readers who are old enough to have watched the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites will recall the speed with which the rulers of several Communist nations saw the entire apparatus of their government dissolve around them as the people they claimed the right to rule stopped cooperating. Now of course that sudden collapse of legitimacy was long in preparing. Just as a singer or writer who becomes an overnight success normally gets there after many years of hard work, the implosion of a system of government normally follows many years of bad decisions and unheard warnings, and it’s not too hard in retrospect to trace how simmering unrest eventually rose to a full boil; still, the benefits of hindsight can be misleading, because it’s actually quite rare for anyone to catch on to what’s building in advance.

As the famous Affair of the Diamond Necklace dragged the prestige of the French monarchy in the mud, Talleyrand commented to a friend, "Pay attention to this wretched necklace-affair; I should not be in the least surprised if it overturns the throne"—but then Talleyrand was one of the supreme political observers of the age; to most others in France in 1784, it was ju We have seen plenty of equally tawdry scandals in the United States of late, and it’s easy to ignore the impact of, let’s say, the Obama administration’s systematic refusal to bring charges against any of the financiers whose spectacularly blatant acts of fraud helped fuel, and then pop, the recent housing bubble.

Still, I’ve come to think that a modern Talleyrand might see things differently. Had Obama acted otherwise, the Democratic party would likely have come to dominate the American political scene for the next forty years as thoroughly as it did for the four decades or so after 1932; instead, by giving the country a remarkably good imitation of the third term of George W. Bush, the Obama administration has convinced a sizable fraction of Americans that they have nothing to hope for from either party.

It’s symptomatic that a recent Rasmussen poll found that only 17% of respondents thought that a choice between Obama and Romney for president represented the best that America could do. It’s all too common for the political class of a troubled nation to lose track of the fact that, after all, its power depends on the willingness of a great many people outside the political class to do what they’re told. In Paris in 1789, in St. Petersburg in 1917, and in a great many other places and times, the people who thought that they held the levers of power and repression discovered to their shock that the only power they actually had was the power to issue orders, and those who were supposed to carry those orders out could, when matters came to a head, decide that their own interests lay elsewhere.

In today’s America, equally, it’s not the crisply dressed executives, politicians, and bureaucrats who currently hold power who would be in a position to enforce that power in a crisis; it’s the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, police officers and Homeland Security personnel, who are by and large poorly paid, poorly treated, and poorly equipped, and who have not necessarily been given convincing reasons to support the interests of a political class that most of them privately despise, against the interests of the classes to which they themselves belong. Such doubts and dissatisfactions can build for a long time before the crisis hits.

If history shows anything, it’s that trying to time that crisis is very nearly a guarantee of failure. Sooner or later, once the system’s legitimacy becomes sufficiently doubtful, some event dramatic enough to seize the collective imagination will trigger the final collapse of legitimacy and the implosion of the system, but what that event will be and when it will come is impossible to know in advance.

Not even Talleyrand seems to have guessed in advance that the calling of the Estates-General in 1789 would set off the final crisis of the monarchy whose collapse he accurately anticipated—but then who could have predicted the spur-of-the-moment improvisation that led representatives of the Third Estate to proclaim themselves a National Assembly, or the circumstances that sent a Paris mob running through the streets to storm the Bastille? What follows the moment of crisis is a little less opaque to anticipation.

 France in 1789 and Russia in 1917 were both politically centralized nations in which power was primarily exercised from the capital city, and revolutionary politicians and urban mobs in Paris and St. Petersburg respectively thus had an overwhelming impact on the course of events, and radical change there spread rapidly throughout the country, since there were no effective centers of power outside the core.

 In less centralized countries, control of the capital is less decisive; the seizure of power by Parliament and the London mob in 1641 in England bears close comparison with events in the two later revolutions, but when the rubble of the English Civil War finally stopped bouncing, the system that resulted was much closer to the one that had been in place before 1641 than, say, France after the revolution resembled the Ancien Régime; the survival of familiar modes of government in peripheral centers made it easier for those same modes to be restored once the revolutionary era was over.

 That degree of regional independence did not survive in England, but the European pattern of political geography, whereby the capital city of each nation-state normally becomes its political and cultural hub and its largest population center, did not catch on anything like so well in North America.

 In the United States and Canada alike, the national capital and the largest population center are two different cities; in both nations, as well as Mexico, large regional divisions—states or provinces—maintain a prickly independence from the central government, and regional cultures remain a potent political force. The United States is the most extreme example of the lot; Washington DC is for all practical purposes a modest regional center that just happens to share space with a national government meeting, and there is no place in the country where even the largest urban mob could have a decisive impact on the survival of the federal government. The complex historical processes that brought thirteen diverse colonies under a single federal system, furtthermore, left a great deal of power in the hands of the states. Very little of that power is used these days; repeated expansions of the originally very limited powers given to the national government have left most substantive issues in the hands of federal bureaucrats, and left the states little more to do than carrying out costly federal mandates at their own expense.

Still, the full framework of independent government—executive, legislative, and judicial—remains in place in each state; state governors retain the power to call up every adult citizen to serve in the state militia; and, finally and critically, the states have kept the constitutional power to bring the whole system to a screeching halt. You’ll find that power spelled out in Article V of the US Constitution. If two thirds of state legislatures call for a constitutional convention to amend the Constitution, the convention will happen; if three quarters of state legislatures vote to ratify any amendment to the Constitution passed by the convention, that amendment goes into effect.

It’s that simple.

Congress has nothing to say about it; the President has nothing to say about it; the Supreme Court has nothing to say about it; the federal government is, at least in theory, stuck on the sidelines. That power has never been used; the one time it was seriously attempted, in 1913, Congress forestalled the state legislatures by passing a constitutional amendment identical to the one for which the states were agitating, and submitting it to the state legislatures for ratification. The power nonetheless remains in place, a bomb hardwired into the Constitution.

What makes that bomb so explosive is that there are very nearly no limits to what a constitutional convention can do. The only thing the Constitution specifies is that no amendment can take away a state’s equal representation in the Senate. Other than that, as long as two thirds of the states call for the convention and three quarters of the states ratify its actions, whatever comes out of it is the supreme law of the land.

Everything is up for grabs; it would not be beyond the power of a constitutional convention, for example, to provide a legal means for states to withdraw peacefully from the Union, or even to repeal the Constitution and dissolve the Union altogether. Had the leaders of the southern states in 1860 been less proud and more pragmatic, it’s entirely possible that they could have won their independence and spared themselves the catastrophe of the Civil War by some such measure as this.

It’s eerily plausible to imagine Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi rising in the Senate that year to propose an amendment to provide for the peaceful dissolution of the Union, denouncing the radicals on both sides of the slavery issue who were pushing the nation toward civil war, and offering a peaceful separation of the states as the only workable solution to the problem that had dogged the nation for so long—and it’s by no means hard, at a time when most Americans still wanted to avoid war, to imagine such a proposal getting the votes it would need from Congress and the states to take effect.

Any further development of that speculation can be left to fans of alternate history. Under most conditions, of course, no such proposal would ever be seriously made, much less accepted, but 1860 offers a trenchant reminder that under the pressure of irreconcilable conflict, the system of government we have in the United States can freeze up completely and make desperate measures the order of the day.

 In 1860, the US government lost its legitimacy in a third of the country, and it took the 19th century’s bloodiest conflict to bring back the southern states to a grudging and incomplete obedience. In the crisis of legitimacy that’s building in today’s America, a rising spiral of conflicts between regions also plays an important role, but this time the federal government can hardly count on the passionate loyalty it got a century and a half ago from the Northeast and the Midwest; in fact, it’s hard to think of any corner of the country where distrust and disaffection for the current government haven’t put down deep roots already.

 If and when the crisis comes, it’s anyone’s guess what exactly will happen, but the possibility that the states will call on their power to redefine the Constitution—whether they use it to reshape the national government, or to let the country split apart into smaller nations along regional lines—belongs somewhere on the list of potential outcomes. For that matter, it’s anyone’s guess what will spark such a crisis, if in fact one does come.

The triggering event might well be political, or economic, or even environmental. Still, if I had to make a guess, it would be that the most likely triggering event will be military. We’ll open that immense can of worms next week.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: The Divided State of America 9/28/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Real US Map of Regions 10/05/11

.

More on the drought

SUBHEAD: Livestock and vegetable farmers are fighting for crumbs while corn growers experience a robust government support.  

By Bryce Oates on 6 August 2012 for Homegrown Life -  
(http://homegrown.org/blog/2012/08/homegrown-life-more-on-the-drought)




Image above: Drought map for 31 July 2012 in original article. From (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/).
 
Out here in the Farm Belt, it’s hard to do much other than beat the same drum again and again (and again). It’s hot. It’s dry. Nothing is growing. We’re running out of water. And there is no sign of change on the horizon.

As farmers, we all take risks. We’re part of the hallowed class of job creators, entrepreneurs, small business owners or whatever else becomes the soup-of-the-day political rhetoric about working and living and spreading money around our communities. All of us farmers, large and small, are a big part of the engine that drives the economy of rural communities, rural counties and rural states.
This year, we are learning a lot about what happens when that engine sputters. What happens when farmers have very little to sell?

On my multigenerational family farm here in West Missouri, we have a daily discussion about how we’re going to make it through. The grass we need to feed our herd of cattle and sheep and goats is simply not around. We had a very tiny hay crop to tide us over through winter, but we’ve already dug deep into that hay supply to make it through this summer. We could purchase grain to feed our livestock through the lean times, but grain prices are skyrocketing due to corn and bean crop failures all over the Midwest. So, we really have no choice but to sell off much of the herd until there is more to eat. Then, wait for rain and grass growth once again.

In normal years, or even decent years, we’re not even close to being overstocked. We nearly always have more of a problem of keeping up with the grass rather than having enough grass for our livestock to eat. We usually have to mow off top growth just to maintain pasture quality and don’t even need the extra hay.

The plan of selling off livestock to make it through sounds simple enough, but for my Dad it hurts. He’s a few years out from retirement from his day job and a big part of his retirement plan is to get the farm paid for so that he can have a decent income from the cow-calf operation in his retirement years. Cutting the cattle herd from 85 head down to 35 or 40 is a big hit in projected annual income from calf sales.

And let’s not forgot, we’re not on our own on some island of drought. Broad swaths of the Farm Belt are in the same condition and making the same decisions. There’s no hay to buy. Cattle prices are dropping quickly as more farmers start to liquidate their herds. Our collective crisis means that we’re all making individual decisions for survival that end up causing the problem to get worse (lots of cattle hitting the market at once leads to low prices and low farm income–this while beef prices are likely to go up at the grocery store for consumers).

Enter the need for those “pesky” rules, regulations, incentives and spending we call the Federal Farm Bill. The Farm Bill theoretically helps farmers make it through these kinds of situations. The truth is, though, it provides support for a very narrow group of farmers: row croppers. Corn, cotton, soybean, rice and wheat farmers have both crop disaster insurance and weather insurance to help. They also have direct payments (crop subsidies) to help them through. The federal government pays out billions each year to make sure these crop producers can get back in the fields each spring and keep the wheels of the commodity monoculture system moving full speed ahead.

I’m not attempting to paint a picture here about the moral fallacy of row croppers. It’s just that livestock and vegetable farmers like me are fighting for crumbs of farm bill spending while row croppers experience a robust system of government support and aid. There are good programs to help with conserving water and soil and enhancing wildlife habitat, but those programs are horribly underfunded and nearly always on the chopping block in farm policy debates.

I suppose it’s a sign of the times that here in Austerity Nation our Congressional leaders are in a standstill over federal farm policy, drought assistance and the coming elections. The Farm Bill is set for renewal expiring at the end of 2012, but the Republican House and Democratic Senate can’t come to an agreement about how to extend the farm bill past this year (it’s typically a 5-year Farm Bill). The drought of 2012 was a big carrot for Congressional action on the bill. But this week, House leaders attempted to cram through drought relief by cutting spending on some of those same conservation programs livestock and produce farmers love. They tried to make even more cuts than would have offset the price tag of the drought assistance bill.

This little situation is just proof of where our politics has been headed for some time. Very wealthy row crop farmers enjoy untouchable and unquestioned government support while programs that assist livestock producers and so-called “specialty crop” producers are on the chopping block. Row croppers generally have large farms totaling thousands of acres; livestock and vegetable farmers are much, much smaller. In other words, we’re on a track of cutting programs for the many in order to pay for continued support of the handful of wealthy elite at the top of the economic pyramid.
That’s an old story that courses through the river of human history. We shall see how it turns out this time. We’ll see if it rains on time to save our pastures and foragelands. We’ll see if it’s possible to get our fall veggies in the ground. Right now, it’s all about waiting around in the hundred degree heat saying “we’ll see.”

Bryce is a farmer, father, writer and rural economic development entrepreneur. He works with his family to raise organic vegetables, beef, lamb, chickens, goats and manage the bottomland forest woodlot in Western Missouri. 

See also: Ea O Ka Aina: Lammas without corn 8/2/12

 .

A Suburban Holiday

SUBHEAD: Most US suburbanites are driving long hours in massive cars alone with talk radio for company.  

By Brian Kaller on 6 August 2012 for Restoring Mayberry - 
  (http://restoringmayberry.blogspot.ie/2012/08/suburban-disneyworld.html)  
Image above: Interior of Jamestown Mall in Florissant, MO, looking towards the Sears anchor store. From (http://www.beltstl.com/2009/10/tear-down-jamestown-mall/).

Sometimes you come home a stranger.

I visited my native Missouri last month with my eight-year-old daughter, and people asked where I was from; apparently I don’t sound native anymore. When I tell them we live in Ireland, everyone gets a dreamy look and tells me how much they’ve always wanted to see it.

Everyone, it seems, longs for our adopted country, Ireland, as a getaway, like some ancient and mystical land. I don’t have to scratch too deeply to see that many of those same people feel increasingly maddened by the USA right now, and are longing for something simpler and more authentic.

I understand, I tell them: some years ago we took the “Benedict Option” and moved from the US suburbs to the Irish countryside, where we grow our own food and learn about traditional ways of life. We work regular jobs and have a car and laptop, but we want to be prepared for a future where such things will not be guaranteed, I explain, and we’ve learned a lot from elderly people in the area.
Nonetheless, I say, there aren’t any real getaways, not from a place where bills need to be paid, exercise hurts and children have tantrums. Also, while Ireland is lovely, most places look wonderfully exotic in the distance; after several years here, we sometimes dream of American suburbs.

My daughter and I wore old clothes and carried an almost-empty suitcase on the plane, for our rare trips are the chance to go shopping where everything is cheap, convenient and often luxurious. We shopped at mall stores the size of the Temple of Solomon, decked in bright kindergarten colours, with doors you don’t even have to open yourself. People stand at the door like servants, greeting you cheerfully, and guide you down massive aisles wide as Irish traffic lanes. The walls rise on either side stacked with affordable products -- many of them, from Bibles to deodorants, advertised as “extreme” -- in ridiculously giant containers.

Drive-throughs. Three-dollar petroleum. Clean lavatories the size of Irish living rooms, free to use for everyone.

I remember all this, I thought. I could get used to this again.
 
As we drove around my daughter marvelled at the lakes and rivers of asphalt, whose far end you can’t see, as Jim Kunstler put it, because of the curvature of the Earth. Rural roads simply plough straight through hills and span valleys, and when I brought my daughter to the Ozark Mountains I could show her the same exposed geology I remembered from childhood.

Driving means something very different on Ireland’s narrow, winding roads, bound tightly by hedgerows on either side. To a newcomer it felt like driving through the bottom of a ditch, like Luke Skywalker through the climactic scenes of Star Wars, if the Death Star’s trenches had undulated and wound around like a rollercoaster over the landscape.

The lack of visibility, along with the bouncy ride most Irish roads offer, forces you to drive slowly – a handy habit in a country where petroleum is eight dollars a gallon. It also helps when you approach one of the many roads and bridges in our area that are a single lane, where one car simply has to wait for others to get out of the way.

The most obvious change, of course, was the weather. I grew up a thousand kilometres from the ocean in any direction, where a single year can see 40-degree (100F) summers and -20 (-5F) winters, as well as tornadoes, blizzards, droughts and floods, everything dramatic and mercurial.

Ireland, though, sits in an ocean less than a thousand miles from the Arctic Circle; this far north in North America, you can find polar bears. The Gulf Stream sweeps up from the Caribbean to warm this island, and all of Europe behind it, far more than its latitude warrants, and while it doesn’t feel like Jamaica when it sprays over the Conemara rocks, its slightly-less-frigid temperatures keep the country from freezing in winter. People here are so unprepared for snow that when an inch came down in Dublin one night, traffic crawled to a stop and my usual 90-minute bus ride took four hours.
While the air rarely becomes crisp, however, it also rarely gets warm, so a day in December can be cool and rainy, and so can a day in July.

That’s normal weather, so imagine a summer that is the rainiest since records began, ruining local farmers. That would be this summer. In the month of June the country received 228 millimetres of rain – three times the average – and received only 93 hours of sunlight.

Ninety-three hours of sunlight in a month. An average of three hours a day, at latitudes where summer brings eighteen-hour days. The average temperature for June – June, mind you – was 12C (53F). Yes, I was ready to go home.

I started a chicken coop four months ago, and have worked on it every available moment, even digging for several hours in the evening after working several hours in Dublin. It’s simply that I could only work in fits and starts between showers, so a two-day project has taken most of the year. The Girl and I returned from the USA to find the coop still unfinished, only now surrounded by waist-high weeds. “None of you cut the grass?” I asked my family on our return.

“We couldn’t,” they said. “It never stopped raining.”

If we had left a caricature of Ireland, though, we came to a caricature of Missouri, still seeing one of the hottest and driest summers on record: 43 degrees (109F). Everyone joked that were getting hot water from both taps, that the trees were whistling for the dogs, that the cows were giving condensed milk, and that local Protestants were going back to full-immersion baptisms. More serious than the heat, though, was the drought, the most serious to hit the continent’s interior in 56 years, ruining the lives of thousands of farmers and driving up global food prices.

“How hot was it?” my neighbours asked when I returned, grinning and expecting a funny story about the sweltering 30-degree (80F) temperatures that make Irish people lunge for the air conditioning. When I asked them to guess, they started there and worked their way upwards. By the time they got to 43, their smiles had disappeared.

No matter how uncomfortable the surroundings, though, I found that Midwesterners remained the friendliest of strangers. The Irish have a reputation for being friendly, but as a rule they are more neighbourly, greeting each other on the road or in the village and then minding their own business. To be friendly in the way of Missourians -- to chat with people standing in queue, complain about your day or talk about your church -- requires a level of public intimacy most Europeans find intrusive.
A co-worker of mine who had to make several business calls to the USA soon asked me, unsettled, why everyone kept telling him to “have a nice day.”


 Image above: On Christmas Eve 2008 the Sears at the Jamestown Mall in Florissant, MO closed for good. From (http://www.beltstl.com/2009/10/tear-down-jamestown-mall/)
 
People here are more business-like in business; tell a Lidl or Tesco employee to effusively greet each incoming shopper with an airplane-stewardess smile, as Wal-Mart employees must do, and most would say they don’t get paid enough for that.

By contrast, when I shopped at a grocery store, I soon learned all about the checkout lady’s grandchildren, the changes in the neighbourhood, and her fears for the future of America. There are things you can only tell a stranger, and in the USA, you see, most of us are.
I missed this, I thought.

I now think of Missouri the way many US residents think of Ireland, as a holiday destination, pleasurable and indulgent and surreal, except instead of a rollercoaster my daughter and I scream and hold on to the car as we drive around a highway cloverleaf, and instead of a castle I can take her to a Barnes and Noble the same size. But then, as much as we enjoy seeing friends and family again, I’m reminded why we’re raising our daughter somewhere else.

It’s not just the little annoyances that I rediscovered, like sales tax or ATM fees. It was realising anew that the constant driving and fast food, which feel like such a treat to us, constitute an ordinary day for many people. Futurists in the 1950s imagined a world of highways and drive-throughs would be an age of constant wonder, describing it in the same dreamy tones that people I meet described seeing Ireland. But there is no world that sustains the elated novelty of a vacation, and any attempt to do so results in an unhealthy landscape.

The broad roads and cheap gasoline are one reason my fellow Americans use twice as much energy as the average European, who themselves live far beyond what the planet could support. The massive stores can only exist because people desire to own many times more than they need. I enjoyed the ubiquitous fast food, but felt disappointed at the girth of many of the people I passed on the street; tourists from all over the world visit Ireland, but we can usually spot US residents hundreds of metres away by their shape.

Here in Ireland almost nothing is convenient, but they tend to be the important things; few restaurants have drive-throughs, but I can ride my bicycle just a few miles to the nearest bus stop, hop on the bus to Dublin, and be there in an hour and a half; in fact, most places in the entire country are no more than a few kilometres from a bus route. Back home, city neighbourhoods have less bus service than our isolated country roads, and the rural towns we saw in the Ozarks could be hundreds of kilometres from the nearest public transportation.

When seeing old acquaintances again, however, the greatest gulf stretched between our inner lives. Even when I lived in the USA I lived without a television for many years, and now that I live away, most pop-culture references fly past me. Kardashians. Angry Birds. Jersey Shore.

When the pop-culture references get political – this week, over Chick-Fil-A drive-through restaurants – the landscape becomes even more alien. I see old friends and loved ones taking sides I didn’t know existed, in a conflict I wasn’t aware of, over an issue I struggle to think of as political, each claiming their side is suffering from oppression.

In a country where people eat at restaurants, I think. That have drive-throughs. Made for cars. They own cars. 

The bizarre lifestyles and politics are not unconnected. Most US suburbanites are shoehorned into an ill-fitting life: driving long hours in massive cars alone with talk radio for company, with televisions, speakers, smart phones and advertisements everywhere. In short, they live surrounded by shouting of one kind or another, so ubiquitous that it becomes a poisonous kind of white noise.

During our recent visit to Missouri my eight-year-old happened to see a bit of cable news, and began laughing at the hosts’ exaggerated facial expressions, kindergarten tones and ridiculous volume, and she had fun imitating them the rest of the trip, thinking they were a comedy act.

Surrounded by such shouting, I see many of Americans allying themselves with one media figure or other, funnelling their discontent into this or that spectacularly fatuous issue, believing that they are persecuted or threatened. Living amid such wealth and convenience, more and more seem desperate, unlettered but possessed of the most flamboyant opinions, aggressively pious but uncharitable, pugnacious but fearful.
Coming from a country still in the grip of the Patriot Act and with a murder rate five times that of most European countries, I found it a relief to realise that life doesn’t have to be that way; when the local newspaper ran a screaming headline about a “TERROR ATTACK!,” it meant that someone had been mugged.

It was refreshing to watch political debates between five or seven major parties, and to realize that only in the USA, among world democracies, do citizens passively accept having only one choice more than North Koreans. It was refreshing to hear neighbours talk about their chosen candidate without much tension, without a sense that an election was an apocalyptic smack-down between the forces of good and evil.

Yet people, including my fellow Americans, are often more and better than their memes or bumper stickers. When my hometown of Florissant, Missouri, lacked electricity for two weeks a few summers ago, I was told that my old neighbors helped each other out, and I hear similar stories from most crises. My hope is that, as the emergency continues, the Disneyworld aspects of America will fade, and instead of gazing at a simpler life in the distance, more Americans will find they can create one at their feet. And they might discover that their online Chick-Fil-A flame-war enemies turn out to be good at carting jugs of fresh water from the creek.


 Image above: My daughter on her bike a brief walk from our front gate in Ireland. Form original article.
 
In the meantime, I’m raising my daughter in the country, and while even there we get more mass media than I would like, I feel like I have a bit of room to pass an older set of values.

So at the end of our holiday, we go back to a cold and wet countryside where everything is expensive, cramped and slow-moving. This island began as a getaway for us at first too, but it became real soon enough, and perhaps someday, the USA, too, will feel real again.
• Florissant, Missouri, USA is the hometown of the author.
.