This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit.
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power": Benito Mussolini
Voltaire on Freedom
"...So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." Voltaire, François Marie Arouet (1694-1778), Philosophical Dictionary, 1764
Darwin on Effect of Early Brainwashing
"It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871
It was impossible to save the Great Republic
"But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people's liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons. The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on; the suffrage was become a mere machine, which they used as they chose. There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket."
Mark Twain
E.O. Wilson on population growth and sustainability
"The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is but a fragile theoretical construct." - E.O. Wilson
Jefferson on Corporations
“I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
How despicable and ignoble war is
Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! - Albert Einstein
Do not despair due to hostility or exclusion
Do not despair due to hostility or exclusion by popular, small minded, or greedy men and women, simply because they reject or cannot understand your truths. Stand up and declare your reality, in defiance of their ignorance and self-serving falsehoods. -- Chris
Anger Looks to the Good of Justice
"He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust." -- St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Aside from the fact that Thomas thought heretics should be put to death ;-) he really has hit on something here!
"In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) US Founding Father - Source: Dogwood Papers
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961
The weak do what they must. . .
"The strong do what they will, and the weak do what they must." - Thucydides (c. 460 B.C. - c. 395 B.C.)
Sustainability and Population Growth
"A sincere concern for the future is certainly the factor that motivates many who make frequent use of the word, "sustainable." But there are cases where one suspects that the word is used carelessly, perhaps as though the belief exists that the frequent use of the adjective "sustainable" is all that is needed to create a sustainable society."
"Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?"
The Primary Political Question: "Who benefits? Who pays?"
To cut through the cant of "responsibility," we must ask the double question "Who benefits? Who pays?" This is the first question to ask when a politico-economic system of distribution is proposed. It focuses our attention on operations and their consequences rather than on words. The answer to this double question largely defines the properties of a system. We take it as axiomatic that every social action entails both gain (profit) and cost (loss). We can indicate the way profit and loss are distributed by three alternative verbs: privatize, commonize and socialize. -Garrett Hardin 1985
Thomas Paine on the Defense of Custom
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
From the Introduction to Common Sense, January 10, 1776
Taking A Position Because It Is Right
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Galbraith on Respectability
“Political conservatism benefits from the deep desire of politicians, Democrats in particular, for respectability -their need to show that they are individuals of sound, confidence inspiring judgment. And what is the test of respectability? It is broadly whether speech and action are consistent with the comfort and well-being of the people of property and position. A radical is anyone who causes discomfort or otherwise offends such interests. Thus in our politics, we test even liberals by their conservatism.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
They love the liars and hate the truth, Mencken
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars: the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." - - H. L. Mencken - (1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist
a lie so subtle
"Observance of customs and laws can very easily be a cloak for a lie so subtle that our fellow human beings are unable to detect it. It may help us to escape all criticism, we may even be able to deceive ourselves in the belief of our obvious righteousness. But deep down, below the surface of the average man's conscience, he hears a voice whispering, 'There is something not right,' no matter how much his rightness is supported by public opinion or by the moral code." - Carl Gustav Jung
Repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed,
"And the great owners, who must lose their land in an upheaval, the great owners with access to history, with eyes to read history and to know the great fact: when property accumulates in too few hands it is taken away. And that companion fact: when a majority of the people are hungry and cold they will take by force what they need. And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed." -John Steinbeck - Grapes of Wrath
Need to write an Oregon Public Records request?
Click on this link and they will write a request for you:
“Its hard to give, Its hard to get, But everybody needs a little forgiveness.” Patty Griffin - from "Forgiveness"
American “Democracy” and Responsibility
"we also have to be precise about the roadblocks that keep people from acting responsibly: A nominally democratic political system dominated by elites who serve primarily the wealthy in a predatory corporate capitalist system; which utilizes sophisticated propaganda techniques that have been effective in undermining real democracy; aided by mass-media industries dedicated to selling diversions to consumers more than to helping inform citizens in ways that encourage meaningful political action."
- Robert Jensen, Professor of journalism, University of Texas at Austin. From Op-Ed, July 8, 2008
OUR UNDISPUTED OVERLORDS
“Big money and big business, corporations and commerce, are again the undisputed overlords of politics and government. The White House, the Congress and, increasingly, the judiciary, reflect their interests. We appear to have a government run by remote control from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute. To hell with everyone else.” - Bill Moyers - PBS Commentator
The Politics of Anti-Semitism
The Politics of Anti-Semitism, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, confronts how the slur of "anti-semite" has been used to intimidate critics of Israel's abuse of Palestinians. It includes essays by Uri Avnery, Edward Said, Michael Neumann and Bill and Kathy Christison and more.
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom"
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." -- Somerset Maugham
Human Insensitivity, Arrogance, Ignorance, Greed and Folly
There is perhaps no more certain sign of human insensitivity, arrogance, ignorance, greed and folly than the constant growth and destructive expansion of human populations across the globe—a self-worshiping, voracious cancer that continues to plunder and trash our planet and its creatures while almost imperceptibly picking away at the very support systems of life as we know it. - Me (and many others before)
I am a nature photographer specializing in wildflowers, birds, and other criters.
Some of my wildflower and other photos can be found at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherchristie/sets/
And
http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?where-photographer=Christopher+Christie
These photos can be downloaded without charge for personal use and are used for educational purposes in the publications of many organizations, most often for free.
My professional training is in microbiology (BS Microbiology, Honors / Distinction in) and medical technology. I have worked as a microbiologist, medical technologist and Greyhound bus driver. In the late 1980's I grew over 100 native species in a small nursery. Besides identifying, photographing and growing native plants, I enjoy birdwatching, gardening and hiking in the Great Basin and local mountains. In the fall and winter, I used to do raptor counts along the Burnt River in the Hereford area for the East Cascade Bird Conservancy.
“We are swimming with the snakes at the bottom of the well - So silent and peaceful in the darkness where we fell - But we are not snakes and what's more we never will be And if we stay swimming here forever we will never be free” Patty Griffin - from "Forgiveness"
Mysteries
Pictograph From San Rafael Swell, Utah
Endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
Bighorns in Anza Borrego State Park, CA, 1998
Not One More Death, Not One More Dollar
Message On Main Street to End the War
Peace On Main Street
Need money For Schools?
Winnie Moves to New Meadows, Idaho
In 1944 Winnie's house at the logging camp was moved on the back of a truck. In those days, logger's homes were often moved from camp to camp on R.R.flatcars or trucks.
[Edited 12/14/11] Listening to the American media, like NPR and Fox News, or to Presidential candidates, and the like, who constantly berate the rest of the world, like Russia, or any country that defends their sovereignty from the parasitic demands of western capitalists, or who seriously defend the rights of Palestinians against the illegal murderous acts of the Zionist Israeli state, as Iran, Syria, Libya or pre-war Iraq have done, for example, you get the idea that we, the US, are the "Pillar of International Law" and "Democratic Freedoms" -- the ultimate arbiters of "moral authority."
We are God. We decide for the world what is moral or immoral, right or wrong. We don't subscribe to the International Court--we just tell them who to try for war crimes before or after we and NATO bomb target countries and their civilians into submission. You can hear our righteous role promoted in the media, some churches, and from Congress every day--we make the rules by virtue of our power and not to be questioned so-called moral authority--governed of course by who has the most money to influence elections and our most moral Congressional legislation. The fact that our government now consistently violates and trashes our Constitution, civil liberties, and traditional American democratic values is not worthy of notice, and in fact, many Americans realize that they dare not speak of it for fear of retribution.
We get government by the well off, imperial empire, drone killing of citizens without trial, indefinite detention, war without end, extreme inequality, increasing poverty, medical care we can't afford, foreclosures and homelessness, crumbling schools and infrastructure, and tear gas when we protest, but despite the reality of our lives, our government and media lecture us and the rest of the world on the virtues of American democracy.
Well, much of the world disagrees with the hypocrisy represented by the policies, wars and other actions of the US government, but you won't hear that from most of the American media or Congress.
Here are two infinitesimally small, but recent, examples of what much of the world really thinks: __
NNIMMO BASSEY: The U.S. delegation should understand that the citizens of the United States are not living on a separate planet. We have only one planet. And it’s important that the delegation from the U.S. should stop stopping global action against global warming. They have done this from 1997. They can’t keep on bullying the world. If they don’t want to act, they should get out of the convention. Simple message: we can’t allow this any further.
There are many ways to view the world's carbon emissions: by national totals or emissions per person; by current carbon output or historical emissions; by production of greenhouse gases or consumption of goods and services; by absolute emissions or economic carbon intensity. Our interactive map allows you to browse all of these different measurements, each of which provides a different insight. Together they highlight the complexity of divvying up responsibility for climate change and some of the tensions at the heart of the global climate negotiations.
Our interactive map allows you to browse all of these different measurements, each of which provides a different insight. Together they highlight the complexity of divvying up responsibility for climate change and some of the tensions at the heart of the global climate negotiations.
See link above for interactive map. __
There are no magic answers
"There are no magic answers, no miraculous methods to overcome the problems we face, just the familiar ones: honest search for understanding, education, organization, action that raises the cost of state violence for its perpetrators or that lays the basis for institutional change -- and the kind of commitment that will persist despite the temptations of disillusionment, despite many failures and only limited successes, inspired by the hope of a brighter future." -- Noam Chomsky
Matt Taibbi penned an excellent article about the indefinite detention of American citizens in "Rolling Stone" on December 9th, but given the quickness with which the legislation was produced and passed by our corrupt Congress in the midst of the Christmas season (isn't that what all the government scoundrels do?), it is doubtful that many have had the time to understand it and react to it, if in fact there are even any Americans who pay attention and respond anymore. While this blog has posted other articles about the issue in the last week or so, I didn't even know of his article until tonight, so this is a bit late, but please give it a read anyway, if for no other reason than to understand how bad things have gotten, and to contact your representatives and others if you are so inclined. (Info below attempts to clarify Obama's position on indefinite detention of American citizens.)
December 12, 2011 "Rolling Stone" -- There’s some disturbing rhetoric flying around in the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act, which among other things contains passages that a) officially codify the already-accepted practice of indefinite detention of "terrorist" suspects, and b) transfer the responsibility for such detentions exclusively to the military.
The fact that there’s been only some muted public uproar about this provision (which, disturbingly enough, is the creature of Wall Street anti-corruption good guy Carl Levin, along with John McCain) is mildly surprising, given what’s been going on with the Occupy movement. Protesters in fact should be keenly interested in the potential applications of this provision, which essentially gives the executive branch unlimited powers to indefinitely detain terror suspects without trial.
The really galling thing is that this act specifically envisions American citizens falling under the authority of the bill. One of its supporters, the dependably-unlikeable Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bragged that the law "basically says … for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and that people can be jailed without trial, be they "American citizen or not." New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte reiterated that "America is part of the battlefield." . . . . As soon as December 13, the President will sign NDAA Section 1031 into law, permitting citizen imprisonment without evidence or trial. The bill that passed Congress absolutely DOES NOT exempt citizens. The text of Section 1031 reads, "A covered person under this section" includes "any person who has committed a belligerent act". We only have to be ACCUSED, because we don't get a trial.
- Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. He has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment -- in fact, it was requested by the Obama administration. Watch the video for proof.
- The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) is dangerously misleading. Don't be fooled: In the text of 1031(e), "Nothing in this section shall be construed...", the only word that matters is "construed" because the Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe the law. The Feinstein Amendment 1031(e) permits citizens to be imprisoned without evidence or a trial forever, if the Supreme Court does not EXPLICITLY repeal 1031.
- Any time you hear the words, "requirement for military custody" this refers to 1032 NOT 1031. We MUST not confuse these two sections. In its statements, the Obama administration has actually contributed to the confusion about 1032's "requirement for military custody", which is COMPLETEY UNRELATED to Section 1031 citizen imprisonment without trial. These tricky, misleading words appear even in major news stories. Don't fall for it!
If we act urgently to tell our friends, family, and colleagues, we may still be able to prevent this. Here is what we can do: See article for links
PolitiFact rated as “mostly false” Paul’s argument that the new explicit standards in Levin/McCain defining the scope of the War on Terror are so vague and broad that they allow virtually anyone to be targeted by the President with force or detention; to support his claim, Paul cited the fact that, under this new language, the President is explicitly authorized to use force not only against members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the original 2001 AUMF provided), but also against anyone who “substantially supports” those groups or “associated forces.” As Paul put it in his supposedly false statement: “It’s (now) anybody associated with (those) organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated — so that makes all Americans vulnerable.”
Paul is far from the only person making this argument. The ACLU . . . . (see link for rest)
Written by Baker City Herald Editorial Board December 09, 2011 09:21 am
Imagine that a U.S. citizen is arrested as a suspected terrorist, on U.S. soil, and then placed in military custody for as long as officials deem necessary.
Oh, and this citizen doesn’t get a trial, so the mere suspicion of complicity in promoting terrorism is sufficient grounds for an open-ended detention.
. . . .
When it comes to our constitutional rights and the government’s protection of them, we consider the word “optional” inappropriate.
U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets. . . . .
"My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information."
You may have heard that a Montana blogger must pay a $2.5 million libel judgment because a federal judge ruled she was not a journalist, and was thus not entitled to protect her anonymous sources.
In fact, that's not quite what happened. The case actually had little to do with whether bloggers have the same right to protect their sources as traditional journalists. But U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez's opinion nevertheless threatens to weaken long-standing protections against libel suits, and to widen the already-gaping divide between the media and the rest of society. . . . .
But if Judge Hernandez's ruling on the shield law is nothing to be all that alarmed about, the same cannot be said for what he wrote elsewhere in his opinion. In a passage that I find astonishing, Hernandez found that Cox could not be considered a "media defendant," and that therefore Obsidian and Padrick would not have to prove she acted negligently. . . . .(See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kennedy/the-real-danger-in-that-b_b_1136844.html)
__
The Meteoric Rise of Marco Hernandez Nine years from law degree to judge: Affirmative action and the diversity decades had absolutely nothing to do with it!
Marco Antonio Hernandez (born 1957) is an American attorney and judge in the state of Oregon. A native of Arizona, he served as a Circuit Court judge in Washington County from 1995 until 2011, including as presiding judge for three years. . . . .
Hernandez then moved on to a four-year school and received a B.A. degree from Western Oregon State College (now known as Western Oregon University) in 1983.[5][4] He then attended the University of Washington School of Law and earned his J.D. in 1986.[5] . . . .
After law school he returned to Oregon where he spent three years working for Legal Aid Services of Oregon where he often represented farm workers.[2][6] Hernandez himself had picked crops in the field in his youth.[2] Following his time with legal aid, Hernandez the[n] joined the Washington County District Attorney's office as a deputy prosecutor in 1989.[7]
Shortly before leaving office in January 1995, Governor Barbara Roberts appointed Hernandez to be a Circuit Court judge in Washington County, Oregon.
In January 2008, Hernandez was one of three candidates recommended by a six-member judicial selection committee to replace Garr King on the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.[11] President George W. Bush selected Hernandez to fill the vacancy on the District Court of Oregon and submitted his nomination on July 23, 2008.[2] Senators Gordon H. Smith and Ron Wyden supported the nomination, but it was made with less than six months remaining in the Bush Presidency.[2][12] The nomination was not acted upon by the 110th Congress and was thus returned.[13]
Republican Gordon Smith was defeated for re-election in 2008, and newly-elected President Barack Obama restarted the judicial selection process for the District of Oregon.[3] Democrat Ron Wyden recommended Hernandez in addition to five other candidates selected by a thirteen-member judicial selection committee.[12] On July 14, 2010, Obama renominated Hernandez to replace Garr King.[14] He is one of few people to be nominated to the federal bench by presidents from two different political parties.[7] The Senate failed to act on Obama's nomination, and President Obama nominated Hernandez again in January 2011.[4] On February 7, 2011, the Senate unanimously confirmed Hernandez as the newest judge for the District of Oregon,[4] and he received his commission on February 9.[10]
[Edited 11/29/11- links changed & added; text added; update on Senate Vote added 11/30/11]
A friend brought this latest assault on American liberty, and what used to be our taken for granted constitutional protections, to my attention this morning (Monday, 11/28/11). We've been treated recently to the killing of American citizens in Yemen, without constitutionally guaranteed due process of charge and trial, by the Obama administration --a real shock for sure to those who thought that the violation of the rule of law would not come home to Americans in a major way. But like Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clemens said:
"But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people's liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons. The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on; the suffrage was become a mere machine, which they used as they chose. There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket."
If you look back at what the Congress did in the wake of 9/11 when it enacted the authorization to use military force, if you look at that authorization, it’s incredibly narrow, as it turns out. If you go and actually read it, it says the President is authorized to use military force against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attack and those countries who harbored those individuals. That’s it, that’s the only authorized use of military force. Well, here we are more than a decade later, and there was an article in The Washington Post from a week ago where U.S. officials anonymously are saying that, in essence, Al Qaeda, the group that perpetrated the 9/11 attack according to the government, is now dead. There’s only two leaders left they say in that entire region. It [is] already rendered "effectively inoperable". There is no more Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan or Pakistan according to the U.S. government. The group that perpetrated 9/11, according to it is no longer even existing. And yet, here we are engaged in extraordinarily broad military efforts, constantly escalating in numerous parts of the world. There’s six different countries in which the U.S. is actively using drones; in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Yemen, against groups that didn’t even exist at the time that 9/11 was perpetrated. And constantly, what you find is we are killing all sorts of civilians.
Now we have S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill. Pertinent section HERE.
UPDATE: The Senate voted 61-to-37 on Tuesday, 11/29, to defeat Sen. Mark Udall's amendment to delete the indefinite detention provisions.
Here is the primary objectionable section (1031):
Section 1031 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
The current version of the legislation would allow the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial. "It doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't require any trial."
The 5th Amendment provides protection against the deprivation of life or liberty without due process of law. However, the detainee could begin to rot in jail while the courts decide that issue.
According to Anders, Habeas Corpus (Article 1, section 9) at a minimum provides a right to have a court decide whether the detention of an American citizen is lawful or not. Habeas Corpus does not provide a right to not be detained except as decided by the court--so you have a right to have a court decide whether your detainment is lawful as you sit in jail for perhaps years (as was the case with Jose Padilla).
The old 1878 Posse Comitatus act says basically that the military can't be used to enforce laws in the United States, but because it is a statute and not a Constitutional amendment, it can be changed by Congress, as by the bill before the Senate.
As in the Patriot Act, powers can lead to over reach or mistakes. After 9/11 there were some 1200 people who were held and never charged with a terrorism offense. Under the current pending legislation a citizen could be detained "for the rest of their lives without ever seeing a court room." The definition in Section 1031 "is so broad that it includes support for people involved in terrorism. So it doesn't mean that you've ever picked up a gun, it doesn't mean that you're fighting anybody anywhere, it can mean writing a check to someone who you think is a charity. . . ."
With this bill you can be detained on suspicion alone.
President Obama, who has no problem with killing American citizens abroad, including children, without due process, is reported to have "threatened" to veto it, but then he promises a lot of things.
If passed in its present form, the bill would give the President the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.“ [Hey, aren't they already doing that in other lands?] The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” Anders warned. Anders also noted that presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) voiced his concerns about the detention provisions in the legislation in a Republican candidates' debate. Ironically, President Obama, who has frequently been criticized by libertarians of both the left and right for exceeding his powers as Commander-in-Chief, is opposed to the legislation and has threatened to veto it if it passes both houses of Congress. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General of the United States have called the indefinite detention provisions of the bill harmful and counterproductive. But Senator Lindsey Graham has praised those same provisions for saying “for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and that people can be arrested without charge or trial, “American citizen or not.” Freshman Senator Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, declared that the provisions are necessary because “America is part of the battlefield.”
Congressman Ron Paul:
“I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,” responded Rep. Paul. “You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state . . . So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.” Congressman Ron Paul
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) has offered an amendment to delete the indefinite detention provisions and “[set] up an orderly review of detention power,” Anders said. “It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.” The provisions raise a great many political, sociological, and constitutional questions, including whether all of the “homeland,” formerly known as “the land of the free,” should be designated a battlefield and whether people arrested anywhere in the world, including here in the United States, should be considered “enemy combatants” even if they were captured nowhere near a scene of actual battle."
After a holiday of satiation, frenzied shoppers, and hopefully thanks, readers might be interested in the following article I ran across this morning while pursuing a link on the "America 2 Point 0" mailing list at Yahoo. For myself at least, it has always been too tempting and too easy to slip back under the spell of the cornucopian eternal consumption and growth delusions created and marketed by the dominant global business class. This despite having realized for at least two or three decades that a growing population size of a country or world coupled with consumer growth culture, is on an unsustainable resource ravaging road that leads to social and ecological collapse. When looking at social phenomena, like Occupy Wall Street, I've tended to pop right back into the old endless growth paradigm instead of viewing them through the lens of sustainability. This article by Jan Lundberg of Culture Change helps to bring the Occupy movement into proper perspective and focus when viewed through a sustainability lens. _____
. . . . What folks in "poor" countries have always understood is that their power and survival lie in possessing their own land. Land reform in many parts of our increasingly crowded world is a burning issue. Many people live and die for the struggle for their right to live on their ancestral lands. A movement in the U.S. for the masses to take back the land from the few is inevitable.
Better late than never; many decades have passed during which the importance for consumers of being close to the land was greatly diminished. Real wealth, the land, was given up for wages and cheap petroleum's technology explosion. Population growth has happened so fast that a new generation didn't know it was inheriting a world less and less free and no longer abundant in life-giving resources ("ecological services").
But as the sun sets on the system of vast, false monetary wealth and on the oppression it has wielded, nature may first wake us up rudely, before people in the U.S. can go about land reform. If so, after societal and possibly ecological collapse, there may be quite a bit of land available and to share after the population has diminished sufficiently in size. This was the case in Europe after the 14th century plagues took their toll. However, in no way should such drastic "solutions" be pursued.
"Occupying" the heart of cities today does mean something in today's world of artificial environments, material culture, and middle class values. But instead of occupying the cities, the movement should be about running away from cities. Instead of occupying Wall Street, run away from it: abandon it, abandon the system, abandon consuming, and embrace simple living on the land. This ought to be the prime goal, rather than a stampede today or tomorrow. . . . .
In This Edition: - Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper on Lessons Not Learned - Glenn Greenwald on the Pacifying Effects of Militarized Police Power (must read) - A Compendium of Police Violence Against Occupy Protestors - "You Can Crush the Flowers, But You Can’t Stop the Spring" _____
Back on October 26, 2011, in a short lead-in to news about the police riot in Oakland, I mentioned the militarization of American police forces over the last 20, more realistically, 30, years. This month I've seen a few articles that address the issue much more effectively than I can, so I'm posting them here tonight.
Police Pepper Spraying UC Davis (YouTube capture)
The first one is by former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper, who was in charge during the WTO protests, aka, the Battle in Seattle almost 10 years ago this month.
Writes Stamper:
More than a decade later, the police response to the Occupy movement, most disturbingly visible in Oakland—where scenes resembled a war zone and where a marine [protester] remains in serious condition from a police projectile—brings into sharp relief the acute and chronic problems of American law enforcement. Seattle might have served as a cautionary tale, but instead, US police forces have become increasingly militarized, and it’s showing in cities everywhere: the NYPD “white shirt” coating innocent people with pepper spray, the arrests of two student journalists at Occupy Atlanta, the declaration of public property as off-limits and the arrests of protesters for “trespassing.”
The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy. And young people, poor people and people of color will forever experience the institution as an abusive, militaristic force—not just during demonstrations but every day, in neighborhoods across the country.
A second article, by Glenn Greenwald, is a most thoughtful summary of the meaning and dangers of police force and state violence in America, as seen today and in the past. It is simply the best piece I remember reading on the subject over the years. (But then. . . there is the problem of my memory! ;-)) If you don't read anything else on this blog, please read the excerpts below.:
Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis As Chief Stamper would now say--"Why?"
. . . . Despite all the rights of free speech and assembly flamboyantly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the reality is that punishing the exercise of those rights with police force and state violence has been the reflexive response in America for quite some time. . . . .
The intent and effect of such abuse is that it renders those guaranteed freedoms meaningless. If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist. Every time the citizenry watches peaceful protesters getting pepper-sprayed — or hears that an Occupy protester suffered brain damage and almost died after being shot in the skull with a rubber bullet — many become increasingly fearful of participating in this citizen movement, and also become fearful in general of exercising their rights in a way that is bothersome or threatening to those in power. That’s a natural response, and it’s exactly what the climate of fear imposed by all abusive police state actions is intended to achieve: to coerce citizens to “decide” on their own to be passive and compliant — to refrain from exercising their rights — out of fear of what will happen if they don’t.
The genius of this approach is how insidious its effects are: because the rights continue to be offered on paper, the citizenry continues to believe it is free. . . . .
Although excessive police force has long been a reflexive response to American political protests, two developments in the post-9/11 world have exacerbated this. The first is that the U.S. Government — in the name of Terrorism — has aggressively para-militarized the nation’s domestic police forces by lavishing them with countless military-style weapons and other war-like technologies, training them in war-zone military tactics, and generally imposing a war mentality on them. Arming domestic police forces with para-military weaponry will ensure their systematic use even in the absence of a Terrorist attack on U.S. soil; they will simply find other, increasingly permissive uses for those weapons. Responding to peaceful protests and other expressions of growing citizenry unrest with brute force is a direct by-product of what we’ve allowed to be done to America’s domestic police forces in the name of the War on Terror (and, before that, in the name of the War on Drugs).
The second exacerbating development is more subtle but more important: the authoritarian mentality that has been nourished in the name of Terrorism. It’s a very small step to go from supporting the abuse of defenseless detainees (including one’s fellow citizens) to supporting the pepper-spraying and tasering of non-violent political protesters. It’s an even smaller step to go from supporting the power of the President to imprison or kill anyone he wants (including one’s fellow citizens and even their teenaged children) with no transparency, checks or due process to supporting the power of the police and the authorities who command them to punish with force anyone who commits the “crime” of non-compliance. At the root of all of those views is the classic authoritarian mindset: reflexive support for authority, contempt for those who challenge them, and a blind faith in their unilateral, unchecked decisions regarding who is Bad and deserves state-issued punishment. . . . .
The third article is a collection of visuals, primarily YouTube videos, highlighting some of the more offensive actions towards Occupy protesters by various police departments across this country over the last month.
The fourth article is an essay in defense of Occupy Wall Street from Tom Dispatch, with the following prologue to Rebecca Solnit's article just below it:
. . . . The police, up-armored in full riot gear, with the sort of surveillance paraphernalia, helicopters, and high-tech cameras that were a far more minimal aspect of domestic policing before 9/11, were clearly thinking counter-terrorism.
They were the representatives not just of New York’s billionaire mayor and the bankers and brokers who had previously made the area their own, but of the ever more militarized national security state that had blossomed like some errant set of weeds in the ruins of the World Trade Center towers. They were domestic grunts for a new order in Washington as well as New York that has, by now, lost the ability to imagine solving problems in a civil and civilian fashion.
They represent those who have ruled this country since 9/11 in the name of our safety and security, while they made themselves, and no one else, safe and secure. It is an order that has based itself on kidnapping, torture, secret prisons, illegal surveillance, assassination, permanent war, militarized solutions to every problem under the sun, its own set of failed occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closest of relations with a series of crony capitalist corporations intent on making money off anyone’s suffering as long as the going is good.
Behind the police, directly or indirectly, stands that bureaucratic monster of post-9/11 domestic "safety," the Department of Homeland Security. And behind both of them, without a doubt, that giant tangle of agencies -- 17 in all -- with an $80 billion-plus budget that go under the rubric of “intelligence” and dwarf the intelligence bureaucracy of the Cold War era, when the U.S. actually had an enemy worth speaking of. . . . .
. . . . Alexander Dubcek, the government official turned hero of the Prague Spring uprising of 1968, once said, “You can crush the flowers, but you can’t stop the spring.” . . . .
It’s as if the best of the spirit of the Obama presidential campaign of 2008 was back -- without the foolish belief that one man could do it all for civil society. In other words, this is a revolt, among other things, against the confinement of decision-making to a thoroughly corrupted and corporate-money-laced electoral sphere and against the pitfalls of leaders. And it represents the return in a new form of the best of the post-9/11 moment.
As for the worst after 9/11 -- you already know the worst. You’ve lived it. The worst was two treasury-draining wars that helped cave in the American dream, a loss of civil liberties, privacy, and governmental accountability. The worst was the rise of a national security state to almost unimaginable proportions, a rogue state that is our own government, and that doesn’t hesitate to violate with impunity the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights, and anything else it cares to trash in the name of American "safety" and "security." The worst was blind fealty to an administration that finished off making this into a country that serves the 1% at the expense, or even the survival, of significant parts of the 99%. More recently, it has returned as another kind of worst: police brutality (speaking of blind fealty to the 1%). . . . .
In the meantime, a domestic-violence-prone government is squandering a fortune on a little-mentioned extravagance in financially strapped American cities: police brutality, wrongful arrest, and lawsuits over civil-rights violations. New York City -- recall those pepper-sprayed captive young women, that legal observer with a police scooter parked on top of him, and all the rest -- you’re going to have a giant bill due in court, just as you did after the 2004 Republican convention fiasco: New York has spent almost a billion dollars paying for the collateral damage already done by its police force over the past dozen years. The desperately impoverished city of Oakland paid out more than $2 million in recompense for the behavior of the Oakland Police at a nonviolent blockade at the Oakland Docks after the invasion of Iraq broke out in 2003, but seems to have learned nothing from it. Surely payouts in similar or larger quantities are due to be handed out again, money that could have gone to schools, community clinics, parks, libraries, to civilization instead of brutalization. . . . .
In This Edition: - Review and Summary of Events - Council responses to my question , i.e.: When were you first informed that Crypto was in the water? - Crypto Time line, from Council reports and etc. _____
[Note, 11/17/11. Either yesterday or today, the Baker City administrators switched their website over to a new look. In the process, the archive they had available on past meetings is currently down the memory hole and all my blog links to Baker City documents that have been linked to http://www.bakercity.com will no longer work. I am in the process of uploading some Baker City documentsI had linked or intended to link in these two most recent blogs on the Cryptosporidium problem to Scribd.com. - Chris]
Review and Summary of Events with regard to Cryptosporidium and required water treatment
For a few years now, the people of Baker City, as well as our many visitors and tourists, have been led to believe that we have safe, clean, nearly pristine drinking water. The city uses the idea of clean mountain water to market our fair city to tourists, other visitors, and potential employers. The City Manager's welcoming comments on the city web site currently state:
. . . . From our snowcapped mountains and fresh water lakes and streams, to hiking and biking trails and wide variety of shopping, museums, lodging and restaurants; you will immediately understand why we are now a hot commodity.
We pride ourselves in keeping with the tradition of extraordinary livability by equally providing outstanding public services. Our water, for example, comes from a mountain watershed and is of quality and quantity incomparable to any other city in the Western United States. . . . .
Water quality, public services, and a smoothly functioning, competent city government, are attributes that are of interest to potential visitors and investors, and that affect our economic development--development that has been a primary focus of both city and county government for decades. You'd think the city would take testing for Cryptosporidium, as well as compliance with secondary treatment requirements, very seriously, so as to avoid a potential public relations disaster and to live up to the city sales pitch.
These are just some of the reasons why people were puzzled that during Council comments at last week's (Nov. 8, 2011) Council meeting, only Councilor Calder spoke about "the elephant in the room," i.e., ". . . How is it we received reports [telling the city that we had Crypto in the water] that we didn't read?"
Calder asked a question: How is it we received reports [telling the city that we had Crypto in the water] that we didn't read?"
Mike Kee doesn't really answer the question fully. He says:
"Well we began testing in April of 2010. Our water specialist, for lack of a better word, would take the samples above where it was treated, and send those samples in. Uh, at some point, he would receive results back from those tests, Here at city hall, we would receive a bill, we would write a purchase order for the bill, and we would send it away."
He doesn't answer the question, so I sent him a follow-up the next day:
"Will you please tell me whether the "water specialist" Jake Jones read the lab results that were sent to him from the laboratory?
Also, you said you received a bill for the test at City Hall. Did you ever receive test results forwarded from Jake Jones to you, Michelle, or another responsible party?
Did you folks ever receive verbal communication from Jake about the lab results?
Thanks for helping me understand this situation."
Perhaps another question should have been "Didn't public works staff call Jake Jones at least monthly to inquire about the results?"
Mike replied:
"As I said last night if you need to hold someone accountable for the delayed notification hold me accountable. Internally we have taken steps to make sure this does not happen again and those that should be in the loop are in the loop. We will continue moving forward with a treatment facility that will make Baker City drinking water safer."
To which I responded:
"The problem is that holding you accountable doesn't explain how and why it happened, and the public has a right to know that. They deserve an actual explanation. You have not answered a single one of my questions. Will you please do that and explain how and why it happened?"
Mike continued to cover for staff and again put the responsibility on himself:
"I appreciate your inquiry, but as I said I had not asked for the individual test results as they were completed. Had I done that I would have reported the results in the last water quality report."
Later, I asked the City Manager:
"Are you planning any type of disciplinary action for city staff and/or other employees due to their failure to comply with the state and federal drinking water rules as they relate to crypto?
" Mike's reply:
"Yes, Chris as I said that issue has been addressed with staff."
I can only conclude from those responses that Mike Kee, at least at the time, didn't think the citizens of Baker City have a right to know how it came to be that the people with whom they've entrusted the safety of their water supply, have failed them. Why, after such a travesty of competence, isn't the City Manager providing the transparency required for citizens to understand the situation. Where's the real accountability to the people of Baker City? Aren't public officials and their staff accountable to the public they serve?
You can be ticketed for parking your car past the time limit, or having your grass longer than ten inches, but there seems to be no penalty for gross city staff incompetence and negligence that denies people timely notice about the potentially deadly pathogens in their water. You don't even get to know how it happened or who is actually responsible. What would a food production facility or similar business where public health risks were involved do if their employees were not reading or not reporting the lab reports for serious pathogens in the food or other products they sold?
It should also be noted that while Mike Kee has assumed responsibility, he was not City Manager when the first failure in reporting occurred. Steve Bogart was the interim City Manager during the initial months of testing up until September 23, 2010, and the first failures were the lack of notification by staff to Council and the state after Crypto was first detected in April of 2010, and the lack of notification to the people in the water Consumer Confidence Report of July 2010.
Hopefully, the Council will request the state or an independent body to investigate to determine how and why it happened, and to ensure that something similar can not happen again. _
Also during the "exchange" (monologue almost) between Councilor Calder and City Manager Kee, Kee said:
"And, you know, had we all known in April of 2010, it wouldn't have made any difference. The, there is nothing different that we would have done. We still would've, uh, you know, we still would've been moving toward building the UV treatment center and, er, facility, and we wouldn't have been able to do it until 2015. . . ."
"Nothing different that we would have done?" I seriously doubt that. Council has for sometime been urging a "go slow" approach to compliance due to their being told that there was no Crypto in the water and due to their hope that the city might be able to get a variance (waiver or exemption) from having to install secondary treatment such as filtration or UV. A good example of the misinformation and the effects of staff's alleged failure to read or report lab results concerning the presence of Crypto in the drinking water can be seen in the events of the May 25th, 2010 Council Meeting, but other examples can be found in the timeline below up through October 25, 2011.
Despite the fact that Crypto had been found, which already disqualified us from a variance, waiver or exemption from the LT2 rule, the minutes from 5/25/10 state that "Ms. Owen explained [to the Council & public] that the City can hope for a waiver. However, if any cryptosporidium is discovered, then the City will have to comply." [For more on the requirements or a variance, see May 25, 2010 in the timeline below.]
At that meeting, "Council discussed a request to approve the second task order for the LT2 Treatment Project. Ms. Owen stated that the City is now ready to enter the phase of selecting the type of UV equipment." Some on the Council were still hoping for a waiver and none of them, so far as we know, knew that Crypto had already been detected. "With Mr. Bass and Mr. Pope in favor, and Mayor Dorrah, Ms. Bonebrake, Ms. Calder and Mr. Button opposed, the motion [to approve the task order to move forward with UV water treatment] FAILED." (See 5/25/10 meeting packet & minutes)" I seriously doubt that the Council would have voted against moving forward with UV treatment had the April lab report showing Crypto was present in the water been known to them. There are more examples in the timeline and video's linked below which lend credence to the idea that the Council's ignorance about the Crypto in the water supply led them to continue to resist secondary treatment and to hope for the impossible--a variance.
For another example, see theAugust 24, 2010 meeting in the timeline below. Councilor Calder (and others) obviously did not know Crypto had been detected and still thought we had an opportunity for a variance. Councilor Beverly Calder ask questions regarding the "moving target" and general problems faced by small towns. She asks--"Is it here?" "Is there a problem with us waiting to see what happens with Portland?" Burnett responded to one question in this regard with something like " …my view is that I think these alternative disinfection methods . . . .whether it is ozone or UV rather than filtration will be OK unless something happens and you do find crypto in your watershed. . . . "
As late as October 25th of this year, CouncilorRoger Coles was asking about a variance, Mayor Dorrah was taliking about a wait and see approach, and Councilor Calder was saying""we do provide safe drinking water."
In responding to Councilor Coles, Ms. Owen does not answer the question as to where Baker City stands with respect to a variance or exemption. She has known at least since early September of 2011, and should have known since May of 2010, that we have Crypto in the water, and that the current EPA LT2 rules do not allow us to be granted an exemption due to the concentration of Crypto found in our water.
Over a long period of time, the failure of Council to get accurate information about Crypto in our water from staff, distorted and diverted the discussion from actions that should have been taken to expedite secondary treatment in order to protect people who drink Baker City water.
During the "elephant in the room" discussion at the Nov. 8 meeting, Mr. Kee also said:
We have no reason not to tell the paper that there's Cryptosporidium in the water. Uh, we just were delayed in finding out. We did find out, we delayed it even further, because I believe that we have a responsibility to find out what this means, so we can get good answers to the people, uh, you know, uh, spread the word to our citizens instead of just coming out the day we find out there's, that there's been a positive test and saying we've got Cryptosporidium and we don't know what that means, but we've got cryptosporidium. [garbled due to high volume] . . . we've got no idea. Well, during that delay, I learned more about Cryptosporidium in that month than I ever wanted to know.
Well, better late than never, I guess. Nice to know the city is finally trying to understand why they have been testing for Cryptosporidium so that they can explain the dangers and the options to Baker City citizens. Might want to speak with the experts at the Oregon Health Authority and County Health department more often and a lot sooner. Frankly though, it sounds like a pretty lame excuse for not telling the people they had Crypto for almost two months. ______
11/4/11 Council responses to my question , i.e.: "When were you first informed by Public Works that they had received positive Cryptosporidium analysis results on Baker City water samples?"
Beverly Calder:
I was informed a week ago Thursday [October 27th it seems-Chris] by CM Kee that the report had been received and staff had called for more information. I agreed that we needed a work session ASAP to openly discuss the results and CM Kee said he would ask the involved engineers to be available for the discussion. There is no greater urgency (as there is no immediate health danger) than the schedule we are currently on however, now that we have done our year of testing we have concrete results that will guide the continuing steps in the treatment development process.
Aletha Bonebrake:
I never heard from Public Works until last Tuesday night [Nov. 1, Special Meeting]. Mike called me either Friday or Monday and said they had found some and that we needed to let the public know right away. . . . .
Clair Button
I was informed at the end of the County Commission-Council meeting [October 18, 2011--Chris]. Mike was already planning a public session to give full information to the public.
Roger Coles
Would have written last night but had a Bronc & Bull riding meeting, having said that, I did not know there were three positive Crypto reports until the November 1st meeting.
No other Councilor bothered to respond, so I don't know when they were told. However, their lack of a response may leave some questioning whether they knew about the positive reports of Crypto in the water supply prior to the October 25th meeting.
At the October 25th meeting, neither Kee nor Owen said anything to the Council or the public that Crypto had been found, even though they had known about the results since early September or before. No Councilor told the public that Crypto was in the water either. ______
"The City contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. to clarify our compliance requirements, determine available options and recommend the best alternative."
12/8/09, Tim Collins is City Manager
"Bryan Black, P.E. of HDR, Inc. attended the December 8, 2009 Council meeting to discuss the options in further detail and staff requested and received approval for the recommended alternative of Ultra Violet light treatment." (Staff Report for 5/25/10 meeting.)
12/8/09 Packet:
"After group discussion and teleconferencing with Mr. Black the Committee recommended that the Council proceed with Ultraviolet (UV) light treatment to comply with the LT2 requirements."
Minutes:
"The Public Works Advisory Committee met to discuss the alternative treatment options in detail on Monday, December 1, 2009. The draft minutes of that meeting are attached to this report . . . . . The City of Baker City has one of only four unfiltered surface water systems in the State of Oregon. Portland with the Bull Run Watershed is also one of the four systems. Portland Water Bureau officials have filed a request for waiver with the EPA in an effort to avoid the costly expense of the system upgrades. The argument is that the water is of high quality and the likelihood of testing positive for Crypto is slim and therefore disinfecting water that doesn’t contain “the bug” is unnecessary. Baker City staff has conferred with the Portland Water Bureau staff and supports the request for consideration of a waiver. The possibility of a waiver being granted for Portland or Baker City is not likely; however, all efforts will be made to follow through with this option.
The Public Works Advisory Committee considered the fourth option of filtration in their discussions. However, after evaluating the high initial construction costs as well as the substantial increase in operations and maintenance costs, the Committee concurred that UV treatment was a better alternative. The concern over unpredictable, changing regulations as well as the possibility of new treatment technology also factored into the Committee’s recommendation for UV light treatment. . . . . After a brief discussion, Ms. Bonebrake made a MOTION to approve UV radiation as the method to comply with the LT2 treatment rule, authorize staff to enter into negotiations with HDR Engineering Firm for a task order to amend the existing contract, and delay execution of that task order until the Council gives further approval. The motion was seconded by Ms. Calder and with all in favor the motion was APPROVED."
April 6, 2010, Testing of Baker City water begins.
April 20, 2010, Sample taken that revealed 1 Crypto oocyst found in the 10 liter water sample, which was analyzed by Lab/Cor on April 27, 2010. Positive finding should have been reported to the state health authorities by June 10, 2010 but was not received by the state until September 2, 2011. Lab/Cor states that they sent the results to the city public works Water Plant Specialist Jake Jones within two weeks of the actual test. Given 4 days for mail to arrive, the city should have received the results by about May 16th, 2010. Did anyone open the envelope or read the results?
May 25, 2010 Council Meeting
Portland has been seeking a variance, also known as a waiver or exemption, from the LT2 water treatment rule so that they do not have to have expensive additional treatment for their unfiltered water from the Bull Run watershed. We, like Portland, have an unfiltered water system. Some Councilors have hoped that our water is clean enough for us to get a variance or waiver too.
The rule states that: "If an unfiltered PWS [Public Water System] could show a raw water Cryptosporidium level 3-Log lower than the Bin 1 cutoff for filtered PWSs (Ie., below 0.075 oocysts/1,OOO L), this could demonstrate that no treatment for Cryptosporidium is necessary." (LT2ESWTR, Variances and Exemptions, page 728)
This means that to get a variance on treatment, we would have to have results which conclude that the concentration of Crypto is below 0.075 oocysts/1,OOO Liters of water. So if we had only recovered 1 Crypto oocyst in all 24 monitoring events over two years (April 2010 to March, 2011), we would not be granted a variance. (1 oocyst / 240 L = 0.00417 oocyst / Liter, times 1000 = 4.17 oocysts / 1000L, = 55 times the amount of Crypto allowed for a variance.)
Despite the fact that Crypto had been found, which already disqualified us from a variance, waiver or exemption from the LT2 rule, the minutes from 5/25/10 state that "Ms. Owen explained [to the Council & public] that the City can hope for a waiver."
"Council discussed a request to approve the second task order for the LT2 Treatment Project. Ms. Owen stated that the City is now ready to enter the phase of selecting the type of UV equipment."
"The ultra violet treatment facility (UVTF) will include several steps to move towards completion and operation by October of 2013. The first part of the project involves selecting the equipment that will be used. This is part of the Task Order #2 before the Council for consideration. This current task order will be completed for a fee of $38,700 which is included in the budget.
"Ms. Owen explained that the City can hope for a waiver. However, if any cryptosporidium is discovered, then the City will have to comply.
With Mr. Bass and Mr. Pope in favor, and Mayor Dorrah, Ms. Bonebrake, Ms. Calder and Mr. Button opposed, the motion [to approve the task order to move forward with UV water treatment] FAILED."
Bill Goss, from the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program, discusses EPA and Oregon drinking water rules with regard to Cryptosporidium. Among other things, Mr. Goss explains that should a variance for surface water treatment be involved, the city would have to continue testing, and if Cryptosporidium is found, additional treatment would have to be instituted. Even though the city had been sent lab results indicating Cryptosporidium had been found in April of the same year, they apparently had not read the lab results at the time of this meeting, 4 months later.
Bill Goss, from the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program, discusses drinking EPA and Oregon drinking water rules with regard to Cryptosporidium. Mr. Goss discusses issues associated with Baker City avoiding filtration of their surface water source.
Filtration could still be required if:
-- There is a waterborne disease outbreak due to lack of filtration,
-- If the quality of the source water declines for various reasons, such as a major fire in the watershed,
-- If coliform bacteria [from the feces of humans or cattle, for example] were found in the water system,
In any case, the goal is to provide safe drinking water.
Gary Burnett, from the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program, discusses EPA and Oregon drinking water rules with regard to Cryptosporidium and some history with regard to the Safe Drinking Water Act and Baker City water management, including increasing requirements and uncertainty in choosing treatment options.
Councilor Bass asks how much Cryptosporidium do we have all over the United States and if we get a positive sample, what do we need to tell the people to make it safe for them?
Councilor Button asks about details in the chart provided Council concerning concentrations of cryptosporidium oocysts with reference to raw or treated water. Goss explains that Portland (or other systems) will have to meet stringent standards. "So if they find 1 cryptosporidium in that 10,000 liters of (Portland) water it's not going to meet that standard (for an exemption). He also explains that Crypto oocysts reproduce in vivo, i.e., in the body of mammals like humans or cows, and not in the water that carries them.
Councilor Beverly Calder ask questions regarding the "moving target" and general problems faced by small towns. She asks--"Is it here?" "Is there a problem with us waiting to see what happens with Portland?" Burnett responded to one question in this regard with something like " …my view is that I think these alternative disinfection methods . . . .whether it is ozone or UV rather than filtration will be OK unless something happens and you do find crypto in your watershed. . . . "
At the time, even though the city had been sent lab results indicating Cryptosporidium had been found in April of the same year in Baker City water, the city staff apparently had not read the lab results, or at least not reported them to the state or Council, at the time of this meeting, 4 months later, so the state and Council did not know that, "yes, it is here." (It was not acknowledged until September of 2011, and not reported to the public until November 1, 2011.) That fact distorted and diverted the discussion from actions that should have been taken to protect people who drink Baker City water.
Public Works Director Michelle Owen spoke about talks with the state concerning a 2 year extension on installing UV treatment.
October 5, 2010 (Mike Kee is new City Manager), Sample taken that revealed 1 oocyst found in the 10 liter water sample, which was analyzed by Lab/Cor on 10/12/2010. Positive finding should have been reported to the state health authorities by December 10, 2010 but was not received by the state until September 2, 2011.
January 18, 2011 Sample taken that revealed 2 oocysts were found in the 10 liter water sample, which was analyzed by BioVir lab on 1/24/2011. Positive finding should have been reported to the state health authorities by March 10, 2010 but was not received by the state until September 2, 2011.
July 2011 No mention of Crypto being found in the yearly Consumer Confidence Report, as is required by the rules.
September 2, 2011 State gets Crypto lab reports from someone working for the city, likely either Jake Jones or Michelle Owen.
Councilor Roger Coles asks "So, has the city explored--it's my understanding that there's an exemption going on in Bull Run in Portland, and they are trying to get an exemption for secondary treatment--has the city explored any of that?"
Owen: "Certainly we've been following the variance request for Portland's UV request, um, a, over the last couple of years, as it looks right now, the focus that New York and Portland have had, . . . has to do with the uncovered reservoirs--that isn't pertinent to Baker City--our reservoirs . . . are covered. . . . Portland is pursuing the variance on the UV treatment as well, they submitted a request to the state in June--they are to have an answer back by December, and at this point we don't have an answer-we don't know where the state is leaning as to whether or not they will grant that, . . . ."
[Basically, Ms. Owen does not answer the question as to where Baker City stands with respect to a variance or exemption. She has known at least since early September of 2011, and should have known since May of 2010, that we have Crypto in the water, and that the current EPA LT2 rules do not allow us to be granted an exemption due to the concentration of Crypto found in our water.]
Cryptosporidium had been detected in the water three times since April of 2010. Mike Kee, Michelle Own, and at least one Councilor were aware that it was in the water and because the water is unsafe, it would require 3log UV treatment with 99.9% effectiveness (the best UV treatment available). Seemingly unaware of the crypto in the water, Mayor Dorrah considers waiting and Councilor Calder says "we do provide safe drinking water and that we're not doing anything to compromise that by going slowly."
October 25, 2011 Minutes
While reading the minutes below, please note that at least some councilors, including Councilors Coles, Bonebrake, and Calder, were apparently still unaware that Crypto had been found in the water supply.
"Ms. Owen reviewed the staff report, explaining that this was the third task order of this project. She reminded the group that the Council had selected UV treatment as the required second form of disinfection. Ms. Owen further noted that this task order would go one step further: to select the type of equipment to be used. . . . .
Mr. Coles commented that he had heard about requests for exemption in some areas and asked if the City had explored that option. Ms. Owen responded, stating that the City had been closely following the variance request in Portland for a couple years. She commented that Portland has had to do quite a bit of testing which has cost them around $3 million just to get to the point where they could request the variance. Ms. Owen noted that no decision had been made at this point.
Mr. Coles commented that he thought, with the deadline being stretched to 2016 and a new administration coming forth, perhaps requirements and technology would change by then. He noted that for that reason he felt he could not vote for it.
Ms. Owen explained that, at the Council's request, she submitted a request for an extension to move forward slowly. She added that ordering the equipment was not part of the third task order, only the selection of the equipment was included.
Ms. Bonebrake asked if the $109,745 was part of the original budget bid document. Ms. Owen responded that there was an estimated amount in the budget, but this was actually lower than the estimate for this task number. She noted that this number was the maximum that task order three would cost. In response to another question from Ms. Bonebrake, Ms. Owen indicated that there was money left from what was budgeted for the previous task orders.
Ms. Calder asked if there was an idea of what the City inner costs would be for this project. Ms. Owen estimated that number to be approximately $2,000.
Ms. Calder asked what the timeline was for the next task order. Ms. Owen indicated that the City was not moving fast on this project and it would probably take place in the spring when the budget would be discussed.
Mayor Dorrah commented that many communities across he country would be doing this, probably by 2014. He suggested waiting to see how those other areas were handling the situation.
Mr. Kee reminded the group that the City wanted to do everything possible to provide safe water.
Ms. Bonebrake made a MOTION to approve task order number three. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bass. Ms. Calder commented that the City should do what they can to keep a good working relationship with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), but noted that the City did provide safe water.
In a vote of the motion to approve task order number 3, with all in favor except Mayor Dorrah and Mr. Coles, who were opposed. the motion was APPROVED."
November 1, 2011 Special Council Meeting on Cryptosporidium
City Manager Mike Kee reveals that Cryptosporidium had been found in the Baker City water supply in April of 2010, October of 2010, and January of 2011. The Council and the public had previously been repeatedly assured that Crypto had not been found in our water supply.
Mike Kee introduces Susan Bland, Director of Baker County Health Department, Bill Goss, Regional Engineer of the Oregon Health Authority, and Dave Kyle, and engineer with HDR, the company helping Baker City with a design for a water treatment plant. Michelle Owen, Baker City Public Works Director is sitting between Mr. Kyle on the left, and Mr. Goss, on the right.
". . . . We may've always had Cryptosporidium, the difference is now we know we did. Uh, and we don't know of anyone who has ever been ill in Baker City as a result of Cryptosporidium, and that hasn't changed. And so, the message we want to give to the public is if . . . [you are] at risk uh, talk to your health care provider and take appropriate risk [sic], but for the rest of us there is no real . . . worry of, of ill effects . . . to our health as a result of this Cryptosporidium. Uh, we'll continue to move forward. . . ."
Nov 7, 2011 Michelle Owen to me
I was out of the office on Friday and just now getting through emails… I first had confirmation of the crypto hits in September-not sure of the exact day, but around the 10th or so. I then told my boss. I do not know the exact dates-sorry.
It will be reported to all local water consumers in the annual water quality, consumer confidence report next spring as required. Michelle
11/8/11 Council Meeting
YouTube video posted above near top.
Council/Staff Comments
Calder
"I'm sorry, I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room. Michelle, I guess I'd like you to make a statement about the Cryptosporidium. As one of the members of Council who is damn mad that the federal government was going to force us to spend millions of dollars for something we didn't have to deal with, I for one, as well as many people who have contacted me, really kind of assumed that you were going to look at everything that came your way, because those tests . . . . [Calder was interrupted by City Manager Mike Kee very loudly at this point.]
Kee-
"Councilor Calder, I, go ahead and address me and I'll help you out with this."
Calder
"OK--How is it we received reports that we didn't read?"
Kee
Well we began testing in April of 2010. Our water specialist, for lack of a better word, would take the samples above where it was treated, and send those samples in. Uh, at some point, he would receive results back from those tests, Here at city hall, we would receive a bill, we would write a purchase order for the bill, and we would send it away.
Now, if we had this all to do over again would we have changed the way we did it, absolutely. We would, we would, I would do a much better job. Uh, but you know, we missed it, I missed it, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference. We, we, there's still bugs in the water and there would have been whether we knew it or not. We are going to treat the water, and we are going to try to keep people as safe as we can. And that's what I'm here for, and I think that if there is an elephant in the room, uh, what we're trying to do is, or the bottom line is, to keep people safe. And, you know, had we all known in April of 2010, it wouldn't have made any difference. The, there is nothing different that we would have done. We still would've, uh, you know, we still would've been moving toward building the UV treatment center and, er, we wouldn't have been able to do it until 2015, and as we sit here today, we know that there are days that there is Cryptosporidium in the water and there's not a lot we can do about it."
Calder
"I, I realize that--it's, it's just the transparency and the timeliness, and keeping Council informed on something that was as sensitive an issue as this. [interrupted by Kee saying "I agree, I agree", so Calder's words unintelligible.] . . . was our failing, it's not that we can hurry up the process, we're the middle of the process."
Kee
"And I just want to assure the Council, and I don't think I need to because, uh, you know, we, we've had discussions with the Council, there's nothing sinister about this--we have no reason not to tell people in Baker City that there's Cryptosporidium in the water--absolutely no reason at all. We have no reason not to tell the paper that there's Cryptosporidium in the water. Uh, we just were delayed in finding out. We did find out, we delayed it even further, because I believe that we have a responsibility to find out what this means, so we can get good answers to the people, uh, you know, uh, spread the word to our citizens instead of just coming out the day we find out there's, that there's been a positive test and saying we've got Cryptosporidium and we don't know what that means, but we've got cryptosporidium. [garbled due to high volume] . . . we've got no idea. Well, during that delay, I learned more about Cryptosporidium in that month than I ever wanted to know. And I have a pretty good idea of it that will make people sick here in Baker City, I have a really good idea of how to treat that, and, I have, you know, I am fairly positive that it's been there when I was growing up here in the 1970's. So I do understand, and I acknowledge, that uh, you know, that I should have done a better job keeping an eye on uh, you know, the testing and what was going on with that. I didn't, I apologize about that, but the fact is we've gotta move on and take care of this, and keep people as safe as we can."
Calder
"Thank you for taking responsibility."
Kee
"Sure."
October 25, 2011 Agenda--UV Filtration Task Order October 25, 2011 Minutes
Ms. Owen reviewed the staff report, explaining that this was the third task order of this project. She reminded the group that the Council had selected UV treatment as the required second form of disinfection. Ms. Owen further noted that this task order would go one step further: to select the type of equipment to be used.
Mr. Coles asked what exactly would the City get for $100,000 that this task order would cost. Ms Owen explained that it would pay for the assistance in determining the criteria developed to select the equipment. She continued, stating that it would help coordinate with the various state agencies to make sure it would meet the required standards. Ms. Owen clarified that this was a common process with wastewater, but relatively new to water systems. She added that part of what was covered is assistance with the bidding process as well as the financial part such as looking at how the rates are utilized. . . . .
Mr. Coles commented that he had heard about requests for exemption in some areas and asked if the City had explored that option. Ms. Owen responded, stating that the City had been closely following the variance request in Portland for a couple years. She commented that Portland has had to do quite a bit of testing which has cost them around $3 million just to get to the point where they could request the variance. Ms. Owen noted that no decision had been made at this point.
Mr. Coles commented that he thought, with the deadline being stretched to 2016 and a new administration coming forth, perhaps requirements and technology would change by then. He noted that for that reason he felt he could not vote for it.
Ms. Owen explained that, at the Council's request, she submitted a request for an extension to move forward slowly. She added that ordering the equipment was not part of the third task order, only the selection of the equipment was included.
Ms. Bonebrake asked if the $109,745 was part of the original budget bid document. Ms. Owen responded that there was an estimated amount in the budget, but this was actually lower than the estimate for this task number. She noted that this number was the maximum that task order three would cost. In response to another question from Ms. Bonebrake, Ms. Owen indicated that there was money left from what was budgeted for the previous task orders. Ms. Calder asked if there was an idea of what the City inner costs would be for this project. Ms. Owen estimated that number to be approximately $2,000. Ms. Calder asked what the timeline was for the next task order. Ms. Owen indicated that the City was not moving fast on this project and it would probably take place in the spring when the budget would be discussed. Mayor Dorrah commented that many communities across the country would be doing this, probably by 2014. He suggested waiting to see how those other areas were handling the situation. Mr. Kee reminded the group that the City wanted to do everything possible to provide safe water. Ms. Bonebrake made a MOTION to approve task order number three. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bass. Ms. Calder commented that the City should do what they can to keep a good working relationship with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), but noted that the City did provide safe water.
In a vote of the motion to approve task order number 3, with all in favor except Mayor Dorrah and Mr. Coles, who were opposed. the motion was APPROVED.
11/01/11 Special Council Meeting on Cryptosporidium
CM Kee Reveals Crypto Had Been Found-B C Council Special Sess-110111.mp4
City Manager Mike Kee reveals that Cryptosporidium had been found in the Baker City water supply in April of 2010, October of 2010, and January of 2011. The Council and the public had previously been repeatedly assured that Crypto had not been found in our water supply. Mike Kee introduces Susan Bland, Director of Baker County Health Department, Bill Goss, Regional Engineer of the Oregon Health Authority, and Dave Kyle, and engineer with HDR, the company helping Baker City with a design for a water treatment plant. Michelle Owen, Baker City Public Works Director is sitting between Mr. Kyle on the left, and Mr. Goss, on the right.
Council responses
Beverly Calder: I was informed a week ago Thursday [October 27th it seems] by CM Kee that the report had been received and staff had called for more information. I agreed that we needed a work session ASAP to openly discuss the results and CM Kee said he would ask the involved engineers to be available for the discussion. There is no greater urgency (as there is no immediate health danger) than the schedule we are currently on however, now that we have done our year of testing we have concrete results that will guide the continuing steps in the treatment development process.
ALETHA BONEBRAKE alethaboneb@msn.com to me show details Nov 5 (4 days ago)
Hi Chris,
I never heard from Public Works until last Tuesday night [Nov. 1, Special Meeting]. Mike called me either Friday or Monday and said they had found some and that we needed to let the public know right away. He seemed astonished and concerned and I truly don't know whether he had just read the reports or Michelle told him. I thought the Tuesday special meeting was the appropriate response. . . . .
Clair Button cfbutton@gmail.com to me show details Nov 4 (4 days ago) I was informed at the end of the County Commission-Council meeting [October 18, 2011]. Mike was already planning a public session to give full information to the public.
Clair
Clair said nothing at the October25th meeting. Neither did Kee orOwen.
No other Councilor bothered to respond, so I don't know when they were told.
---11/8/11 Council Meeting
Council/Staff Comments
Calder
"I'm sorry, I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room. Michelle, I guess I'd like you to make a statement about the Cryptosporidium. As one of the members of Council who is damn mad that the federal government was going to force us to spend millions of dollars for something we didn't have to deal with, I for one, as well as many people who have contacted me, really kind of assumed that you were going to look at everything that came your way, because those tests . . . . [Calder was interrupted by City Manager Mike Kee very loudly at this point.]
Kee-
"Councilor Calder, I, go ahead and address me and I'll help you out with this."
Calder
"OK--How is it we received reports that we didn't read?"
Kee
Well we began testing in April of 2010. Our water specialist, for lack of a better word, would take the samples above where it was treated, and send those samples in. Uh, at some point, he would receive results back from those tests, Here at city hall, we would receive a bill, we would write a purchase order for the bill, and we would send it away.
Now, if we had this all to do over again would we have changed the way we did it, absolutely. We would, we would, I would do a much better job. Uh, but you know, we missed it, I missed it, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference. We, we, there's still bugs in the water and there would have been whether we knew it or not. We are going to treat the water, and we are going to try to keep people as safe as we can. And that's what I'm here for, and I think that if there is an elephant in the room, uh, what we're trying to do is, or the bottom line is, to keep people safe. And, you know, had we all known in April of 2010, it wouldn't have made any difference. The, there is nothing different that we would have done. We still would've, uh, you know, we still would've been moving toward building the UV treatment center and, er, we wouldn't have been able to do it until 2015, and as we sit here today, we know that there are days that there is Cryptosporidium in the water and there's not a lot we can do about it."
Calder
"I, I realize that--it's, it's just the transparency and the timeliness, and keeping Council informed on something that was as sensitive an issue as this. [interrupted by Kee saying "I agree, I agree", so Calder's words unintelligible.] . . . was our failing, it's not that we can hurry up the process, we're the middle of the process."
Kee
"And I just want to assure the Council, and I don't think I need to because, uh, you know, we, we've had discussions with the Council, there's nothing sinister about this--we have no reason not to tell people in Baker City that there's Cryptosporidium in the water--absolutely no reason at all. We have no reason not to tell the paper that there's Cryptosporidium in the water. Uh, we just were delayed in finding out. We did find out, we delayed it even further, because I believe that we have a responsibility to find out what this means, so we can get good answers to the people, uh, you know, uh, spread the word to our citizens instead of just coming out the day we find out there's, that there's been a positive test and saying we've got Cryptosporidium and we don't know what that means, but we've got cryptosporidium. [garbled due to high volume] . . . we've got no idea. Well, during that delay, I learned more about Cryptosporidium in that month than I ever wanted to know. And I have a pretty good idea of it that will make people sick here in Baker City, I have a really good idea of how to treat that, and, I have, you know, I am fairly positive that it's been there when I was growing up here in the 1970's. So I do understand, and I acknowledge, that uh, you know, that I should have done a better job keeping an eye on uh, you know, the testing and what was going on with that. I didn't, I apologize about that, but the fact is we've gotta move on and take care of this, and keep people as safe as we can."
