New Propaganda

Documentarian John Pilger writes:

What is modern propaganda? For many, it is the lies of a totalitarian state. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her epic films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerized Germans; her Triumph of the Will cast Hitler's spell. 

She told me that the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above" but on the "submissive void" of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? "Everyone," she said. 

Today, we prefer to believe that there is no submissive void. "Choice" is ubiquitous. Phones are "platforms" that launch every half-thought. There is Google from outer space if you need it. Caressed like rosary beads, the precious devices are borne heads-down, relentlessly monitored and prioritized. Their dominant theme is the self. Me. My needs. Riefenstahl's submissive void is today's digital slavery. [editor emphasis.]

source

The Big Fix

In the scheme of things, there are terrifying enemies of life we owe it to ourselves to fight. Hint: They aren't our local city council members who many of us believe are doing a remarkable job methodically turning around a decades old systemic bias.

Oil and the Oligarchy are the enemy.

The Trailer

Via Diane Sweet, Crooks & Liars

"On Earthday, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig sank creating the worst oil spill in history. According to the global media, the story ended when the well was capped – but that’s when the real story began. By exposing the root causes of the oil spill and what really happened after the news cameras left the Gulf states, filmmakers Josh and Rebecca Tickell uncover a vast network of corruption. 

The New Orleans Times Picayune says THE BIG FIX is “a full-on, no-holds-barred bit of investigative journalism” into the dark secrets surrounding one of the largest man-made environmental catastrophes in American history."

Full Length

Seeds

It is planting time all over Encinitas. There is so much in the world of seeds that has changed dramatically within this last decade.  Did you know that Monsanto has bought most every single seed company?  It is a horror story and growing more frightening each spring.  

Speaking of women and growing things, the following interview with Vandana Shiva is an opportunity to hear one of the world authorities on growing food and healthy biodiversity. Shiva founded Navdanya (meaning 9 seeds) in 1984. From the website:

"Navdanya is actively involved in the rejuvenation of indigenous knowledge and culture. It has created awareness on the hazards of genetic engineering, defended people's knowledge from biopiracy and food rights in the face of globalisation and climate change. 

Navdanya is a women centred movement for the protection of biological and cultural diversity."

Two Options from The Perennial Plate on Vimeo. (This is also a plug for the Perennial Plate videos from a fan.)

If you know of someone who saves their own seeds in Encinitas, you have a good chance with vegetables that grow well in our coastal microclimate.

It is so difficult for we who are up against these gigantic companies. But, there are seed companies you can trust for heirloom quality, including Baker Creek and Territorial Seed Company. And their catalogs are gorgeous!  Here is some background from a highly successful and passionate Seattle gardener.

Redux: The Story of Stuff

Yesterday's post from the Commoners series on Annie Leonard prompted showing the famous Story of Stuff again. I don't think we can watch this too often.

And, the next in line, The Story of Broke.

Anouska Shankar to Encinitas and the World

Anouska Shankar tells of sexual abuse as a child in Encinitas on Democracy Now today. She also spells out why she is a part of one billion rising along with millions of others around the world.



Also a guest,
Eve Ensler, award-winning playwright and creator of “The Vagina Monologues” and of V-Day, a global movement to stop violence against women and girls. Today marks the movement’s 15th anniversary, and the culmination of the "One Billion Rising" campaign that was started months ago.

So God made a banker

To be read in the voice of Paul Harvey. (source: Market Watch)

And on the eighth day God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need someone who can flip this for a quick buck.”

So God made a banker.

God said, “I need someone who doesn’t grow anything or make anything but who will borrow money from the public at 0% interest and then lend it back to the public at 2% or 5% or 10% and pay himself a bonus for doing so.”

So God made a banker.

God said, “I need someone who will take money from the people who work and save, and use that money to create a dotcom bubble and a housing bubble and a stock bubble and an oil bubble and a commodities bubble and a bond bubble and another stock bubble, and then sell it to people in Poughkeepsie and Spokane and Bakersfield, and pay himself another bonus.”

So God made a banker.

God said, “I need someone to build homes in the swamps and deserts using shoddy materials and other people’s money, and then use these homes as collateral for a Ponzi scheme he can sell to pensioners in California and Michigan and Sweden. I need someone who will then foreclose on those homes, kick out the occupants, and switch off the air conditioning and the plumbing, and watch the houses turn back into dirt. And then pay himself another bonus.”

God said, “I need someone to lend money to people with bad credit at 30% interest in order to get his stock price up, and then, just before the loans turn bad, cash out his stock and walk away. And who, when asked later, will, with a tearful eye, say the government made him do it.”

God said, “And I need somebody who will tell everyone else to stand on their own two feet, but who will then run to the government for a bailout as soon as he gets into trouble — and who will then use that bailout money to help elect a Congress that will look the other way. And then pay himself another bonus.”

So God made a banker.

Brett Arends is a MarketWatch columnist. Follow him on Twitter @BrettArends.

I Have A Dream - I Have A Drone

captured on the internet . . .

If M.L. King Jr.'s assassination knocked the wind out of the human movements of his lifetime, let's think about going directly "back" to him for the most effective way forward. Below comes from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s last book of essays, “The Trumpet of Conscience,” 1968: This from “Nonviolence and Social Change”:

"…Of course, by now it is obvious that new laws are not enough. The emergency we now face is economic, and it is a desperate and worsening situation. For the 35 million poor people in America—not even to mention, just yet, the poor in other nations—there is a kind of strangulation in the air. In our society it is murder, psychologically, to deprive a man of a job or an income. You are in substance saying to that man that he has no right to exist. You are in a real way depriving him of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, denying in his case the very creed of his society. Now, millions of people are being strangled that way. The problem is international in scope. And it is getting worse, as the gap between the poor and the ‘affluent society’ increases.

The question that now divides the people who want radically to change that situation is: can a program of nonviolence—even if it envisions massive civil disobedience—realistically expect to deal with such an enormous, entrenched evil?

…I intend to show that nonviolence will be effective, but not until it has achieved the massive dimensions, the disciplined planning, and the intense commitment of a sustained, direct-action movement of civil disobedience on the national scale….

…The only real revolutionary, people say, is a man who has nothing to lose. There are millions of poor people in this country who have very little, or even nothing, to lose. If they can be helped to take action together, they will do so with a freedom and a power that will be a new and unsettling force in our complacent national life.

Beginning in the New Year, we will be recruiting three thousand of the poorest citizens from ten different urban and rural areas to initiate and lead a sustained, massive, direct-action movement in Washington, D.C. Those who choose to join this initial three thousand, this nonviolent army, this ‘freedom church’ of the poor, will work with us for three months to develop nonviolent action skills. Then we will move on Washington, determined to stay there until the legislative and executive branches of the government take serious and adequate action on jobs and income.

A delegation of poor people can walk into a high official’s office with a carefully, collectively prepared list of demands. (If you’re poor, if you’re unemployed anyway, you can choose to stay in Washington as long as the struggle needs you.) And if that official says, ‘But Congress would have to approve this,’ or, ‘But the President would have to be consulted on that,’ you can say, ‘All right, we’ll wait.’ And you can settle down in his office for as long a stay as necessary.

If you are, let’s say, from rural Mississippi, and have never had medical attention, and your children are undernourished and unhealthy, you can take those little children into the Washington hospitals and stay with them there until the medical workers cope with their needs, and in showing it your children, you will have shown this country a sight that will make it stop in its busy tracks and think hard about what it has done.

The many people who will come and join this three thousand, from all groups in the country’s life, will play a supportive role, deciding to be poor for a time along with the dispossessed who are asking for their right to jobs or income—jobs, income, the demolition of slums, and the rebuilding by the people who live there of new communities in their place; in fact, a new economic deal for the poor.

…I have said that the problem, the crisis we face, is international in scope. In fact, it is inseparable from an international emergency that involves the poor, the dispossessed, and the exploited of the whole world.

Can a nonviolent, direct-action movement find application on the international level, to confront economic and political problems? I believe it can. It is clear to me that the next stage of the movement is to become international.

National movements within the developed countries—forces that focus on London, or Paris, or Washington, or Ottawa—must help to make it politically feasible for their governments to undertake the kind of massive aid that the developing countries need if they are to break the chains of poverty. We in the West must bear in mind that the poor countries are poor primarily because we have exploited them through political or economic colonialism. Americans in particular must help their nation repent of her modern economic imperialism.

But movements in our countries alone will not be enough….So many of Latin America’s problems have roots in the United States of America that we need to form a solid, united movement, nonviolently conceived and carried through, so that pressure can be brought to bear on the capital and government power structures concerned, from both sides of the problem at once. I think that may be the only hope for a nonviolent solution in Latin America today; and one of the most powerful expressions of nonviolence may come out of that international coalition of socially aware forces, operating outside governmental frameworks.

…In practice, such a decision would represent such a major reordering of priorities that we should not expect that any movement could bring it about in one year or two. Indeed, although it is obvious that nonviolent movements for social change must internationalize, because of the interlocking nature of the problems they all face, and because otherwise those problems will breed war, we have hardly begun to build the skills and the strategy, or even the commitment, to planetize our movement for social justice.

…In this world, nonviolence is no longer an option for intellectual analysis: it is an imperative for action."

Source: Commenter DrJack37 within Common Dreams post

Editor: 43 years later, the numbers of poor, displaced and exploited have skyrocketed - otherwise little has changed.

Screen Free Dream

A fantasy of taking flight, leaving virtual living entirely behind in favor of living in a physical realm filled with the realities of nature, people, smells, sounds and all that exists regardless of mainstream media - it beckons. Freedom calls.

2012 was a campaign year devoted to 7 days a week blogging about Encinitas and watching the horror that national politics has become.  At least the Encinitas council changes brought really deep satisfaction and fulfillment.

Habits that you want to break?  These are a pain in the ass. amirite? In fact that seems to be the key element to embrace, the pain.  No point in pretending that discomfort isn't part and parcel of the process.

The image here doesn't exactly capture it for me personally.  In fact the television left the house five years ago, but the internet opened a back door with online streaming and video clips.  A junkie can still get a fix even if it is controlled for advertising, asshats and punditry shouty and modulated lying 24/7.

The fact that so many people I know and love still have mainstream media central in lives makes me deeply sad.  But, I'm honestly more concerned with getting my own happy ass away from screens and out the door for real world engagement.

For me the decades long joy of reading several novels a week faded during a period a decade ago with unemployment and the nightmare that was the Bush administration.  Consider this a heads up that there may be periods of non-posting in 2013 as I work to rewire my brain.

That is all.

Idle No More

Did you know about the protest sweeping Canada?  The First Nation people are actively protesting the laws coming out of the conservative government.

"Bil C-45 includes changes to the Canadian Indian Act regarding how reserve lands are managed, making them easier to develop and be taken away from the First Nation people.

The bill also removes thousands of lakes and streams from the list of federally protected bodies of water. “This is unacceptable. They have made a unilateral decision remove the protection of waterways... Shell Canada has proposed to mine out 21km of the Muskeg River, a river of cultural and biological significance. This ultimately gives the tar sands industry a green light to destroy vital waterways still used by our people," stated Eriel Deranger, Communication Coordinator for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

Atiwapiskat First Nation Chief Theresa Spence has been on a hunger strike since December 11th, resolved to starve herself to death unless Prime Minister Stephen Harper meets to discuss treaty rights, and Canada’s relationship with its Indigenous peoples. She is currently living in a teepee on Victoria Island, in Ottawa, just a kilometer away from the Parliament buildings. So far, Harper has rejected calls to meet with Spence."

Protest begins around 4:21 after introduction by film maker in Toronto who is actively involved in this fast moving resistance.

Idle No More's mission statement reads, in part:

On December 10th, Indigenous people and allies stood in solidarity across Canada to assert Indigenous sovereignty and begin the work towards sustainable, renewable development. All people will be affected by the continued damage to the land and water and we welcome Indigenous and non-Indigenous allies to join in creating healthy sustainable communities. We encourage youth to become engaged in this movement as you are the leaders of our future. There have always been individuals and groups who have been working towards these goals – Idle No More seeks to create solidarity and further support these goals. We recognize that there may be backlash, and encourage people to stay strong and united in spirit.

Via Common Dreams

Fracking Comes to California

Fracking being a real danger to water table safety and purity is becoming well known, in part due to Josh Fox's movie Gasland. But, if that isn't threat enough, the process causing earthquakes sounds extremely dangerous to this non-scientist.

Via Salon
The Federal Government auctioned off 18,000 acres of leased land in Central California.

"Eight different groups — including oil companies — bid for the leases involving 15 parcels of land up for auction in rural stretches of Monterey, San Benito and Fresno counties, Bureau of Land Management spokesman David Christy said. The agency plans to announce the winners within 24 hours.

Numerous environmental groups who saw the auction as a sign that California is next in line for an oil and gas boom protested outside the auction in Sacramento, with some activists donning hazmat suits.

The auction attracted a normal turnout of bidders, and about half the parcels went for just $2.50 an acre, much less than the typical price in nearby Kern County, an oil-rich basin along a mountain range north of Los Angeles."

Via Crooks & Liars

 

C&L's Karoli writes of the auction this week,

There were protests, of course, but that didn't really stop anything. Similarly, the regulations around fracking are so loose that having to get an additional permit is just part of the cost of getting richer to these oil barons. Worse, fracking regulations aren't even finalized yet, and were just pushed back yet again. Until demand lessens, they're going to be able to destroy the environment and hasten climate change. This needs to be as high of a priority as Medicare and union membership. The oligarchs will not be satisfied until they have exhausted or stolen every resource on the planet.

Related Story in the Cultural Environment 

Oil and Gas Industry Prepare Smear Campaign Against Matt Damon Flick "Promised Land"

Next month Focus Features releases Matt Damon’s new movie and the oil and gas industry is worried sick about it. The movie, Promised Land , is about a Pennsylvania farm town deciding whether to go forward with shale gas drilling after a team of landmen arrives in the area.

This is a worthy read, both for the orchestrated huge money tactics that are being rolled out by fossil fuel industry and for the story being told by this Hollywood film. (It is still difficult to believe that prisons are not filled with these fossil fuel industry decision makers, bribery agents and hucksters.)

But my primary reason for adding this story about a fictional place is what has the oil and gas industry giants so spooked and what our community is actively pursuing - citizen participation in decision making. This film sounds like a source of inspiration even if there are no shale fields directly under our feet. Whatever the resource or threat to climate change we must be vigilant.

Despite the industry's faux-outrage and attempts to stir up hype, the Damon movie is not anti-fracking or a propaganda piece. The film offers up a clear-eyed look at economic hardships faced in many rural communities. It also makes a simple point: with so much at stake, shouldn't communities have a candid, informed discussion about the risks and benefits of oil and gas drilling?

Killers

Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong

by PAUL WALDMAN 12/15/12 in The American Prospect Post (in total)

A guide to the debate we'll be having, or at least we ought to have.

There has been yet another mass shooting, something that now seems to occur on a monthly basis. Every time another tragedy like this occurs, gun advocates make the same arguments about why we can't possibly do anything to restrict the weaponization of our culture. Here's a guide to what they'll be saying in the coming days:

1. Now isn't the time to talk about guns.
We're going to hear this over and over, and not just from gun advocates; Jay Carney said it to White House reporters today. But if we're not going to talk about it now, when are we going to talk about it? After Sandy hit the East Coast, no one said, "Now isn't the time to talk about disaster preparedness; best leave that until it doesn't seem so urgent." When there's a terrorist attack, no one says, "Now isn't the time to talk about terrorism." Now is exactly the time.

2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.

3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.
If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.
The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.

5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?
The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.

6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.
Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

And we all know that if this shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, plenty of Americans, including plenty of gun owners, will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free.

7. Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.
If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

8. Guns are a part of American culture.
Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.

9. The American people don't want more gun control.
The truth is that when public opinion polls have asked Americans about specific measures, the public is in favor of a much more restrictive gun regime than we have now. Significant majorities would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated, mandatory licensing and training for all gun owners, significant waiting periods for purchases, and host of other restrictions (there are more details here). In many cases, gun owners themselves support more restrictions than we currently have.

10. Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up is just a price we should be willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns and pretend I'm Wyatt Earp.
OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to [have others] pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it.

Postscript: The other vital conversation we should be having in this country that goes beyond guns.  This is a heartbreaking story, 'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother' - Let's talk mental illness.

Update: 12:30 pm, Sunday - Add your name to ask the Obama Administration to immediately address the issue of gun control through introduction of legislation in congress.

Dracula Strategy

Six months ago - over the July 4th holiday week - this post on Secrecy introduced the über secret TPP international maneuvers.

Well, the election is over and it is clear that the TPP is still working to foist corporate power against sovereign nations worldwide. Sounds like hyperbole, but it's not. And activists have taken many different approaches to protest and work to stop this movement. We the 99% around the world will be the ones to suffer.

One approach is called the Dracula Strategy, because dragging something into the light will expose this slow-motion corporate coup.

Full story is here, for details and background on the TPP.

Exxon Hates Your Children

How many of you scream at the Exxon Mobile commercials claiming "to care about the children" when we know it is their public relations arm messing with people's heart and mind disconnects to distract and confuse?  Big lies from the big guys - daily, all day.

The following ad has been created to refute the big lie.  *LOLsob*



From Grist:

There are two groups behind this genius ad: Oil Change International — an advocacy organization that’s fighting for clean energy and against fossil fuels — and The Other 98%, which calls itself “a grassroots network of concerned people fed up with the status quo in Washington.” There’s actually a policy agenda behind the ad — eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels. Here’s the argument the two groups are making:

Imagine if your government gave a company a sweet deal to build your local playground. Then, that company dumped toxic waste underneath where your kids play everyday, just because it was the most profitable thing for them to do.

What would you do? Obviously you’d protect your children and demand that the company fully pay to clean up their mess … you’d demand that your government immediately stop sending your tax dollars — subsidies — to that company.

That company is Exxon, the playground is our planet, and the sweet deal they get is by way of massive government handouts.

The groups are raising money for an ad buy next week; “the locations and scope will depend on the online fundraising campaign,” Oil Change International’s director told The Hill. But it looks like one of the audiences they’re looking to reach is Fox News viewers … and I would pay good money just to see how they try and defend Exxon against this argument. “Exxon loves your children! They make it possible for them to drive cars!” “They’re just trying to make money … oh wait …”

Well, this commercial -- brought to you courtesy of Oil Change International and The Other 98% -- answers them. And guess what: ExxonMobil really hates it. Why? Because it tells the stark, horrible truth about how Big Oil and ExxonMobil harms children in real ways, far more than having a bad score on a standardized test. It has them so aggravated that they're pushing to have the ads removed.

Via The Hill: 

“The campaign is offensive to the thousands of ExxonMobil employees and contractors who work hard every day to deliver an essential product in a safe and environmentally responsible way,” the company said in a statement Wednesday.

Via Crooks & Liars:

Well, shoot. I'm sorry, ExxonMobil, but it simply tells the truth about what you're really doing.

The company and oil industry more broadly are battling proposals to end tax deductions, arguing the efforts unfairly single out the industry for punishment and would stymie energy development.

Oil industry critics say that the tax code should not reward fossil fuel development at a time when scientists are increasingly sounding the alarmabout runaway global warming.

In this day of real-time news, it's really impossible for Big Oil to disguise their malfeasance and greed with slick education reform PR campaigns. That's what they really hate.

Shaffer & Kranz Buy Local - Stocks & Muir Don't

Dennis Lees, whose campaign finance research findings a week ago caused a stir, chose to confront Jerome Stocks.

Stocks wrote a post at SD Rostra  that rewrote the UT endorsement and then commented on that post (can you say self-obsessed?) defending, complaining he was a victim, accusing and of course snarling true facts™ (not true facts).

Lees brings out a whole other dimension of Stocks dubious campaign finance behavior besides the previously documented outside donations:

"Talk about disconnected from the community. First off, historically, over 2/3rds of Stocks campaign donations came from outside of Encinitas. About 4/5ths came from from developers. Only about 1/5th of his donations came from Encinitas.

Second, let’s look at campaign expenditures. Stocks has spent only about 1/10th of his campaign expenditures’ expenditures in Encinitas (about $1,700). In contrast, over 4/5ths of Lisa Shaffer’s campaign expenditures have been in Encinitas (more than $29,000) and nearly 60% of Tony Kranz’s were spent in the city (more than $12,000). And the majority of their contributions are from Encinitas.

What does this say about who is in touch with the voters and businesses in Encinitas. Who supports Shaffer and Kranz? Who do they support? And who is in touch with the business and “voters” from outside the city?"

The Buy Local logo is from the city website.  You would think that incumbent council members would have attempted to do the right thing.  You would be wrong in this case.

When asked, Lisa Shaffer said that she would have liked to spend all of the donations in Encinitas, saying she only spent outside when nobody in town could provide the services.We have said this repeatedly all year long.  Our chosen candidates walk the talk.  

Stocks, Muir and Forrester don't even talk to the community (Mo Muir aside). Their campaigns are best characterized with the icon here.  

By the way, the big box stores are located here, but they are not local businesses. Shaffer discovered a local print shop that actually sent out all of the work, thereby negating the reasons for support spelled out below. It isn't about punishing businesses - as one of Stocks' troll patrol claims.  This is about strengthening businesses that live and invest in Encinitas.  This conversation needs to continue.  The current super majority have closed out these kinds of conversations and the public is hungry for them.

Top 10 Reasons to Support Locally Owned Businesses

1. Local Character and Prosperity
In an increasingly homogenized world, communities that preserve their one-of-a-kind businesses and distinctive character have an economic advantage.

2. Community Well-Being
Locally owned businesses build strong communities by sustaining vibrant town centers, linking neighbors in a web of economic and social relationships, and contributing to local causes.

3. Local Decision-Making
Local ownership ensures that important decisions are made locally by people who live in the community and who will feel the impacts of those decisions.

4. Keeping Dollars in the Local Economy
Compared to chain stores, locally owned businesses recycle a much larger share of their revenue back into the local economy, enriching the whole community.

5. Job and Wages
Locally owned businesses create more jobs locally and, in some sectors, provide better wages and benefits than chains do.

6. Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship fuels America’s economic innovation and prosperity, and serves as a key means for families to move out of low-wage jobs and into the middle class.

7. Public Benefits and Costs
Local stores in town centers require comparatively little infrastructure and make more efficient use of public services relative to big box stores and strip shopping malls.

8. Environmental Sustainability
Local stores help to sustain vibrant, compact, walkable town centers-which in turn are essential to reducing sprawl, automobile use, habitat loss, and air and water pollution.

9. Competition
A marketplace of tens of thousands of small businesses is the best way to ensure innovation and low prices over the long-term.

10. Product Diversity
A multitude of small businesses, each selecting products based, not on a national sales plan, but on their own interests and the needs of their local customers, guarantees a much broader range of product choices.

© Institute for Local Self-Reliance.

$36 Million to Fight Yes on Prop 37

"The $36 million No on 37 campaign, bankrolled by $20 million from the world's six largest pesticide companies, has been caught in yet another lie, this time possibly criminal.

These companies and their allies in the junk food industry know that their profit margins may suffer if consumers have a choice whether to purchase genetically engineered foods or not. And that's why opponents are spending nearly a million dollars per day trying to make Prop 37 complicated. But really it's simple - we have the right to know what's in our food."

The evidence of new crime in California is in the news today.

This photo capturing the commercials featuring Henry Miller covers just the first offense with Miller's growing rap sheet:

• On Oct. 4 the No on 37 campaign was forced to pull its first ad off the air and re-shoot it after they were caught misrepresenting Miller as a doctor at Stanford University when he is actually a researcher at the Hoover Institute on Stanford's campus, as the Los Angeles Times reported.

• Last week, the campaign was reprimanded by Stanford again for misrepresenting the university in a mailer that went out to millions of voters. And this week, the campaign was caught sending out yet another deceptive mailer involving the University.

In addition to allowing his university affiliation to be repeatedly overblown, Miller has a sordid history of parroting the talking points of some of the world's most notorious corporate bad actors: he's a founding member of a now defunct tobacco front group that tried to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer, he's repeatedly called for the reintroduction of DDT - known to cause premature birth, fronted for an oil industry funded climate change denial group for Exxon, claimed that people exposed to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster "may have benefited from it", and attacked the US Food and Drug Administration's efforts to ensure proper vetting and testing of new drugs safety while urging it to outsource more of its functions to private industries. 

This is the man the No on 37 campaign has portrayed to voters as an arbiter of good science and promoted as an expert worthy of our trust. In reality, Miller is nothing more than a corporate shill that will say whatever his paymasters ask him to, be it Exxon, Phillip Morris, Monsanto, or DuPont. 

Does the No on 37 campaign stand behind Miller's fringe views on tobacco, climate change, nuclear radiation and DDT?

The latest is the criminal use of the FDA seal in mailers and fabricating FDA statements. Just making things up. This is a federal offense.

So who should we trust?

Who should we trust when it comes to our right to know what's in the food we eat: Monsanto, DuPont, and Henry Miller or the millions of California consumers and leading consumer, health, women's, faith-based, labor and other groups; 61 countries that already require GMO labeling; and a growing stack of peer-reviewed research linking genetically engineered foods to health and environmental problems?

Who has our best interests at heart, the pesticide and junk food industry, or Prop 37 supporters like Consumers Union, California Nurses Association, California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, United Farm Workers, American Public Health Association, Consumers Union, Sierra Club, Whole Foods Market, California Council of Churches, Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen, and Food Democracy Now!?

And another article debunking the lies against the Yes on Prop 37 campaign, shared from Teresa Barth's Facebook page.

Taking Treats from Toddlers = False Toughness

Presidential debate Wed. from Romney,

"I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one."

PBS released a statement in response to Romney and the GOP's ridiculous desire.

"We are very disappointed that PBS became a political target in the Presidential debate last night. Governor Romney does not understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation. We think it is important to set the record straight and let the facts speak for themselves.

The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nation’s debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.

A national survey by the bipartisan research firms of Hart Research and American Viewpoint in 2011 found that over two-thirds of American voters (69%) oppose proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with Americans across the political spectrum against such a cut.

As a stated supporter of education, Governor Romney should be a champion of public broadcasting, yet he is willing to wipe out services that reach the vast majority of Americans, including underserved audiences, such as children who cannot attend preschool and citizens living in rural areas..." [read the rest here]

Getting rid of PBS may not seem like a big deal to many in the grand scheme of things, but the GOP's desire to cut its funding points to a tactic they frequently use: cut financially trivial programs to give the false impression that they are making the tough choices to reduce the debt and boost the economy at the same time they are protecting the largest drags on the economy -- tax breaks for the rich, wars, big oil etc.

Via Dependale Renegade
Cupcakes included because they are irresistible.

Expanding Beyond Capacity to Sustain

 ". . . what happens when you force human communities, families, ecosystems to kneel before the dictates of the market."

This is one of the quotes from a profoundly disturbing interview of Chris Hedges by Laura Flanders of Grit TV, titled "The Absurdity of American Empire."

Encinitas is clearly not a part of a sacrifice zone discussed in the book being reviewed, yet we have the same fissures out of sight but threatening our lives.  We do share the nationwide problem of "the invisible - banished from our consciousness." Said another way from another source,

"The fabric of our nation is being torn apart. MANY familiies are struggling so badly, either due to low-income wages (against rising cost of living prices), or a substance dependency issue brought on by the depressing nature of our times, or a health issue. Then there are the families broken up due to the race-based War on Drugs, and the families broken up due to the hunts for "illegal" aliens, and the families headed by overworked single Moms..."

Keeping the larger picture in view, despite the utter lack of conversation in the Encinitas political community of these monstrous national and international problems via empire is one great freedom seized by we bloggers, unfettered by power systems. (And, respectfully, there is a tradition of local elections being non-partisan.) We are a progressive blog with liberal opinions.  That's the point of creating a space where minority voices can be heard and further explored. These voices have been disallowed, marginalized or ignored in our council chambers, the press and existing blogs. Presumably those who are unable to hear or process anything outside his or her world view aren't hanging out here anyway.

Denial, religiosity, fantasy thinking and other ways to anesthetize are all around us. We are soaking in it.

Tuesday is Dues-day: Gen. Plan Woes A Lifetime Ago

Tuesday is Dues-day. The dues are schooling yourself on how our local governance is organized, who are the players, what are the screw-ups, where is the money and what things get reported? 

You’re a citizen, an advocate for democracy with this first step, paying attention. 

General Plan Update - Just a Reminder

"General plans are often called a city’s constitution…a statement of who we are and what we value as a community.

The State of California requires all cities to adopt a general plan that includes required elements – Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Resource Management, Noise and Public Safety. The city also included an optional element – Recreation and Public Health is also proposed. The plan also states community goals for how the city should grow (or not grow) in the future.

There’s not been a comprehensive review and update of the General Plan since it was written over 25 years ago. A variety of state laws, court rulings and new issues such as sustainability and climate change have made it difficult to simply “tweak” sections and maintain internally consistent policies throughout the plan."

Twenty-four years ago when the first General Plan for Encinitas was written, a local news source, The Beach News, precursor to The Coast News published an article with the local citizen's key concern in the title, "Will high-priced housing run residents out of town?" Twenty-five people showed up for the meeting organized to by city officials to question the future of the new city of Encinitas.

When the question and answer session opened, a resident stood up and said he makes $25,000 a year at Scripps and felt he doesn't make enough money to continue living here in the new city of Encinitas. "Are we outpricing ourselves out of living here?" he asked on the discussion of new developments planned for the city. 

"I think this is a potential problem, he added.  "The character of he community comes from those non-classical types of people who live here.  I want to keep these people here."

Another resident agreed, explaining that she had spent the last several weeks apartment hunting for a friend.  "A two-bedroom apartment costs from at least $600 to $1,000," she said. "People who are just starting out are being forced to move to San Marcos because they can't find reasonable housing here."

Twenty-four years later it seems that particular strategy, if it was one, worked.  Wish we had the figures on the numbers of people who were forced to move due to an inflated housing bubble, rising costs, upzoning or low paying jobs, especially for young people starting out.  

A couple of years ago the city website had a demographics section for visitors to see Encinitas at a Glance. (Click to make larger) Activists have asked (with little success all year) where the city statistics come from and have gotten a mix of answers when the question is addressed - creating an almost continuous cycle of number crunching challenges.  Density, density, density - building height and El Camino Real being unacceptable for more density seem to be the constant themes despite affordable housing being the ostensible theme.  

The original community group would have understood the line I read this week. 

"The economy’s only valid purpose is to serve life," David Korten Yes! Magazine.

Conversely, one from the ERAC gang was quoted as saying, "The General Plan purpose is to drive profits."

What is the overall mission?  These two statements couldn't be more opposite. What is community character without talk of the diversity of populations, incomes and outlooks? Where do the teachers, bank clerks, dental hygienists, nurses, tree trimmers, Scripps worker and line cooks live?

You can see in the chart above that the glut of jobs available are low wage jobs.  How many of in this labor force can even live in this city? Everywhere I go I ask the food server, grocery clerk and store clerk, "Do you live in Encinitas?"  Very few answer yes.  

The city worker jobs aren't even listed.  How many of those are in the range of former fire chief Muir, Patrick Murphy or other Department Heads?  Truth is, most Encinitas city staff can't afford to live in Encinitas.  And given how out of date, one can only surmise from published facts nationwide, the numbers of low income, unemployed, underemployed and falling incomes for the middle class mean more Encinitas jobs and homes and travel requirements are under deep stress. The anticipated stress in the next twenty-four years with climate change, overwhelmed resources and economic decline haven't even been touched!

Yet, the city council and the workshops focused on density and building height.  Why can't we challenge the city council majority, city staff, ERAC, GPAC, Encinitas Right to Vote group and all City Council Candidates regarding our mismatched labor market and housing market.  We can ask, as some have been doing continuously, for the most current and accurate population statistics, housing statistics and labor statistics. 

A city of millionaires is not what most Encinitas voters want. You don't have to be a liberal to know that outcome is a dead community. 

Dedicated to Labor Day weekend. It used to celebrate so much more than meat on a grill and sales. Something vital is missing.

Quote of the Day

(Atlas Shrugged) is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.

Dorothy Parker


She may not have even said this.  It still is a really good line.  It is gross to read so much bilge about this execrable crap of a novel as though it has value beyond teenage identity explorations.  And besides this, Ayn Rand's sociopathic philosophy and her personal journal writing is/was seriously creepy.

ALEC Rock

Schoolhouse Rock remains one of the catchiest tunes from a generation to teach how a bill becomes a law.  Trouble is, in 30 years this legislative process has been completely sabotaged by big money and special interests.

For those who read and follow the national systems breakdowns that have been rapidly speeding up in the last decade, ALEC is no mystery.  Here is a brief overview of "What is ALEC?" for the rest of us from ALEC Exposed:

"ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. We agree. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door."

If comparing on a macro level this corporate collusion via ALEC, it has many similar qualities with our local crony club behavior that writes contractoral agreements like the ERGA agreement creating a public-private partnership that is largely hidden from public view.  Or what about the ongoing ERAC group hand selected to advise council on the General Plan Update?  When all is said and done, it largely scale that makes these all different things.  The elected officials, their paid staff, lawyers, bankers and lobbyists create the confusion to obfuscate pretty simple concepts of greed and dubious financial arrangements underwritten by taxpayer dollars.

The only reason it works is the public's lack of awareness and outrage.  Like the cartoon, great simplification - but let's hope the tune sticks.