my friends and I came here four years ago and kayaked around this meadow when it was still underneath a lake. we were shocked to see Bass Lake more than 3/4’s empty…this was the first time the drought felt so visceral and real to me.
I don’t have a problem with GMOs, but I do have a problem with Monsanto.
First I heard about the multinational agricultural biotech firm was in high school, when my dad told me about how they’d sue farmers for having crops that contain traces of their patented plant genes—including threatening their neighbors, for simply having their farm nearby a farmer who used Monsanto seeds, the genetic traits of which could get transmitted through pollen that floated or carried over to them by bees. I just did a quick search to find out about their other evil doings, and found these:
- They’ve continued to sue farmers for having “improperly reused their patented seeds.” Yes, they have invested millions into their R&D for their products, but it’s perverse for them to go after farmers for reusing seeds when that’s what farmers have done for literally thousands of years. Farmers are under ever-increasing pressure to yield more and more crops (esp. corn and soy beans), and making these farmers dependent on Monsanto’s products to remain competitive seems dangerous and unsustainable..
- Given that their signature Roundup herbicide probably causes cancer, according to the WHO, and it’s the most widely used one in the world.
- They patent seeds derived from conventional breeding. ‘Nuff said.
- They developed the hormone used in cows to make them produce more milk—which they have since sold to Eli Lilly, which happens to be another evil patent company. Apparently there isn’t yet any conclusive evidence that the consumption of milk from rBGH cows leads to higher cancer risk (oh hm i’m sure the fact that there isn’t solid research on this has nothing to do with privately-funded research nope). But those cows are at a higher risk of getting udder infections, which are then treated with antibiotics, thereby exacerbating the whole problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Sooo on Saturday, I ended up going to the March Against Monsanto in San Francisco. Food safety and anti-pesticide activism isn’t one of my fights, but I deeply respect those who’ve taken up the cause. It also happened that one of the dances that my political-dance-flash-mob does, Toxic, fit perfectly with the demo’s message. On some level, I felt bad that I suddenly showed up to perform (which as I said in an earlier post, feels more like activism-cheerleading than anything else) and join their protest. But I think it’s actually okay to be peripherally involved in a cause like this, especially if you’re already focused on a different one.
There’s only so much anger one can muster in a week. My day job is to wrangle with a massive trade agreement that could obligate its signatory countries to various bad awful digital regulations, and really threatens to upend public interest policies from across the board. It’s already been a struggle for me to try and stay positive and focused on the things that we can do to stop the TPP, so I have to be okay with letting others lead and fight in those trenches to do what they can on issues I also care about.
Anyways, I’ll just end this post with this awesome video, “Lobbyist Claims Monsanto’s Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass”:
And a photo of me in a gas mask, which was really fun dancing to Britney Spears with.
I watched Werner Herzog’s Encounters at the End of the World this week, a documentary that beautifully captures the indifferent expanse of Antarctica as it peers into the lives of those who’ve somehow ended up there. At times the film was breathtaking, suspenseful, absurd, and meditative. Through intimate human moments that take place in this gorgeous icy frontier, Herzog shows you some of the consequential/inconsequential collisions between humans and “nature”. He guides you through this in his signature narration, delivered with his melodic German accent.
For real though, it’s one of the best documentaries I’ve seen in a while that *doesn’t* make me want to punch a wall. And it’s on Netflix.
As an undergrad at UC Santa Cruz, I spent all four years with a student organization and academic program called the Global Information Internship Program (GIIP), now called the Everett Program. It teaches undergrads how to become “social justice entrepreneurs”, by training them in practical tech skills, as well as in professional advocacy, such as doing needs analyses, project management, grant writing, and other tools to execute an internship with a non-profit.
About 17 years after it began, it’s now a Major and Minor study under the UCSC Sociology department and it get a yearly contribution of 0.33% of the student body’s combined tuition (a couple $10,000’s per year) following a student initiative that was a passed by vote. It then received an endowment that supports the staffing and management of the program, establishing a new chair for the program—the Dorothy E. Everett Chair, named after a woman who spent years dedicated to the cause of free, universal higher education in the state of California.
So this past weekend we celebrated the retirement of the incredible sociology professor, and my mentor, Paul Lubeck, who built this program, and the launch of the new Chair of the Everett Program, Chris Benner. It was really exciting to see how much the program has grown and to think about new ways it will continue to expand.
The Everett Program is what converted me from an unfocused student with broad, but deep discontent about the world, into a practical, effective advocate and activist. It changed my life most profoundly because it was a program that was run *by* undergraduate students *for* undergraduate students. It taught us how to take ourselves as activists seriously in a way that most of us never knew how.
So now, as a big side project to my work at EFF, I’ve founded an alumni foundation to connect all the incredible people who’ve gone through this program together. Between the more than 100 of us, we have resources, experiences, and networks that can be harnessed and shared to make us all more involved in pragmatic change-making.
“Fresh Roots”, a poem by Rumi.
I started reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander this weekend. So far, it feels like I’m finally paying attention to a deep rot that I knew has always been there, in my already decrepit house—my country. I have a lot of thoughts already but I’ll save them for when I finish the book.
Wikileaks has publicly exposed another chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and in effect, has delivered a massive blow against this secret, multinational trade deal. This time it was the text on Investment, which has, among many other things, language on what’s called “investor-state dispute settlement,” or ISDS for short. This investor-state process essentially enables corporations to file lawsuits against governments—federal or state/provincial—over policies that the company claims harms their investments or “expected future profits.”
There have been ISDS cases involving oil companies suing small countries, like Ecuador, which tried to enact rules to protect the forests and rivers. There have been cases where an energy company sued a country for deciding to shut down its nuclear power plants. And there have been cases where a court found that an over-broad medicine patent was invalid, leading the pharmaceutical company to challenge the ruling in an ISDS process.
I’ve briefly ranted about ISDS before. Now that we’ve seen the text, we can confirm it’s utterly as evil as we expected it to be. This is about corporations having sovereignty, and having the power to challenge government rules, even if the law was passed democratically and is seen as totally legitimate in the eyes of the people. Given all the other provisions in trade agreements, such as those on “Intellectual Property”, ISDS enables corporations to challenge the way government interprets those provisions as long as the corporation can claim that the law stifled their profit-making abilities.
Think about that.
These rules mean that private industries can unravel public-interest policies, through the singular, self-interested justification that their ability to make money has been made more difficult…Since when do companies have an unalienable right to profit, at the expense of everyone else’s concerns?
More importantly, why the hell are public officials selling us out to mega-corporations? Are they just getting lobbied so hard, and have become so intimate with myopic corporate representatives as to believe that this is remotely compatible with an actual functioning democracy?
this is a stream of consciousness—i’m writing anything that comes to my mind.
On Friday I went to the dentist and they fixed a tooth that got chipped while I was eating a bowl of salad I made with Trader Joe’s fancy Red Quinoa. This particular tooth was already fucked up—a snaggler that jutted out taller than the others on the front bottom row of my mouth. In middle school, when my appearance became a sudden and painful new part of my every day consciousness, I was really embarrassed of it. I covered my mouth when I laughed to avoid people noticing it. But eventually I got over it and didn’t care anymore. Every time I changed dentists and they asked me if I wanted braces, I’d defend its right to stay. “It’s fine and it’s not gonna hurt me right?” But on Friday they changed it. They first added whatever gunk they put on it to account for the missing chip, then asked me if they should just file it down. “Uhhh…Yeah.” I nodded, while my mouth was held open. “Great! It’ll only take a second.” When they started, I realized that it’d lose it’s charm. My teeth would be boring now. I’d lose my ability to make weird bite marks on apples…! But it was too late. They had an electric filing device in my mouth filing that lil’ guy down…
Saxophones haven’t been cool for as long as I remember. It was at its pinnacle while John Coltrane and Charlie Parker ruled the jazz scene. But then who killed it? Kenny G might’ve been the first wave of uncooling, then was the sexy sax man the final nail in the coffin or was it just making fun of the complete utter deadness of its cool? Anyway, I think it’s creeping back into the mainstream. It’s in that Ariana Grande song, in Macklemore’s Thriftshop, and Big Gigantic does it electronica-styles.
One night a few weeks ago I was under-the-influence wandering around the Internet and I found this Tiny Desk Concert session with Moon Hooch. They sounded nothing like anything I’ve heard before, despite being just three white dudes who looked like they just got plucked out of Humboldt County. I was hypnotized by their performance, recorded in that awkward little NPR studio. So I immediately bought tickets to see them when I saw that they were coming to SF.
The show was on Friday and it was pretty amazing. As Andrew said they were a mix between being really talented musicians and being strangely comedic in their performance. I feel the same way, but I wonder if it’s just because I still can’t shake the thing about saxes being the butt-of-the-joke instrument. But that actually made me enjoy the show MORE. I feel like I mostly see the same instruments being played on stage, and while I appreciate talent with those, they’re just something extra eventful about seeing that kind of artfulness with instruments you don’t usually enjoy. So yeah, it was good.
In the bathroom I found this sticker on the stall door. This is how I feel about writing/painting/reading:
– fin –
I wrote a piece for my job this week about how the White House has started to intensify its propaganda campaign about Fast Track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and I think it’s in the top 10 best blog posts I’ve written at EFF. It even got republished in TechDirt, which is a first for me!
Thought about writing somethin’ else for my weekly personal blog post, including some reflections I had about an interview I did with a libertarian trade policy analyst about trade policy, or how much I enjoy the annual Chinese New Year Treasure Hunt that I just did for the third time over the weekend. But I’m just going to re-post the piece I did for EFF cause I just don’t have much writing juice flowing through my brain and fingers atm. Here it is below!
The White House Has Gone Full Doublespeak on Fast Track and the TPP
Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Orrin Hatch are now in a stand-off over a bill that would put secretive trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement on the Fast Track to passage through Congress. The White House meanwhile, has intensified their propaganda campaign, going so far as to mislead the public about how trade deals—like the TPP and its counterpart, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—will effect the Internet and users’ rights. They are creating videos, writing several blog posts, and then this week, even sent out a letter from an “online small business owner” to everyone on the White House’s massive email list, to further misinform the public about Fast Track.
In a blog post published this week, the White House flat out uses doublespeak to tout the benefits of the TPP, even going so far as to claim that without these new trade agreements, “there would be no rules protecting American invention, artistic creativity, and research”. That is pure bogus, much like the other lies the White House has been recently saying about its trade policies. Let’s look at the four main myths they have been saying to sell lawmakers and the public on Fast Track for the TPP.
Myth #1: TPP Is Good for the Internet
First, there are the claims that this agreement will create “stronger protections of a free and open Internet”. As we know from previous leaks of the TPP’s Intellectual Property chapter, the complete opposite is true. Most of all, the TPP’s ISP liability provisions could create greater incentives for Internet and content providers to block and filter content, or even monitor their users in the name of copyright enforcement. What they believe are efforts toward protecting the future of the Internet are provisions they’re advocating for in this and other secret agreements on the “free flow of information”. In short, these are policies aimed at subverting data localization laws.
Such an obligation could be a good or a bad thing, depending on what kind of impact it could have on national censorship, or consumer protections for personal data. It’s a complicated issue without an easy solution—which is exactly why this should not be decided through secretive trade negotiations. These “free flow of information” rules have likely been lobbied for by major tech companies, which do not want laws to restrict them on how they deal with users’ data. It is dishonest to say that what these tech companies can do with people’s data is good for all users and the Internet at large.
Myth #2: Fast Track Would Strengthen Congressional Oversight
The second, oft-repeated claim is that Fast Track would strengthen congressional oversight—which is again not true. The U.S. Trade Representative has made this claim throughout the past couple months, including at a Senate Finance Committee hearing in January when he said:
TPA puts Congress in the driver’s seat to define our negotiating objectives and strengthens Congressional oversight by requiring consultations and transparency throughout the negotiating process.
Maybe we could believe this if the White House had fought for Fast Track before delegates began negotiating the TPP and TTIP. Maybe it could also have been true if that bill had ensured that Congress members had easy access to the text and kept a close leash on the White House throughout the process to ensure that the negotiating objectives they outlined were in fact being met in the deal. However, we know from the past several years of TPP negotiations, that Congress has largely been shut out of the process. Many members of Congress have spoken out about the White House’s strict rules that have made it exceedingly difficult to influence or even see the terms of these trade deals.
The only way Fast Track could really put “Congress in the driver’s seat” over trade policy would be if it fully addressed the lack of congressional oversight over the TPP and TTIP thus far. Lawmakers should be able to hold unlimited debate over the policies being proposed in these deals, and if it comes to it, to amend their provisions. It would be meaningless if the new Fast Track bill enabled more congressional oversight, but if it did not apply to agreements that are ongoing or almost completed.
Myth #3: Small Online Businesses Would Benefit from Fast Track
Then the third misleading claim is that Fast Track would help small businesses. Their repetition of this has become louder amid increasing public awareness that the TPP has primarily been driven by major corporations. What may be good for established multinational companies could also benefit certain small online businesses as well. The White House says that tariffs are hindering small online businesses from selling their products abroad, but research has shown that the kinds of traditional trade barriers, like tariffs, that past trade agreements were negotiated to address are already close to non-existent. Therefore it is unclear what other kind of benefits online businesses would see from the TPP.
Even if there were some benefits, there are many more ways that the TPP could harm small Internet-based companies. The TPP’s copyright provisions could lead to policies where ISPs would be forced to implement costly systems to oversee all users’ activities and process each takedown notice they receive. They could also discourage investment in new innovative start-ups, even those that plan to “play by the rules”, due to the risk that companies would have to sink significant resources into legal defenses against copyright holders, or face heavy deterrent penalties for infringement established by the TPP.
Myth #4: TPP and Other Secret Trade Deals Are a National Security Issue
The last, and most confounding of the White House’s assertions is that the TPP and TTIP are an “integral part” of the United States’ national security strategy, because its “global strategic interests are intimately linked with [its] broader economic interests.” As we have seen with the U.S. government’s expansive surveillance regime, “national security” is often invoked for policies even if they directly undermine our civil liberties. It is hard to argue with the administration whether the TPP and TTIP are in fact in the United States’ economic or strategic interests, since only they are allowed to see the entire contents of these agreements. Either way, it seems like a huge stretch to say that we can trust the White House and major corporate representatives to determine, in secret, what is in fact good digital policy for the country and the world. We may be hearing this line more and more in the coming weeks as the White House becomes more desperate to legitimize the need for Fast Track to pass the TPP and TTIP.
The fact that the White House has resorted to distorting the truth about its trade policies is enough to demonstrate how little the administration values honesty and transparency in policy making, and how much the public stands to lose from these agreements negotiated in secret. The more they try and espouse the potential gains from Fast Track—while the trade agreements this legislation would advance remain secret—the more reason we ought to be skeptical. If the TPP is so great and if Fast Track would in fact enable more democratic oversight, why are the contents of either of them still not public?
unfurling for 360
million years in quiet
wet forests vivid & outstretched.
they once brushed against the skin
of dinosaurs, ignored as they ran or
walked grazing. then, a 100 mi wide asteroid
struck us. earth dark for countless millennia,
blanketed by dust and death of species but they
survived, when others didn’t. just shrubs armed with
tenacious spores. fractal leaf blossoms peculiar, strong,
and elegant. struck by pteridomania, we encased them in
glass to love and shield from new urban dust that even they
weren’t a match for. so…are we their next catastrophe, that they’ll
again ride out for millennia, outliving us. forever rising, unfolding,
from the ashes?
on Monday i felt good—stressed, but good. my day started early with a conference call, dense with meetings, and ended with me teaching choreography to some others in preparation for the big climate action that was planned for this weekend in Oakland. By the time i was in bed, i was exhausted by the full day while undeniably worried about the things I didn’t get to.
dammit i didn’t respond to that email yet and i didn’t get a chance to check in with **** about that task why can’t i get that blog post done yet that doc has been open for a week now would ***** think it’s rude if i didn’t respond to that DM i just don’t know what to say fuck i think my roommates and i need to sort that issue out but it’s impossible for us to meet in person i have to write a diplomatic email to everyone man i really don’t like my hair right now is getting a haircut for growing it out a thing i haven’t been eating healthy enough i need to make better lunches for myself that conference is coming up i have so much to do for it, for all of it ………….
on Tuesday i woke up feeling, again, like a creaky old lady. My body hurt, my head hurt, my throat hurt. But i had some stressful calls i had to do so i worked all day from bed in wrapped in my down comforter wearing two layers on all my body. my teeth still chattered. It got really bad by the evening—sweats, fever, no appetite, and god awful pain everywhere—it was even worse by the next morning. People close to me thought i was dying and told me to go see my doctor.
She shined a light down my throat and says “Yikes. That’s strep alright.”
She then told me the lymph nodes in my neck were so swollen i might have to get them drained. wut. o_o “I’ll set up an appointment for you at a head and neck specialist tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I’m gonna get you going on antibiotics.” i told her this was the second time i got it in 6 months. “Have you been under some stress lately?”
thankfully the head+neck specialist didn’t need to drain anything nor remove my tonsils (yay) but also asked me about my stress. “y’know, that can have a huge impact on health—not sleeping well, not eating right—it can all add up and do a real number on your immune system.”
yes, fine. i’m stressed. i always have so much to do and so much on my mind. maybe it’s that i wake up every morning and listen to Democracy Now’s war and peace report, a thing i started to do as a way to motivate myself to fix the broken messed up world. i can’t give that up though—the constant hum of indignation that i feel in my bones is a part of who i am. it colors my actions and decision every day to do work that could make the world better, more just, or just make some more goddamn sense.
i don’t know. i think it’s a lot of things i need to reassess about my life, but i’m not gonna stress about my stress. i’m gonna try and stop worrying about things that are out of my control and that aren’t part of my current task at hand. to be more present throughout the day so that i’m still productive, but not wasting my brain-energy fuel on those dumb nagging feelings in a way that’s unhelpful and exhausting. that’s probably a good first step.