Sunday, June 30, 2013

Lives Filled with Integrity and Love

To those who read this blog somewhat regularly, I am sorry that I have not been posting as often as I was just a month ago. When Democrats and Republicans rushed the fracking bill through the Illinois legislature—and Governor Quinn quickly signed it—I have to admit to a feeling of deep sadness. That the media obediently reported how strict the regulatory provisions of this new law were to be—even though activists in Illinois and other states already suffering the effects of fracking described in detail how the new Illinois law offered the oil and gas industry the same generous terms it was enjoying in other parts of the country—that apparent cooperation between legislators and the press made the fracking law’s passage doubly depressing. So, yes, I succumbed and didn’t write for a while.

Illinois is a strange and contradictory state. And I feel I can write that as I’ve lived for extended periods in several other states in this union.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that Illinois legislators are so agreeable to the idea of fracking. After all, Illinois also agreed to ‘host’ more nuclear reactors within its borders than any other state. In fact, Illinois has earned the dubious distinction of being the place where nuclear power and the nuclear bomb cast its first dangerous glow. The University of Chicago claims that honor, as well as the—in my opinion—deeply troubling distinction of developing within its Economics Department a theory that has been a plague to so many countries, namely the Chicago School of Economics with its magical thinking approach to capitalism, and the accompanying misery it has brought to populations in Latin America, Africa and, most recently, Europe. Oh, and it's doing its best to bring the strongest brew of theories to the U.S. The major players in Illinois aspire to make money, lots of it, and are not shy about wagering the health and welfare of its land and people in order to enrich the coffers of a few.

But this state can also be profoundly beautiful. This summer, for example, is one of the best summers we have had for many years: enough sun and warmth for the gardens to flourish, plentiful rains, and days that are warm but not punishing. This spring my rosebushes were laden with blooms. Trees that I thought, last year, were dead, leafed out this spring and are doing very well. And the season’s harvest is already bountiful. Today I harvested ten cups of red and black raspberries. I will make jam tomorrow. A few days ago I cut ten cups of greens. Tomatoes are already setting fruit, and yesterday I harvested the first baby eggplant. Today all our windows are open and the wind rushing in slow swells through the trees fills the air with a swish like waves at the beach. When I lived in California, I eventually tired of days and days of sunshine. My dreams eventually were drenched in dreams of Illinois rain, and memories of the sound of wind in the trees. Those dreams tugged at me until I came home.

I have to work with others who love this state if we hope to safeguard its health and beauty. I remain very sad about passage of the fracking law, but I am resuming the struggle.

In trying to understand how many people can feel disenfranchised by their country’s political and economic systems and yet find ways, at first very small, to express their unhappiness, I have turned to the writings of Vaclav Havel, Czechoslovakia’s playwright and president, who chronicled his country’s slow transformation from what he called a post-totalitarian state to something beyond. Havel’s Open Letters suggest in several places that there are parallels to be found between the struggle of the Czechoslovakian people and the attempts by the 99% in the U.S. to make a multi-national corporate system accountable to its people’s lives more than to the system’s goals. I encourage anyone reading this blog to pick up the writings of Vaclav Havel. He foresaw and lived to see his country transformed. As I pick up again the work on the fracking issue, I will keep Havel’s words in mind.

From “On Evasive Thinking”

We live in a time of struggle between two ways of thinking: thinking evasively and thinking to the point. Between half-baked thinking and consistent thinking. We live in a time when reality is in conflict with platitude, when a fact is in conflict with an a priori interpretation of it, when common sense is in conflict with a distorted rationality. It is a time of conflict between theory that plays fast and loose with practice, and theory that learns from practice. . .

From “Dear Dr. Húsak”

In other words, life may be subjected to a prolonged and thorough process of violation, enfeeblement, and anesthesia. Yet, in the end, it cannot be permanently halted. Albeit quietly, covertly, and slowly, it nevertheless goes on. Though it be estranged from itself a thousand times, it always manages in some way to recuperate; however violently ravished, it always survives, in the end, the power which ravished it. It cannot be otherwise, in view of the profoundly ambivalent nature of every “entropic” authority, which can only suppress life if there is life to suppress and so, in the last resort, depends for its own existence on life, whereas life in no way depends on it.


For those who read this blog, I thank you for the choices you make to bring truth into the world, and to foster lives filled with integrity and love.

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Fiery Voices at a Site of Man-Made Poison

Vaclav Havel wrote: "We live in a time of struggle between two ways of thinking: thinking evasively and thinking to the point. Between half-baked thinking and consistent thinking. We live in a time when reality is in conflict with platitude, when a fact is in conflict with an a priori interpretation of it, when common sense is in conflict with a distorted rationality." From On Evasive Thinking, 1965.



Fiery Voices at a Site of Man-Made Poison
(One scene in a longer play called Ecology Rituals) 

This performance will happen best at noon on a hot summer day. Choose public ground outside a site where humans have done terrible things: the edge of a polluted river with many chemical or industrial factories near its banks, a nature preserve near Joliet with its stunted and leafless trees and its acrid smell from the munitions and petroleum facilities nearby, or the seemingly innocuous ground within sight of a nuclear reactor whose swimming pools of perpetually and terrifyingly lethal radioactive poison are hidden underground. Or perform this piece near land that has known above-ground nuclear testing, or on a stretch of highway outside an active landfill site. Or at the foot of a mountain whose top has been sheered away to get at the coal beneath its surface.

Performance facilitators lead audience members to the performance site. It is all right if the audience feels there is no real place for them to stand or sit. It is all right if they find themselves congregating in awkward bunches, wherever there is room for them. It is all right if their numbers spill into a street and hinder traffic. It is all right if some audience members, searching for a place to stand, are forced to share the playing area with the performers.

The facilitators pass out little pads of paper and pencils. They encourage audience members to write words or draw pictures that represent how they feel standing in this place. Then they invite audience members to describe what they have written down. Facilitators may share their own feelings and thoughts if they think that will help audience members to begin. When this process has been given enough time:

The performers will erupt into the playing space, four of them carrying the rigid body of HOWLING MAN. He is carried upside-down, arms rigid at shoulder level, legs held stiffly apart. He howls as they rush him onto the stage. He remains suspended upside-down as the piece begins.

HOWLING MAN

Aau-ooooooooooooooooooo! Aau-ooooooooooooooooo!

The other four performers hold him by his arms and legs, which are all outstretched so he looks like an inverted Da Vinci man. All of them wear blindfolds.

HOWLING MAN

                                    I do not want to be here! I do not want to see! (The other four performers begin to swing Howling until he rises as high as their heads and shoulders. Even blindfolded, Howling reacts as if he can see the polluted site(s) behind them.) Aaaaaaaah! (Howling man fights free of the four performers and cowers on the ground. The four who held him recoil as if they’ve touched something intensely vile.) I didn’t do it. I didn’t pour it in the river, belch it into the sky, bury it in the ground. I didn’t build the god damn drums and pits and stacks and pipes that were supposed to hold the stuff. It wasn’t me!

(As HOWLING MAN continues to speak, the other four performers begin to whisper a litany that they repeat over and over as HOWLING MAN speaks):

ALL BUT HOWLING MAN

See, smell, feel, listen. (Repeated.)

HOWLING MAN

I just live here. Do my work. Keep my lawn mowed. Pay my bills. Feed my kids. I just wanted a little fun once in a while. I didn’t want to think about it, O.K.! I trusted them! They said it was O.K.! They said it was necessary! Safe, but necessary! They said the country would fall apart if they weren’t here. Our town would fall apart. I’d lose my home!
(All fall silent.)

MOURNING PERFORMER

He was two when I first heard that cough. A barking, deep cough and the wheezing at night when he fought to breathe. He got over that one. But then it came again and again, until I heard his lungs whistle almost every day. Why didn’t we turn our back on this place? Why didn’t we run! Why didn’t I ask what was stealing my beautiful boy from me!

PERFORMER WITH LOTS OF WORDS

Yes, there was pollution, but I bought property upwind of the site. We installed air and water purifiers in the house. All our garden soil was trucked in from out of town. We never bought food grown around here. And I did what I could. We had a list of environmental groups that got checks from us every year. Not huge amounts, you know, but regular contributions. They could count on our checks. I thought at the time, “People in this country are smart. They’re not knowingly going to harm themselves. Or us.” Then they found the cancer. It had spread throughout my body. Too late, they said. We’ll make you as comfortable as we can, they said. That’s what they said.

QUIET PERFORMER

                                    I worked over there. People were jealous of my job because it paid so well. There were monthly safety meetings and I went to every one. We had to. They wrote us up if we weren’t there. What they didn’t want was for us to do any thinking on our own. Oh, no. That was verboten. That’d get you fired. Or black-balled if you made enough of a stink. What would you do? Who’s gonna thank you for standing up? Nobody. Absolutely nobody.

SMILING PERFORMER

Once I had a busy practice in town. I used to feel badly for the delays we’d have in the waiting room. My nurses were always trying to keep the patients patient, if you know what I mean, because I liked to talk with them. Spend time with them. . . . There was a time when I knew the family health history for every one of them. Whose father and mother suffered from heart disease and what kind, the families struggling with diabetes, or cancer. Our office absolutely demanded that each patient fill out a detailed family medical history and I went over the information they provided very carefully. Did preventive diagnostic tests when the history warranted that. Took precautions . . . . I had this pewter Porsche. I always rode with the windows up, the heat or the air on. Vivaldi playing on the CD. Or Brahms. My wife packed these sweet vegetarian sandwiches with organic produce. . . . I drove right down the highway past this plant to get to my office every day for twenty years. I saw it all right, but I was busy with other matters. My patients. . . . My dying patients. . . . Last year I sold the practice.

(Simultaneously, all four stand and rip off their blindfolds. They speak the lines that follow in voices that grow savage by the last repetition)

ALL PERFORMERS

Now I see. Now I see. Now I see. Now I see! Now I see!

NOW I SEE! (On the last repetition they wheel around to
 face the poisoned site.)           

SMILING PERFORMER

                                    The air I’m breathing, have been breathing for fifty years, is filling my lungs with poison.

MOURNING PERFORMER

                                    When I shower with city water the poison in it soaks into my pores. I drink in this polluted water every day.

                                    QUIET PERFORMER

People in those buildings back there have raked in the dough because they were allowed by me and my government to poison this place.

PERFORMER WHO CAN STILL TALK LIKE US

                                    The ground underneath my shoes is so contaminated that touching it puts toxins on my skin.
The next five lines overlap and are repeated as the performers eventually convert the words to howls that build and then stop abruptly.


HOWLING MAN

                                    So—o-o-o-o?! What no-o-o-o-w?! Now that I get it, what do I  do-o-o-o-o?!
MOURNING PERFORMER

                                    Where do I go-o-o-o?

                                    I-I-I-I ha-a-a-te this!

PERFORMER WHO CAN STILL TALK LIKE US

                                    Where’s the sense—where’s the sense—where’s the sense!

QUIET PERFORMER

                                    Oh-my-God—oh-my-God—oh-my-God—oh-my-God . . .

Just as suddenly as they appeared, they drop to all fours and scuttle away from the playing space, howling and barking and crying as they run off into the distance.


Performance facilitators invite audience members to voice their responses to what they have done, seen, heard, felt and thought during the performance. The facilitators may ask audience members what should be done with the notes they have made. Some may wish to keep the pieces of paper. Others may wish to burn them. To wear them or to throw them away. The facilitators should make it possible for the audience members to do with the papers what they would like to do. Then, together, facilitators and audience members will leave the performance area.

Monday, June 10, 2013

They Came, But Would They Have Stayed?

He was fourteen. In his bedroom, barely graced with a thin, grey light, he saw his breath as a mist floating just in front of his face. He grabbed at the thin wool blanket that he had kicked to the bottom of the bed and dragged it up around his chest and shoulders.

His eyes stared at nothing, remembering the vision that had filled his dream. A huge, white ship. A ship docked at Halmstad. The ship that would take him away from his little town and the young life that had become too hard to understand.

Kurt’s memory of the white ship faded as the sounds of his father’s rhythmic snoring traveled from the other end of the house, down the hallway and into his room. He pictured his father sprawled on the little cot where he slept in the deep oblivion that only a night of hard drinking could bring him. His father, who could tell raucous tales to his pals until they bent in half with laughter. His father, who’d collected fourteen children beneath his roof—eight from his first wife and six from his second wife, the quiet and patient woman he’d brought into his house to feed and care for all these children. His father, whose dreams, and the obstacles that hemmed them in, taught him to drown every dead-end frustration in glass after glass of beer.

Last night, like so many other nights, his mother told him to go get his father and bring him home. He was the only son who could cajole the man out of a tavern without getting cuffed for it. So he pulled on his short wool coat and headed for that part of town where the taverns sat on contending corners lustily calling out to those passing by, “Hey! In here! It’s warm and we’re having a good time. Over here!” He was never sure which one would draw his father on a particular day. Sometimes he got lucky and guessed where his father would be sprawled across a table. Other days he had to visit all three before he found him. And then he would coax and drag him out the door and down the street, finally pulling his father up the stairs to his little bed.  Kurt would wrestle his father’s shoes off his feet and then pile the slight man onto the mattress. Then he’d pry and tug the blanket out from under his father and make sure the man would be protected from the night’s cold. Only then would Kurt make his way to his own bed to sleep until morning. On his way to his room, Kurt would see the door almost completely shut to his mother’s room. Just a little light in there to let him know she wasn’t yet asleep. But she would never call out to him.

Last night the ship in his dream had sailed into the Halmstad harbor and right onto the land. The ship had come to a stop right in front of him. When he bent his head back the ship’s hull was so massive it almost blotted out the sky above him. And as he looked up and up the ship’s bow, as he saw the sailors scurrying on the deck above him and heard them shouting and laughing to each other, Kurt knew he would soon be on that ship sailing far away from his little Swedish town. His mother was very dear to him, but he knew—had known for months now—that he had to leave.

***

This story my father told to me when I was maybe seventeen.

Two weeks before my mother died suddenly of a massive heart attack, she told my sister and I that her early years married to my father brought her many nights when my father did not come in until very late. He, like his father, chased his demons away with help from a bottle. I was in my late forties when she told me this. Neither my sister nor I had any inkling that our mother’s first year’s of marriage were spent waiting for her husband to stumble in the door. And she without any sons to go looking for him. She, waiting in a little Chicago apartment, too ashamed of what was happening to her husband to ever talk about it with anyone. Two Swedish immigrants in Chicago trying to make a life for themselves and two daughters. My mother kept silent about these most difficult years until she was in her seventies. 

My aunt tells me that the two weeks before my mother died she called several times. She was happier—lighter—than my aunt ever remembered her being. “She was happy,” my aunt said. “She was writing and calling all sorts of relatives that she hadn’t talked to in a long time.” After my mom died and I was going through her papers, I found a little notepad full of letters that she had written to distant second cousins, old friends who’d moved away, and neighbors she hadn’t spoken with for years. “Hej!” the letter would begin. “This is your cousin Hannah. How are you?” My mom called me, too, during those two weeks and we talked happily and easily as we had not spoken together for years. I felt as if the mother I’d always dreamed of knowing had suddenly appeared in my life. I just wish we’d had more than two weeks together.

***

At the age of fourteen my father ran away to Halmstad and signed on to a freighter as a cabin boy. The ship that took him across the ocean all the way to Argentina was just as he’d dreamed—a huge white ship.

One voyage followed another until my father had been at sea for thirteen years. He told his daughters about smoking strange pipes with long hoses in the old quarter of Istanbul. He hung a round wooden plaque on the living-room wall inlaid with ivory and slivers of wood that told the Egyptian story of Horus. When I started smoking cigarettes in my twenties, my dad gave me a beautiful silver cigarette case embossed with a llama that he’d bought in Peru. As we became young adults, the stories he shared became increasingly raucous: prostitutes in Argentina who walked the wharves dressed in nun’s habits, and an island in the Canaries with the best red wine in the world.

He had learned in his travels how to still the memories of his father, how to erase the image of his mother’s worried face, by wrapping his arms around all the wonders of the world.

***

For many of the thirteen years that my father sailed back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean, and along the coasts of the Mediterranean, his travels often ended in New Orleans. Sometimes his voyages took him to New York. And he gradually formed the opinion that, of all the places in the world he’d been, America was the country where he would someday settle down. It was, he decided, the best country he’d ever experienced. And he had a sister living in Chicago with her husband who would give Kurt a job as soon as he decided to give up his life as a sailor.

One summer, in-between voyages, my father went to visit his sister in Chicago. A friend of his, another Swede, fixed him up on a blind date with a Swedish woman visiting her relatives in the city. Kurt and Hannah continued seeing one another for three months after that blind date. And then they married. My dad’s mother and father traveled all the way from Sweden to help them celebrate the wedding. The pictures I have of my grandparents in Chicago show both of them looking stunned, shivering in the November cold outside the Lutheran church where the wedding was held, sitting with stolid expressions and amazed eyes as they perched in an American restaurant booth after the wedding.

For Kurt, America was the only place to begin a new life. Though Hannah wanted to return to Sweden, Kurt saw no future for them over there. No, they would take the money he’d saved and buy a small piece of real estate in Chicago, a two-flat where they would live on the first floor and rent the second floor to nice Americans. And so Chicago acquired two more immigrants in 1955. At that time there were more Swedes living in Chicago than in Stockholm. My parents had plenty of friends to share their experiences with. All of them chose to settle here believing that the land of prosperity would soon share its wealth with them—provided they brought their best smarts and strongest work ethic to the bargain. These Swedes were devotees of the most traditional version of the American Dream.

***

That last paragraph is about as familiar as an American immigrant’s story might be. The problem is—and the reason I’ve recounted all of this is—for the last few years, ever since 9/11 in fact, I’ve had the growing sense that my parents would not have chosen to settle in this country if they had arrived here recently. So I’ve been trying to figure out why they came, why they stayed, and what it is about America today that I’m pretty sure would have led them to return to Sweden. As a first-generation American, here’s where my story and the expected immigrant myth part company. What’s puzzling to me is why the next part of my immigrant tale is not published more often. I do not think our family’s experiences in American were so unique. I know there are other immigrant families out there who are wondering if the decision to come to America has turned out as they hoped it would.

My parents grew ever more wary and disappointed in this place they’d chosen. My mother especially was deeply disturbed by the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, and of Martin Luther King Jr. Our whole family was frightened by the race riots in Chicago and across the U.S. These events, and the horrors of the Viet Nam war led my mother to look upon her new country as a frightening, troubled place.

My father’s experiences with America were affected by his place in its economic system. Making enough money to support his family was difficult in America—so much so that in his thirties he abandoned one career to apprentice as a laborer and eventually become a carpenter. But even as a tradesman who belonged to a union, my father struggled to support our family during the 1970’s when a terrible economic recession devastated the housing market. We scraped by, but those were very scary times for our family.

Through the times of worry, my parents would put those fears aside by taking long walks in forest preserves, going on family picnics, swimming in Lake Michigan, or just sitting in the yard after dinner. Why I think they would flee this country today has to do with a frightening combination of economic inequality, and the undeniable reality that economic forces are intent on destroying any beauty left in this land. These problems would have left my parents asking, “What is there to stay for in this country?” Even the simplest lively-hoods and the gentlest pleasures are being taken away from ordinary people. How far is all this greed going to go?

And so here I sit, the first-generation American who loves the writings of Shakespeare, Thomas Paine, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Zora Neal Hurston and Martin Luther King Jr., and who feels compelled to examine critically what is happening in this land where my parents chose to bring me into the world. They are both gone now. I cannot ask them what they think of what is happening here and now. I know from many conversations with other immigrants’ kids, that there are many of us with questions about what is unfolding in America. Maybe because we have grown up with stories of other countries and the lives our relatives live there, we are still able to take a hard look at what America claims to be versus what it actually is. Once I thought that the strongest American heart and its most passionate dreamers could be found in immigrant communities. In part, I continue to believe that. But these days I also think that many immigrants spend more and more time facing the difficult realities that America brings to them.

We are a country of immigrants. All our stories are a little good and a little bad in one way or another. None of us were perfect when we got here and we’re certainly not perfect now. If only we could bring that same sense of acceptance about our country’s imperfections to the way in which we approach its problems. If we could look at the dark and light in our country—honestly and with a rigorous attention—I think we might design ways to do a little better within our borders and in our actions overseas.


If these thoughts are shocking or insulting to anyone reading this, I promise that I have not written in this way with the desire to create offense. No, I hope to spark thoughtfulness, and new ideas.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Citizen Comments Deflected--Civil Disobedience Must Follow

“Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time.” 
 Thomas Paine, The Age Of Reason

“When it shall be said in any country in the world my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, there may that country boast its Constitution and its Government” 
 Thomas Paine, Rights Of Man

A tweet from  Jenn Walling, of the Illinois Environmental Council:  "My favorite part of today was my hair looked amazing..."  (5pm on day of her House testimony regarding fracking regulation bill, SB1715)

On May 22, 2013 the Executive Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives unanimously passed SB1715, the so-called fracking regulation bill. The full House is expected to vote on the measure before the end of May. The committee vote reflects a common reality in 21st century American politics: committees allow the expressions of majority citizen opinions in strong opposition to a bill but know full well that corporate opinions on the issue will trump any evidence concerned citizens might present. In other words, free speech in America has become our version of the bread and circuses that Rome provided for its suffering citizens. When free speech of U.S. citizens is discounted in arena after arena—and when corporate desires prevail again and again—American citizens’s first amendment right becomes a sham. Careful viewing of Sandra Steingraber’s testimony before the House Executive Committee is an example of this current reality.

At the May 22nd hearing, scientist and writer Sandra Steingraber presented powerful evidence refuting claims in support of SB1715 by Jen Walling of the Illinois Environmental Council, Mary Morrisey, Deputy of Chief of Staff for the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, and Mark Denzler, spokesman for the Illinois Manufacturing Association. The hearing room was packed with citizens opposing the bill. Steingraber’s testimony was strong enough to set mouths into tense lines of disapproval for all four of the pro-fracking witnesses (John Bradley is hidden behind Mark Denzler in the photo below).

Photos thanks to EcoWatch, “After One Arrest, Sit In Continues Demanding Moratorium on Fracking,” May 22, 2013, http://ecowatch.com/2013/after-one-arrest-sit-in-continues-demanding-moratorium-on-fracking/. The video can be seen at “Testimony by Dr. Sandra Steingraber on Illinois Fracking Regulatory Bill” on YouTube.


 


The House sponsor of SB1715, John Bradley of Marion, found Steingraber’s words so difficult to listen to that his head drooped, in frustration or shame, as she spoke. Notice the dark-haired woman in the gallery, to the upper left in the photo, who is staring intently as he hangs his head.







When Steingraber’s excoriating testimony continued for longer than Bradley seemed willing to endure, he actually looked up at the Executive Committee chair, and later toward someone seated slightly above him to his left, as if asking for someone on the committee to end his torment. Notice how interested Jen Walling and Mark Denzler seem to be in his attempt to communicate, albeit silently, with the committee member. Shortly after Bradley’s wordless appeal, the committee chair informed Steingraber that her time was up.





At the conclusion of witness testimony on the 22nd, the committee voted in favor of SB1715 and passed it on for a vote in the House. The members of Illinois House Executive Committee in 2013 include eight Democrats and five Republicans: Daniel J. Burke (23rd District in Chicago), Joseph M. Lyons (95th District in Chicago), Dan Brady (88th District in Bloomington), Edward J. Acevedo (2nd District in Chicago), Maria Antonia Berrios (39th District in Chicago), Bob Biggins (41st District in Elmhurst), Richard T. Bradley (40th District in Chicago), Brent Hassert (85th District in Romeoville), James H. Meyer (48th District in Naperville), Robert S. Molaro (95th District in Chicago), Robert Rita (95th District in Crestwood), Angelo Saviano (95th District in River Grove), Arthur L. Turner (95th District in Chicago). Of the thirteen members, only Dan Brady represents citizens outside of the greater Chicago area. Notice, too, that party affiliation provides no clue as to a representative's position on this environmental issue.

Five counties in southern Illinois have passed resolutions calling for a fracking ban in Illinois. None of these counties’s districts were represented on the Executive Committee. These counties are located in a part of Illinois where fracking would likely first appear, should SB1715 become law.

Citizens calling for a moratorium on fracking, or an outright ban, who attempted to meet with Governor Quinn about SB1715, received no admittance to the Governor’s office. He has already expressed his willingness to sign off on this bill that promises to regulate fracking, in spite of the fact that fracking has proven impossible to effectively regulate in every other U.S. state where it has secured a right to do business. Illinois citizens are already going to jail when their attempts to continue a peaceful protest outside the governor’s office are meeting with police attempts to remove them.

As they say in the world of professional gambling, “The fix is in, boys.” In other words, the Executive Committee was required by law to allow public testimony from those who registered to provide such comments, but the law does not require the committee to stay its course even if persuasive testimony against proposed law is brought before it. The committee can decide to find industry evidence more persuasive even when any reasonable person would wonder why evidence of pollution, health dangers, and the inability of other states to control fracking indicate that legislators should, at the very least, further study fracking before allowing the industry a foothold in Illinois.

Interestingly, the Illinois Sierra Club, after seeing the outpouring of public comment against SB1715 and considering Steingraber’s testimony, has reversed its position on the bill. The Illinois Sierra Club is now calling for a fracking moratorium in Illinois. In some arenas at least, a citizen’s right to freedom of speech has the potential to effect change. The Illinois Sierra Club is a major player in the state and its change in position could exert some influence on the course of the fracking bill. But the crucial reality to focus on is the cavalier way in which legislators now treat the protests of citizens.
In April, Sandra Steingraber commented in an interview with Bill Moyers that she now chooses to commit civil disobedience when fighting to keep fracking out of New York, the state where she currently lives. After pursuing, as she described it, “every legal avenue to raise serious health, economic and environmental concerns,” (http://personal.alternet.org/fracking/sandra-steingraber-issues-statement-being-led-jail-act-civil-disobedience-last-resort-me) Steingraber and two other activists, stepped onto a fracking storage company’s driveway and attempted to prevent operations at the plant. She was arrested and convicted for trespassing and, when she refused to pay the fine required by the court, she was sentenced to fifteen days in a New York jail and served eight of them. She seems to have realized that a citizen’s legal rights to express an opinion has no effect on the legislative process.
When a citizen’s First Amendment right to free speech becomes a way to make him or her feel, mistakenly, as if the act is part of the decision-making process in our country, when it becomes a way for citizens to stay occupied so they do not choose more active approaches, then our right to freedom of speech has become a way for the government to create a façade of democracy, even as corporate money and influence exert hidden power.
Steingraber’s turn toward civil disobedience has company in calls by Bill McKibben for activists to “peacefully but firmly” stand up to the Keystone XL pipeline. He aims to put thousands of protestors in the path of KXL, some of whom are willing to be arrested. His actions are founded on those of Martin Luther King, Jr. who protested the conditions faced by blacks in 1960’s Birmingham, Alabama. From jail, King wrote, “I am here because injustice is here. I would agree with Saint Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’” http://www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/king/aa_king_jail_2.html.

Just as laws can be unjust, the process whereby the laws are crafted can be unjust. Steingraber and McKibben and all citizens opposing current attempts by the oil and gas industry to wring a few more billion out of the world, having exhausted all legal means at their/our disposal, and must now follow in King, and Thoreau, and Ghandi’s footsteps. When free speech is deflected, civil disobedience must follow. The stakes are too high, for us, for our children, and for the planet to allow backroom deals and corporate/government collusion to prevail. Citizen speech that cannot influence government policy is a reality that insults the American people.  The people are marching now.
In a separate post today I will publish a point-by-point comparison of government promises regarding SB1715 and Illinois State University professor emeritus William Rau's analysis of how the bill will put the state of Illinois at risk. Please read and then join a civil disobedience action on this issue near you. Springfield on Tuesday should be jumpin'.