Private Property Sign
view larger

How ferocious!

How about trying transnational corporations for crimes of trespass against humanity and planet.

Starting with those that profit from war, environmental destruction, and other crimes against humanity!

[updated with segment from Democracy Now! and an additional comment.]

Regarding the discussion about Capitol Lake, it seems to me that the lake is unnatural and environmentally destructive. It seems to make sense that the correct way forward - the way that it ecologically correct (and therefore in the long-run also economically correct and socially just) - is to restore function to the natural estuarine ecosystem.

[Additional comment:
I think it's understandable, considering how industrialization has divorced us, as a society, from the natural world, how it would be difficult to imagine living - to imagine life - in an environment that comes complete within healthy ecosystems, to imagine life in a stable and productive ecosystem, an ecosystem that is teeming with life. It's a real contradiction with our present reality of ecological disease; at one time this area teemed with wildlife. For my part, I believe that to restore ecological health, vibrancy and vitality is an ideal to strive for.

Democracy Now! video below]

The following is a three part video series containing a speech by Mari Margil about law, environmental protection and regulation, and corporate power. After the videos there is an excerpt from and a link to a related article by Mari Margil from Yes! Magazine.

Video Description: The associate director of the Community Environmental Defense Fund (CELDF) describes the inspiring, groundbreaking work she and CELDF are doing to recognize Rights of Nature in law in both the U.S. and Ecuador, which recently became the worlds first nation to enshrine such rights in its constitution.

Part One:

Mari Margil Part 1 (of 3)

See Parts Two and Three

I am curious about this sign and the language used. Why does it read "cannot" be responsible? Why not say, more plainly, "is not" responsible?

In context, it might read, "We are not reponsible for car or contents."

Cannot be? Really?

Language is important. Call me persnickety if you want. But it is important. Language is very influential on, informative of, and integral to, culture. It is vital to be conscious of our words, and their effects.

When communicating, there is the intended message, the message that gets sent, and then the message that is received. Unfortunately, it is difficult to make all three match up. Patience is a virtue, and so is compassion. Listening and sharing honestly and openly is certainly helpful.

In the above example, "Is not" (or "are not") seems better, to me, than "cannot."

Peace, Berd

This is a "mouseover." Try dragging the cursor (of the computer you're using) over the photograph. Sometimes it takes a few moments for the images to load. Patience is a virtue.

This is a triple mouseover. Once "mouseovered" the initial image will disappear (until page reload):

This Property Under Surveillance

What do you think about putting banks under surveillance for harmful economic activities (unfair and discriminatory policies and practices, funding destructive economic activities, etc.)?

When government fails to regulate in a way that protects people and life against the abuses of powerful businesses and industries, then to whom, what, or where does the work of protection fall, or reside?

All people deserve to be treated fairly and equally. How can we put an end to harmful and destructive economic activity?