Thursday, June 9, 2016

Phrase of the Day: 20 MINUTES OF ACTION [Part 1 of 3]

Brock Turner, a Stanford University student was accused of raping a female in January of last year.  He went to trial ad was found guilty.  The presiding judge, Aaron Persky, handed down his sentence ... six months.  Just six months, and many are saying it is likely he will serve only half of that.

During the trial, the victim was allowed to read an impact statement.  It is a very long statement, but it is a powerful statement.  It is heartfelt.  It is gut-wrenching.  It is very raw.  It is very important reading.  It is a statement about the impact everything has had on her; it will impact you, as a reader, as well.

I am printing the letter in its entirety.  Part one of the letter is below, and part two will be in my next post (Part 2 of 3), which is also posted today.


Your honor,

If it is all right, for the majority of this statement I would like to address the defendant directly.


You don’t know me, but you've been inside me, and that’s why we’re here today.


On January 17th, 2015, it was a quiet Saturday night at home. My dad made some dinner and I sat at the table with my younger sister who was visiting for the weekend. I was working full time and it was approaching my bed time. I planned to stay at home by myself, watch some TV and read, while she went to a party with her friends. Then, I decided it was my only night with her, I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance weird like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister. On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there. I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college.


The next thing I remember I was in a gurney in a hallway. I had dried blood and bandages on the backs of my hands and elbow. I thought maybe I had fallen and was in an admin office on campus. I was very calm and wondering where my sister was. A deputy explained I had been assaulted. I still remained calm, assured he was speaking to the wrong person. I knew no one at this party. When I was finally allowed to use the restroom, I pulled down the hospital pants they had given me, went to pull down my underwear, and felt nothing. I still remember the feeling of my hands touching my skin and grabbing nothing. I looked down and there was nothing. The thin piece of fabric, the only thing between my vagina and anything else, was missing and everything inside me was silenced. I still don't have words for that feeling. In order to keep breathing, I thought maybe the policemen used scissors to cut them off for evidence.


Then, I felt pine needles scratching the back of my neck and started pulling them out my hair. I thought maybe, the pine needles had fallen from a tree onto my head. My brain was talking my gut into not collapsing. Because my gut was saying, help me, help me.


I shuffled from room to room with a blanket wrapped around me, pine needles trailing behind me, I left a little pile in every room I sat in. I was asked to sign papers that said “Rape Victim” and I thought something has really happened. My clothes were confiscated and I stood naked while the nurses held a ruler to various abrasions on my body and photographed them. The three of us worked to comb the pine needles out of my hair, six hands to fill one paper bag. To calm me down, they said it’s just the flora and fauna, flora and fauna. I had multiple swabs inserted into my vagina and anus, needles for shots, pills, had a nikon pointed right into my spread legs. I had long, pointed beaks inside me and had my vagina smeared with cold, blue paint to check for abrasions.


After a few hours of this, they let me shower. I stood there examining my body beneath the stream of water and decided, I don’t want my body anymore. I was terrified of it, I didn't know what had been in it, if it had been contaminated, who had touched it. I wanted to take off my body like a jacket and leave it at the hospital with everything else.


On that morning, all that I was told was that I had been found behind a dumpster, potentially penetrated by a stranger, and that I should get retested for HIV because results don’t always show up immediately. But for now, I should go home and get back to my normal life. Imagine stepping back into the world with only that information. They gave me huge hugs, and then I walked out of the hospital into the parking lot wearing the new sweatshirt and sweatpants they provided me, as they had only allowed me to keep my necklace and shoes.


My sister picked me up, face wet from tears and contorted in anguish. Instinctively and immediately, I wanted to take away her pain. I smiled at her, I told her to look at me, I’m right here, I’m okay, everything’s okay, I’m right here. My hair is washed and clean, they gave me the strangest shampoo, calm down, and look at me. Look at these funny new sweatpants and sweatshirt, I look like a P.E. teacher, let’s go home, let’s eat something. She did not know that beneath my sweats, I had scratches and bandages on my skin, my vagina was sore and had become a strange, dark color from all the prodding, my underwear was missing, and I felt too empty to continue to speak. That I was also afraid, that I was also devastated. That day we drove home and for hours my sister held me.


My boyfriend did not know what happened, but called that day and said, “I was really worried about you last night, you scared me, did you make it home okay?” I was horrified. That’s when I learned I had called him that night in my blackout, left an incomprehensible voicemail, that we had also spoken on the phone, but I was slurring so heavily he was scared for me, that he repeatedly told me to go find my sister. Again, he asked me, “What happened last night? Did you make it home okay?” I said yes, and hung up to cry.


I was not ready to tell my boyfriend or parents that actually, I may have been raped behind a dumpster, but I don’t know by who or when or how. If I told them, I would see the fear on their faces, and mine would multiply by tenfold, so instead I pretended the whole thing wasn't real.


I tried to push it out of my mind, but it was so heavy I didn't talk, I didn't eat, I didn't sleep, I didn't interact with anyone. After work, I would drive to a secluded place to scream. I didn't talk, I didn't eat, I didn't sleep, I didn't interact with anyone, and I became isolated from the ones I loved most. For one week after the incident, I didn't get any calls or updates about that night or what happened to me. The only symbol that proved that it hadn't just been a bad dream, was the sweatshirt from the hospital in my drawer.


One day, I was at work, scrolling through the news on my phone, and came across an article. In it, I read and learned for the first time about how I was found unconscious, with my hair disheveled, long necklace wrapped around my neck, bra pulled out of my dress, dress pulled off over my shoulders and pulled up above my waist, that I was butt naked all the way down to my boots, legs spread apart, and had been penetrated by a foreign object by someone I did not recognize. This was how I learned what happened to me, sitting at my desk reading the news at work. I learned what happened to me the same time everyone else in the world learned what happened to me. That’s when the pine needles in my hair made sense, they didn't fall from a tree. He had taken off my underwear, his fingers had been inside of me. I don’t even know this person. I still don’t know this person. When I read about me like this, I said, this can’t be me.  This can’t be me. I could not digest or accept any of this information. I could not imagine my family having to read about this online. I kept reading. In the next paragraph, I read something that I will never forgive; I read that according to him, I liked it. I liked it. Again, I do not have words for these feelings.


At the bottom of the article, after I learned about the graphic details of my own sexual assault, the article listed his swimming times. She was found breathing, unresponsive with her underwear six inches away from her bare stomach curled in fetal position. By the way, he’s really good at swimming. Throw in my mile time if that’s what we’re doing. I’m good at cooking, put that in there, I think the end is where you list your extra-curriculars to cancel out all the sickening things that've happened.


The night the news came out I sat my parents down and told them that I had been assaulted, to not look at the news because it’s upsetting, just know that I’m okay, I’m right here, and I’m okay. But halfway through telling them, my mom had to hold me because I could no longer stand up. I was not okay.


The night after it happened, he said he didn't know my name, said he wouldn't be able to identify my face in a lineup, didn't mention any dialogue between us, no words, only dancing and kissing. Dancing is a cute term; was it snapping fingers and twirling dancing, or just bodies grinding up against each other in a crowded room? I wonder if kissing was just faces sloppily pressed up against each other? When the detective asked if he had planned on taking me back to his dorm, he said no. When the detective asked how we ended up behind the dumpster, he said he didn't know. He admitted to kissing other girls at that party, one of whom was my own sister who pushed him away. He admitted to wanting to hook up with someone. I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me. Sometimes I think, if I hadn't gone, then this never would've happened. But then I realized, it would have happened, just to somebody else. You were about to enter four years of access to drunk girls and parties, and if this is the foot you started off on, then it is right you did not continue.


The night after it happened, he said he thought I liked it because I rubbed his back. A back rub. Never mentioned me voicing consent, never mentioned us speaking, a back rub.


One more time, in public news, I learned that my ass and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body. But I don’t remember, so how do I prove I didn’t like it.


I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on. Instead, I was told he hired a powerful attorney, expert witnesses, private investigators who were going to try and find details about my personal life to use against me, find loopholes in my story to invalidate me and my sister, in order to show that this sexual assault was in fact a misunderstanding. That he was going to go to any length to convince the world he had simply been confused.


I was not only told that I was assaulted, I was told that because I couldn’t remember, I technically could not prove it was unwanted. And that distorted me, damaged me, almost broke me. It is the saddest type of confusion to be told I was assaulted and nearly raped, blatantly out in the open, but we don’t know if it counts as assault yet. I had to fight for an entire year to make it clear that there was something wrong with this situation.


When I was told to be prepared in case we didn't win, I said, I can’t prepare for that. He was guilty the minute I woke up. No one can talk me out of the hurt he caused me. Worst of all, I was warned, because he now knows you don’t remember, he is going to get to write the script. He can say whatever he wants and no one can contest it. I had no power, I had no voice, I was defenseless. My memory loss would be used against me. My testimony was weak, was incomplete, and I was made to believe that perhaps, I am not enough to win this. That’s so damaging. His attorney constantly reminded the jury, the only one we can believe is Brock, because she doesn't remember. That helplessness was traumatizing.


Instead of taking time to heal, I was taking time to recall the night in excruciating detail, in order to prepare for the attorney’s questions that would be invasive, aggressive, and designed to steer me off course, to contradict myself, my sister, phrased in ways to manipulate my answers. Instead of his attorney saying, Did you notice any abrasions? He said, You didn't notice any abrasions, right? This was a game of strategy, as if I could be tricked out of my own worth. The sexual assault had been so clear, but instead, here I was at the trial, answering question like:


How old are you? How much do you weigh? What did you eat that day? Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No, not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink? Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly? What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’ d you do when you got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that? What does this text mean? Who were you texting? When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside? Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring. Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you black out? Did you party at frats? Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, we’ll let Brock fill it in.


I was pummeled with narrowed, pointed questions that dissected my personal life, love life, past life, family life, inane questions, accumulating trivial details to try and find an excuse for this guy who didn't even take the time to ask me for my name, who had me naked a handful of minutes after seeing me. After a physical assault, I was assaulted with questions designed to attack me, to say see, her facts don’t line up, she’s out of her mind, she’s practically an alcoholic, she probably wanted to hook up, he’s like an athlete right, they were both drunk, whatever, the hospital stuff she remembers is after the fact, why take it into account, Brock has a lot at stake so he’s having a really hard time right now.


And then it came time for him to testify. This is where I became revictimized. I want to remind you, the night after it happened he said he never planned to take me back to his dorm. He said he didn't know why we were behind a dumpster. He got up to leave because he wasn't feeling well when he was suddenly chased and attacked. Then he learned I could not remember.


So one year later, as predicted, a new dialogue emerged. Brock had a strange new story, almost sounded like a poorly written young adult novel with kissing and dancing and hand holding and lovingly tumbling onto the ground, and most importantly in this new story, there was suddenly consent. One year after the incident, he remembered, oh yeah, by the way she actually said yes, to everything, so.


He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He’d asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, Can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission. He's in the clear.


Even in this story, there’s barely any dialogue; I only said a total of three words before he had me half naked on the ground. I have never been penetrated after three words. He didn't claim to hear me speak one full sentence that night, so in the news when it says we “met”, I’m not sure I would go so far as to say that. Future reference, if you are confused about whether a girl can consent, see if she can speak an entire sentence. You couldn't even do that. Just one coherent string of words. If she can't do that, then no. Don’t touch her, just no. Not maybe, just no. Where was the confusion? This is common sense, human decency.


According to him, the only reason we were on the ground was because I fell down. Note; if a girl falls help her get back up. If she is too drunk to even walk and falls, do not mount her, hump her, take off her underwear, and insert your hand inside her vagina. If a girl falls help her up. If she is wearing a cardigan over her dress don't take it off so that you can touch her breasts. Maybe she is cold, maybe that's why she wore the cardigan. If her bare ass and legs are rubbing the pinecones and needles, while the weight of you pushes into her, get off her.


Next in the story, two people approached you. You ran because you said you felt scared. I argue that you were scared because you’d be caught, not because you were scared of two terrifying Swedish grad students. The idea that you thought you were being attacked out of the blue was ludicrous. That it had nothing to do with you being on top my unconscious body. You were caught red handed, with no explanation. When they tackled you why didn't say, “Stop! Everything’s okay, go ask her, she’s right over there, she’ll tell you.” I mean you had just asked for my consent, right? I was awake, right? When the policeman arrived and interviewed the evil Swede who tackled you, he was crying so hard he couldn't speak because of what he’d seen. Also, if you really did think they were dangerous, you just abandoned a half-naked girl to run and save yourself. No matter which way you frame it, it doesn't make sense.


Your attorney has repeatedly pointed out, well we don’t know exactly when she became unconscious. And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn't completely limp yet, fine. His guilt did not depend on him knowing the exact second that I became unconscious, that is never what this was about. I was slurring, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place. Brock stated, “At no time did I see that she was not responding. If at any time I thought she was not responding, I would have stopped immediately.” Here’s the thing; if your plan was to stop only when I was literally unresponsive, then you still do not understand. You didn't even stop when I was unconscious anyway! Someone else stopped you. Two guys on bikes noticed I wasn't moving in the dark and had to tackle you. How did you not notice while on top of me?


You said, you would have stopped and gotten help. You say that, but I want you to explain how you would’ve helped me, step by step, walk me through this. I want to know, if those evil Swedes had not found me, how the night would have played out. I am asking you; Would you have pulled my underwear back on over my boots? Untangled the necklace wrapped around my neck? Closed my legs, covered me? Tucked my bra back into my dress? Would you have helped me pick the needles from my hair? Asked if the abrasions on my neck and bottom hurt? Would you then go find a friend and say, Will you help me get her somewhere warm and soft? I don’t sleep when I think about the way it could have gone if the Swedes had never come. What would have happened to me? That’s what you’ll never have a good answer for, that’s what you can’t explain even after a year.


To sit under oath and inform all of us, that yes I wanted it, yes I permitted it, and that you are the true victim attacked by guys for reasons unknown to you is sick, is demented, is selfish, is stupid. It shows that you were willing to go to any length, to discredit me, invalidate me, and explain why it was okay to hurt me. You tried unyieldingly to save yourself, your reputation, at my expense.


My family had to see pictures of my head strapped to a gurney full of pine needles, of my body in the dirt with my eyes closed, dress hiked up, limbs limp in the dark. And then even after that, my family had to listen to your attorney say, the pictures were after the fact, we can dismiss them. To say, yes her nurse confirmed there was redness and abrasions inside her, but that’s what happens when you finger someone, and he’s already admitted to that. To listen to him use my own sister against me. To listen him attempt to paint of a picture of me, the seductive party animal, as if somehow that would make it so that I had this coming for me. To listen to him say I sounded drunk on the phone because I’m silly and that’s my goofy way of speaking. To point out that in the voicemail, I said I would reward my boyfriend and we all know what I was thinking. I assure you my rewards program is non-transferable, especially to any nameless man that approaches me.


The point is, this is everything my family and I endured during the trial. This is everything I had to sit through silently, taking it, while he shaped the evening. It is enough to be suffering. It is another thing to have someone ruthlessly working to diminish the gravity and validity of this suffering. But in the end, his unsupported statements and his attorney’s twisted logic fooled no one. The truth won, the truth spoke for itself.




Part two
The second half of the victim's letter
Terry

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Word of the Day: RAPE

No doubt, the title of today's entry caught your attention.  The subject is a serious one, the act itself far worse.  What I want to address today is a recent news story that is, at the very least, terrifying.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on a 2014 decision from a lower court regarding a case against a seventeen-year-old boy.  He had been charged with the rape of a sixteen-year-old girl who became unconscious after drinking too much at a party.  The charged youth drove the girl to her grandmother's house from the party, and witnesses at the party where she and the boy had been drinking testified that she had to be carried to his car.  The girl was taken to a nearby hospital afterward, where it was determined that her blood-alcohol level was more than four times the legal limit.

One of the examinations done at the hospital was for sexual assault, which resulted in the boy's DNA being discovered on the back of the girl's leg and around her mouth.  The boy claimed the girl consented to oral sex; the girl said she remembered nothing after leaving the party.  A lower court threw out the case, and the state's Court of Appeals ruled on March 24th that the lower court was correct in its decision because the forcible sodomy law on the books was inapplicable to the case.

Why?   Because the girl was unconscious.  Yes, you read that right ... the law was inapplicable because the girl was unable (in this case, by means of intoxication) to give her consent.

Part of the Court of Appeals ruling stated:
          "Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be
          completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation"


The Court of Appeals stated the law's wording as the reason for its decision.  The law states several situations where applied force is defined and therefore fall under the law's purview. Being intoxicated is not listed as one of those situations.

For clarification, "sodomy" apparently includes oral sex in legal terms.  I had always thought it was strictly related to anal sex, but it appears to include both when dealing with legality.  I am unsure if that is true in all fifty states, but that seems to be the case at least here.  In this case, the boy had been charged with both first-degree rape and forcible oral sodomy.

So, let me get this straight, if someone is given a drug, physically knocked out, or physically restrained to the point where he or she cannot give consent, that is rape ... BUT if that same person is so intoxicated as to be unconscious, oral sex is just fine?  I thought consent is consent, period.  The lack of it is rape.  As a scorecard, I would list it as:
Consent = consent
Stated non-consent = non-consent
Inability to respond = non-consent

Oklahoma's scorecard is clearly different than mine.

State Representative Scott Biggs has already amended a bill he introduced in the State legislature to serve as a fix to what he calls a "court-created loophole".  While Rep. Biggs was correct when he stated that "legal minds often get stuck on question of semantics, when it is clear to most of us what the intent of the law is", some bigger issues also come into question.

First, how many other states have this kind of legalese parsing, or even flat-out omissions, in their laws regarding rape?  Is Oklahoma's rape law a unique situation unto itself, or does that wording exist anywhere else in the union?  Didn't we go through this with former President Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinski scandal?  "I did not have sexual relations" as a means to say that oral sex is not sex.  Ten to fifteen years ago, kids in grade schools and high schools were saying the same thing. (Maybe they still are.)

Second, rape is rape, regardless if it's vaginal, anal, or oral.  The laws of this country, from state to state, should be in sync on this matter.  There should be no tolerance for any differences on this matter, including omission of wording, as with Oklahoma's law's exclusion of unconsciousness from intoxication.  While Rep. Biggs is on point about the intent of the law, why was unconsciousness from intoxication not included in the law's wording in the first place?

Third, to the point of the omission in Oklahoma's law, there is the question of the treatment of women.  As stated in Oklahoma's law, if you get someone drunk enough that they pass out, oral sex is legal.  This comes down to a lack of conformity on the idea of rape is rape as well as women's legal status.  (Yes, this can negatively affect men who are raped, too.)

Just like how the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling on abortion in Roe v. Wade has been attacked legally over the years (including recent state-by-state attacks on Planned Parenthood) ... just like its ruling last year on same-sex marriage is being attacked legally (and also in terms of equal rights for all LGBT persons in general) ... what does the Oklahoma case say about us as a society, in terms of legality, about women?

To take this a step further, the idea of rape itself is such a taboo subject that victims are, many times, re-victimized after reporting a rape.  This enforces the idea that rape victims should just shut up and move on, which, in turn, enforces the idea of silence as acceptance (consent).  Rapes that are reported are often seen as "always" or "mostly" fabricated stories or solely the female's fault.  What happened to the then-sixteen-year-old girl in Oklahoma is just one example of this kind of negligence, ignorance, and turning a blind eye.  It is our duty to recognize rape for what it is, legally, socially, institutionally, etc.

It is also important keep in mind comments such as West Virginia Representative Brian Kurcaba's stating that having a child from rape can be "beautiful"; and former Missouri Representative Todd Akin's comment about what constitutes a "legitimate" rape: "the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down", citing pregnancies from rape are rare. Therefore, Mr. Akin, I guess a pregnancy from a rape makes the rape, what, illegitimate??? So, no pregnancy from a rape implies the rapist's inculpability, but a pregnancy from a rape is cause to move forward with prosecution??? Sounds like a Salem Witch Trial type of litmus test to me.

Also, take note that the comments above were made by men.


Just like trying to suggest that oral sex is not really sex, this is a chipping away at the very definition, at least legally, of what constitutes rape.  If a woman cannot give consent and oral sex is okay in one state in the union, that sets up a precedent for other states to follow suit.  Once that first crack in the wall takes place, more cracks can come along.  Just like trying to overturn Roe v. Wade or fighting on varying levels against equal rights for gay persons, this is no different.  Legalese, parsing words, chipping, chipping, chipping away . . .

Rape is rape.

Terry

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Word of the Day: SOCIALISMS

For anyone familiar with various political and economic structures, the title of this post, Socialisms, with the "s" at the end might seem unusual.  We are used to seeing the word in a singular form, but, in fact, the plural form is intentional here.  Just as there are various types of Christianity and various models of cars that a car manufacturer produces, so too there are various kinds of socialism. 

In this country, the term "socialism" is not a well-received one.  A current Democratic candidate for President here in America, Senator Bernie Sanders, has raised this issue, and it is getting mixed results in the media in terms of its definition.  Mostly, the definition of it has been lacking or has been negative, even equating it with communism. 

This is not an endorsement of Senator Sanders' candidacy, but I thought some good ol' compare and contrast might be helpful.  After all, people are encouraged to be informed voters.

Let us begin with socialism itself.  The very word conjures up images of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, and even Fidel Castro, among others.  Interestingly, though, many of these leaders used socialist ideas as a means to the end of communism in their respective countries.  Lenin's, Stalin's, and Castro's rule was communist.  Karl Marx's theory was, to a small degree, leaning more toward socialism, but was vastly adopted by communist leaderships.  It included the "labor theory of value" (determining the value of something on the labor needed to produce it rather than the pleasure derived by the owner/recipient), dialectical materialism (class struggles are caused by material needs), and the necessity of a dictatorship in the establishment of a classless society.

To that extent, let us look at some definitions.  Before starting, let me note that the term "private property" is, under Socialism, a misnomer.  The singular "private property" would be replaced with the duality of "social/communal property" and "personal property".   For example, a communal bike, or bicycle sharing system, which is used for daily commuting, seen throughout the world, including several U.S. states, would be considered "social/communal property".  The car you bought and use for going to work, running errands, recreating, etc., would be considered "personal property".  Thus, characterizations that Socialism means no one owns anything are false.

Now, to begin, the definition of Communism:

state-owned property and resources -- often called "communally-owned", via the removal of all privately-owned property -- by a totalitarian governing body. 
Marxism, which is often called simply Socialism, can also be referred to as Marxist Socialism or even "economic Socialism".  Forms of Communism include Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism and Dengism, and Anarchist, among others.

Just like Communism, Socialism also has variations.  Let us look at the definition of Socialism:
property and distribution of wealth is controlled by the workers, either via representative bodies (i.e. councils, boards, committees) or by communally-designated entities of the state.  Equality of all individuals and democratic, non-violent governance are keystones of Socialism. 

Senator Sanders' form of Socialism, Democratic Socialism, advocates, "Everyone has a say in allocation, not a few, and the needs of the masses, not the few, are paramount."  It is not, as some
have been purporting, the taking of money and property from people and just giving it out, willy nilly, to others.  "It is not a Robin Hood-like money grab.  It is using the monies and resources that are already there and using them for everyone, for the betterment of everyone, and so that everyone in society has a fair shot." 

Let us look at varying types of Socialism.  (We will look at the brand of Socialism that that Senator Sanders
advocates last.)
Christian Socialism is purported by those on the Christian left -- how often do we ever hear about them? -- who believe in politics with an indivisible connection between Christian left beliefs and socialist philosophies, citing the egalitarian and anti-establishment message of Jesus.
Eco-Socialism is a blending of some of the elements of Green Politics, ecological and environmentalism, Socialism, Marxism, and anti-globalization, advocating communal ownership via the peaceful dismantling of Capitalism and the State.
Libertarian Socialism is a non-hierarchical form of society and politics, where authoritarianism and private property are abolished.  Some strands of Anarchism can be found in strains of this thought.
Market Socialism is based on a "market economy" -- economic decisions and market pricing are solely determined by supply-and-demand -- run by socialist leadership.
Utopian Socialism is a form of socialism where a perfect Utopian society would exist, without much attention given to the means by which it would be attained, aside from using peaceful means in all endeavors.

The brand of Socialism advocated by Senator Bernie Sanders is Democratic Socialism.  It is the use of the economic principle of Socialism (control of the means of production is in the hands of the people) AND the governing principle of democracy, not either/or, and all attained by peaceful means.  It is reformist in its methodology, which is to say that it advocates gradual means of change over time.

In fact Sanders has said the following about Democratic Socialism:

"poverty is absolutely unnecessary"
"international relations are not based on greed...but on cooperation"
"creating a nation, and a world, in which all...have a decent standard of living"
"it means democracy, frankly...that's all it means to me"


It is interesting to note, given all of the cries against Socialism, that three strongly-liked government programs here in the United States, Social Security, Medicare, and welfare, are all, at their very core, socialist programs.  Other things that have also been labeled as "socialist" include job programs, banking regulations, and Unemployment Insurance.  Many of the things that unions fought for (i.e. 40-hour work week, ending child labor, collective bargaining) have been labeled the same.  There are aspects of the U.S. that are already socialist, which some will acknowledge and some will disavow. 

And so, for anyone interested in an informed voter, I have offered the above as to what Bernie Sanders' position really is, given the loaded history the word carries.  It is not an emergence of an American Stalin, Marx, or Lenin.

Terry

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Name of the Day: NORTHERN PERUVIAN PIPELINE

© AmazonWatch.org

It seems as though a theme of water is running through my latest posts.  My last few posts focused on the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.  Today, my focus is on Peru, specifically the waters connected to the mighty Amazon River.  It is a story that appears to be getting no national attention here in America and little attention globally.

Petroperú, a state-owned petroleum company in existence for nearly fifty years, is at the center of this crisis.  Just two days ago, on February 18, Peru's Ministry of Health declared a water quality emergency, stemming from two oil spills from the company's Northern Peruvian Pipeline.  The first was on January 25 (in the Bagua province of the Amazonas region) and the second was on February 3 (in the Datem del Marañon province of the Loreto region).  That same day, shortly after the Ministry of Health declared the water quality emergency, it was announced that a third oil spill (in the Jaén province of the Cajamarca region) was found the day before, on February 17.
That makes three oil spills in the Amazon region this year alone -- three oil spills in less than four weeks.

Petroperú has been fined the maximum under law, 12,640,000 soles (approximately US$3,600,000), which does not include the actual costs for correcting the situation.  The fine is specifically for Petroperú not having the proper facilities required to maintain the pipeline. The Agency for Assessment and Environmental Control (Organismo de Evaluación y Fiscalización Ambiental, or OEFA) says that Petroperú has to not only take measures to properly maintain existing pipelines and relative equipment, but also to formulate and implement a plan to improve protecting all surrounding areas through which the pipeline runs.  While the OEFA says that the leaks were due to failures in maintaining pipelines, Petroperú maintains that they were the result of "natural causes".

Perhaps the "natural causes" included the pipeline's age, over forty years old, which would mandate regular, proper maintenance.

While the oil company gives no numbers, local leaders are stating that up to 2,000 barrels of crude oil have leaked out of the pipeline; some reports put it as high as 3,000 barrels.  Results from water samples taken by the OEFA should be ready next month.  The oil spill, which started in the Chiriaco River, a major tributary of the Marañon River, has spread to the Marañon.  Excessive rainfall causing the waters to rise about barriers put in place by Petroperú resulted in the oil spill spreading.

The Marañon River is a major water source in Peru, snaking through much of the eastern portion of the country's Andes Mountains (the upper Amazon River region) and across the northern part of the country.  It supplies water for thousands of indigenous peoples and lots of wildlife.  It is easy to see how an oil spill of this magnitude can be catastrophic.

It has been estimated that the damage to the water, the land, and wildlife will take approximately a year to correct itself after human cleanup efforts.  An ongoing problem is to the indigenous peoples who live in the areas of affected water.  If the water is undrinkable, any wildlife who drink the water, as well as the fish in the water, will die.  If the wildlife dies and is poisoned, that is less food for people to eat.  If you cannot use water for farming, you cannot grow crops, resulting in less food and herbs than can be harvested.  If you cannot bathe in the water, personal hygiene levels begin to drop, increasing the likelihood of disease.  If you cannot drink the water, the body does not get one of its most basic needs, and so on.  What you get are scenes like these:

Petroperú's troubles with their Northern Peruvian Pipeline are nothing recent.  Two years ago, the same pipeline had five breaks in it over the course of roughly six months.  There have been more prior to that, but damages of the Peruvian and specifically Amazonian ecosystems from oil drilling and pumping (and previously bolstered by the government) have occurred since the 1970s.  It does make one wonder if, as the projections go, it takes up to a year for the environment to recover, how long have decades of these events affected the environment over the long haul?  Even if the projections are for the immediately-affected areas, water does travel, so the point of a spill can be marked, but its effects, if not contained, go far beyond that point.

Last week, Peruvian President Ollanta Humala stated, "We can't have this uncertainty that a breach can occur at any time.  There needs to be maintenance work and monitoring of the pipeline."  How true!  In the search for oil, there is, indeed, much uncertainty, as proven time and time again in various parts of the world.  This is why so many individuals and groups are against drilling in sensitive areas (i.e. off-shore from coastal towns, the Alaskan Arctic Refuge).  There is, and has been, more than enough good reason to oppose it.

There is, in fact, only one certainty at this point: profits over protection guarantees that these kinds of environmental disasters will continue unless some far-reaching, serious changes are put in place and vigorously enforced.

Terry

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Measurement of the Day: PARTS PER BILLION [Part 3 of 3]

[This is the concluding part of my three-part series on the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.] 

PART 3 
–– GETTING WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER

As noted yesterday in the An American Disaster: The Crisis in Flint town hall videos, the issuance of water filters throughout was not a bad step -- it certainly made sense to do so -- but likely an insufficient one. That has been part of the problem in Flint: responding too little, too late ... or not at all. Digging up the city's piping infrastructure should have already been under way; it hasn't.

Another part of this is governance.  Specifically, it has to do with cutting out those who are directly affected in these kinds of situations, leaving them with no voice.  This is not a case of a water main bursting or a problem with the machinery at a water treatment plant.  Those are emergency situations that are just dealt with.  It may be worded in contracts that such actions will be taken in those situations, but it is, nonetheless, seen a given that it will happen.  No weighing in by the residents is required.

However, when an appointment is made -- in this case, Governor Snyder's multiple Emergency Managers -- and those appointed can take steps that directly affect a city without the people saying yes or no to those steps, then that is no longer a democratic state.  When an emergency arises, as was the case in Flint financially, it is all well and good to appoint someone to fix the problem, with preferably using decisions made on his or her own very sparingly.  When that fix affects people adversely and they are cut out of the equation, it leaves open the possibility for far worse problems to arise ... problems, for example, like those in Flint.  The result is those affected have no say, no recourse.

In my home state of New Jersey, something with some broad similarities to the debacle in Flint had its first step put in to effect recently. Just over a week ago, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Republican presidential candidate, signed into law the Water Infrastructure Protection Act.  (In reality, it should have been called the Water Infrastructure Profiteering Act).  It allows fast-tracking of the selling of water systems all over the state to private companies, supposedly to get more revenue into the system to repair water systems.  Almost all of New Jersey's water systems are in an "emergency status", desperately needing repair.  Opponents to the bill say it will create increased water bills of customers as a result of these private companies passing along the costs of repairs.

This bill is not a recent thing.  Six years ago, Trenton, New Jersey's capital, voted against privatizing its water system by a whopping 4-1 vote.  In a referendum vote during the 2014 mid-term elections, residents in a tiny borough in Sussex County also voted overwhelmingly to reject a sale of its water system to private companies, while residents in the town of Haddonfield voted in favor of such a move.

The broad, and eerie, similarity?  Residents, under the Water Infrastructure Protection Act, get no say in these decisions.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's office just released 11,000 pages of E-mails that were sent among various parties regarding the situation in Flint, after a request under the Freedom of Information Act. (Nothing like some light reading for the weekend.)  If you wish to look at the related documents, you can find them here.

At his State of the State speech on January 19 of this year, Gov. Snyder said he would release more E-mails relative to the crisis in Flint; he did so the next day.  It was not the 11,000-page data dump that just happened, but it was over 270 pages then.  While it remains to be seen what the recent release reveals, the January release showed a clear intent of the Snyder administration to wash its hands of any culpability.  Gov. Snyder's former Chief of Staff, Dennis Muchmore, wrote that the people of Flint were responding "by looking for someone to blame instead of working to reduce anxiety" and trying to "shift responsibility to the state".  Gov. Snyder also wrote, on a separate date, that he was unaware of two children who were being monitored due to high blood-lead levels.

While no date has been set, Gov. Snyder will testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee on the crisis in Flint, after accepting an offer from committee chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz.  (Snyder has claimed that he requested the opportunity.)  Another person testifying at the hearing will be Gina McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.  In addition, investigations are under way by both Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Another problem in this debacle is financial.  Not the financial crisis that brought about the appointment of an Emergency Manager, but an individual and city-wide financial crisis.  Just from a purely consumer level, you would not want to pay, or keep paying, for a defective product, would you?  Of course not.  As a commodity, the water provided is paid for, to whatever extent, in each and every town in the U.S., by that town's  residents ... namely, water bills.  Water that poisons people (especially children permanently), corrodes pipes, and is unsafe to use, is, in essence, a defective product. And yet, Flint residents have received, and continue to receive, bills for water that they were told they cannot use.


© Associated Press
(** NOTE: In the above video, the dollar amount of the proposed bill is stated as $3,000,000. Several other news sources state that the dollar amount is, in fact, $30,000,000.)

The bill, which would be used for reimbursement relief, did pass the state Senate earlier this month -- as of this posting, the state House has yet to act on it -- but Gov. Snyder, who put forth the bill, did so as part of the state's 2016-2017 fiscal year budget.  The 2016-2017 fiscal year doesn't begin until October 1st.

Representatives of the EPA who are on-site in Flint said, as of a week ago, that the water in Flint is beginning to get better, but their sampling has been far more limited at this point.  They relayed results of water samples taken from ten different homes, highlighting eight of those results -- eight out of over 51,000 residences city-wide -- with water-lead levels varying from very low or negligible to 400 ppb.  (Remember, the safe limit is 15 ppb.)  Such a small sampling is a good sign, but hardly a cause for relief.

There has been a case made that this crisis was the result of institutional racism, as Flint's population is mostly black.  I believe there is a valid argument there, but I would also say, without attempting to discount such claims, that what has happened to Flint is also the result of institutional classism.  If you look at other cities in Michigan where the Governor has appointed Emergency Managers (i.e. Detroit, Saginaw, Pontiac), you will find that their populations are also mostly black.  (Detroit, over 80%; Saginaw, around 45%; Pontiac, over 50%.)  You will also find that those same cities are economically struggling, often termed as "economically depressed".

In other words, if you are not white or are not financially well-off, whether an individual or a whole city, too bad.  Whether you call it racism or classism, both are correct and either one, let alone both, is utterly unacceptable.

I think there are several individuals and entities at fault here.  One would be the EPA.  While they are now part of the solution, their jumping into action when they initially should have (by simply going on the word of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) was unnecessarily delayed.  The MDEQ is highly to blame for its absence of attention and outright lying about the crisis, as are all of the Emergency Managers appointed to Flint.  An interesting side note: Flint's fourth and final EM, Darnell Earley, said that the Flint City Council was to blame for switching to Flint River water, not him. (Now, remember, Flint City Council votes on this matter held no authority under the Emergency Manager, and, in fact, no such vote ever took place.)

And then, there is Governor Rick Snyder, who executed and presided over the systematic dismantling of democracy by saying with his actions that, in effect, those who should have had a say, did not.  The investigations by state Attorney General Bill Schuette and the U.S. Department of Justice may result in multiple charges being brought against Snyder and others.

Yes, there is more than enough blame to go around.  What remains, however, is the population of Flint.  Children, how many is not yet known, are/will be permanently harmed.  Other residents have been, and continue to be, harmed, inconvenienced, and disenfranchised.  That should never, under any circumstances, be acceptable.  What happened in Flint is immoral and unethical.  What happened in Flint is a man-made disaster and a crisis for Flint, as well as a dark hour for Michigan, for politics in general, and for the United States as a whole.


Here are some steps that need to happen: Mayor Karen Weaver and the Flint City Council must get all of its authority restored.  That has happened, somewhat.  The Receivership Transition Advisory Board, first put into place in April of last year, granted limited powers to be returned to Mayor Weaver only three weeks ago, but it is limited and has the mayor still answering to the Board.  There exists a proposed Board resolution to grant the mayor authority to appoint a City Administrator and the heads of all of Flint's executive departments, with all of those individuals reporting to the mayor.  That resolution has not yet been brought up for a vote by the Board.

A shake-up at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality must take place in order to get more responsible individuals doing their jobs properly in place.  By saying "more responsible", I mean more responsible to the residents, not politicians.

Another step that is far overdue is replacing piping and service lines throughout the city of Flint.  As you saw in yesterday's town hall videos, there are ample people in place to do it, but the state must give the green light first.  That, still, has not happened.

Ongoing distribution of water filters, and replacement filters for inside them, needs to be maintained. Residents must continue to use them until the water is safe to drink and use.  (Of course, the residents there do not need me to tell them that.)

All the residents of Flint, at least all of the children, must be monitored on an ongoing basis, seeing as they were poisoned.  To what extent -- how many and how severely -- is unknown, but what is already in place must be expanded.  If a monetary fund, as is being requested, is required to do that, then establish that fund.

The stepping down of Governor Rick Snyder also needs to happen.  He is attempting to strike a noble pose by saying the problem happened under his watch and he wants to be part of its resolution.  If he created the problem by silencing the voice of the victims, then his voice should be silenced while the problem is being fixed.

Finally, the state's Emergency Manager Law, which has been on the books since 1988, and was expanded two years later, must be repealed.  (To that extent, at the very least, the Michigan state legislature in 1990, when the law was expanded, and its then-Governor, James Blanchard, also carry some of the blame here.)  This atrocity must never be allowed to happen again.

The crisis in Flint is not the only one of its kind in America, water supply-related or otherwise. Other cities that may have not received the same type of recognition nationally to the extent Flint has are no less important; it is likely simply the scale of those situations is the biggest (if not the only) difference.  It has shed light on the institutional malfeasance in this country -- yes, it goes on far beyond one city in Michigan -- as well as the ongoing issues of racism and classism.  Additionally, the chipping away at democracy in this country is undeniably part and parcel of what has happened.

There will be more to say on this crisis, but I will end here with this:  Call it what you will, whether ignorance or intent or both, or something else entirely, it is no great stretch of one's understanding to see that the residents of Flint, Michigan, deserved better ... far, far better ... but did not receive it.  To see this as acceptable, however, would be a great stretch.

Governor Rick Snyder and his administration, including the MDEQ, made that stretch quite easily.

Terry

Friday, February 12, 2016

Measurement of the Day: PARTS PER BILLION [Part 2 of 3]

[This is part two of my three-part series on the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.] 

PART 2 
–– ONLY ONE CRISIS ENDS

Emergency Manager Jerry Ambrose declared on April 29, 2015, that Flint's financial crisis was over, and he stepped down.  However, all decisions regarding Flint were now the function of a Receivership Transition Advisory Board.

That Summer, a group called The Coalition for Clean Water filed an injunction against the use of Flint River water, seeking a return to water from Detroit.  A federal judge rejected the injunction.  Just days later, a memo written by an EPA "rogue employee" regarding Flint is leaked.  Written by Miguel Del Toral, the memo addresses the seriousness of Flint's water crisis and his serious concerns about the lack of corrosion treatment.  Remember, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality had told the EPA they were addressing the issue.  Eventually, Lee Anne Walters got in touch with Del Toral and filled him in on what she knew first-hand about the water crisis.

About two-and-a-half weeks later, while speaking with Lindsey Smith on Michigan Radio, an MDEQ spokesperson addressed the leaked memo saying the following:
          "...anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water in Flint can relax.
          It does not look like there is any broad problem with the water supply freeing
          up lead as it goes to homes."  


In August of 2015, the State of Michigan revises two water sample reports put out by the City of Flint by omitting two of the water samples cited in the report.  One of the two samples was from Lee Ann Walters' home, which was the highest in lead content out of the entire collection of samples taken. Their argument was that Walters used a water filter on her tap which could have lowered the count, akin to tampered evidence in a trial.  The revised, two-samples-fewer report put the final total number below that which would have triggered a federal response to lead in a city's water supply. 

Researchers from Virginia Tech University began testing water samples from all over Flint.  A total of 300 samples were collected and tested.  On September 19, their report is released.  The researchers found high levels of lead in the water supply throughout Flint.  The EPA regards water with lead levels of 5,000 ppb and above as hazardous waste.  Lee Ann Walters' home was included in the Virginia Tech University study.  The lead level in her water was 13,200 ppb ... 880 times the safe level!

Enter pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha.  Very shortly after the Virginia Tech report is released, Dr. Hanna-Attisha releases research she has done regarding blood-lead levels in children in Flint. Those levels had been steadily rising.  Prior to switching to Flint River water, her research reveals, just over two percent of children in Flint had elevated blood-lead levels.  After the switch, that number had almost doubled to four percent.  Dr. Hanna-Attisha noted that lead is a neurotoxin, which has been known for a very, very long tim, and can affect adults and children.  However, the developing brains of children are far more susceptible to irreparable damage, which can include ADHD and a lower IQ, among other issues.  If Lee Ann Walters' situation can be considering the firing off of a rocket in garnering attention, consider Dr. Hanna-Attisha's contribution as booster jets.

The Snyder administration dismissed her report.

Less than a week later, Governor Rick Snyder admits mistakes were made in the planning and execution of using Flint River water.  The next day, Genesee County, where Flint is, declares a public health emergency in Flint, with a plan to distribute water filters to residents.  And the day after that, MDEQ Director Dan Wyant states that Flint did use corrosion control measures, in conflict with a previous State of Michigan statement to the contrary and the EPA memo.  The same MDEQ spokesperson who said that residents "can relax", offered a clarification ... lime, a water softening and corrosion control substance, was added to the water supply.  Experts, in response, say an addition of lime would be insufficient to address the corrosion issue and there never was a plan in place to deal with the crisis.

On October 6, 2015, distribution of 24,000 water filters, provided by the state, the Genesee County Health Department, and the United Way is begun.  Two days later, Governor Snyder says that Flint will go back to Detroit's water system, at a cost of $12,000,000.  Both the State and the Mott Foundation will contribute $10,000,000, while Flint will have to contribute $2,000,000.

On October 16, 2015, Flint was hooked back up with the Detroit water system.  Officials say it will take up to three weeks for all of the water to be fully from Detroit.  Whether or not lead levels in the water will go back down remains unknown.

In November, Flint mayor Dayne Walling lost his re-election bid as Karen Weaver is voted in to replace him; she is sworn in the following week.  Later that month, Flint residents file a class action lawsuit against the state and Flint government employees, focusing on health issues and property damage as a result of using Flint River water.  They seek a settlement to establish a fund for ongoing medical monitoring for residents.

Five weeks after being sworn in, new mayor Karen Weaver officially declares a state of emergency in Flint, citing irreversible damage to children from drinking Flint River water.  Remember how the Emergency Managers were appointed by Governor Snyder?  Well, later that same week, cable channel MSNBC host Rachel Maddow broke the story of how Governor Snyder is, indeed, culpable in this mass poisoning.


Ms. Maddow has stayed on top of this story and just two weeks ago, she hosted a live town hall from Flint titled An American Disaster: The Crisis in Flint.








Terry

TOMORROW
GETTING WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Measurement of the Day: PARTS PER BILLION [Part 1 of 3]

[Today begins a three-part series on the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.]

PART 1 –– COMING TO THE RESCUE?

One of the keys to life is water.  We cook with it; we bathe with it; we wash things with it; we drink it.  If the water is dirty, we might try to filter and clean the water to be able to use it.  If the water is contaminated, we would not do any of those things with it.


Saving money is a good thing; families and individuals try to budget their money to make ends meet.  Businesses and governmental entities try to save money as well.  Sometimes, the cost-cutting measures are effective means of budgetary restraint.  Sometimes, they come at a serious cost, either to product quality ... or human life itself.

It is in Flint, Michigan, where saving money and a threat to human life have intersected.

Beginning in December of 2011, a string of Governor-appointed Emergency Managers (EM) were put in charge of Flint due to the city's financial crisis.  All of the EMs reported to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.  They had no requirements, as EMs, to go through or to inform the mayor or townspeople of their decisions ahead of time.  No discussions, no engagement.  The people of Flint had no say in decisions made and actions taken by its Emergency Managers.  The first EM was Michael Brown.

Near the end of 2013, officials from Michigan's Treasury Department meet with officials from Flint to discuss water supply options to cut costs -- stay with what they had or change to the Karegnondi Water Authority.  Using the Flint River was discussed at that meeting, but staying the course or changing to the Karegnondi Water Authority were to be the only two options to be researched.  A report of the meeting was released two months later.  One month after the report was released, Flint's city council votes in favor of switching to Karegnondi.  It will require a pipeline project that will take two-and-a-half years to complete.

Flint used to get its water from the Detroit water system.  In the mid-1960s, Detroit entered into a contract with Flint to supply its water.  The agreement could be legally terminated, if so chosen, only after the passing of thirty-five years; the thirty-five years had elapsed in 2010.  In the Spring of 2013, three years past the mandatory thirty-five year period, even though it wanted to keep the agreement in effect, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) chose to end the contract, giving Flint one-year's notice.  Michigan officials spun it in a way to make it look like Detroit had abandoned Flint when, in fact, the DWSD's decision was in response to the Emergency Manager making his own decision on water suppliers.   


Under their second Emergency Manager at that time, Ed Kurtz, the city council's vote to go with Karegnondi held no weight.  Nonetheless, Kurtz did sign off on going with Karegnondi.  It then turns out that the pipeline project will not be done in a year's time, leaving Flint to negotiate a new contract with its current supplier, the Detroit Water and Sewage Department, or to find a temporary supplier in the interim.  

Just over two months later, in June of 2013, Ed Kurtz, apparently in an attempt to find a temporary water source, hires an engineering company, Lockwood, Andrews & Newman to equip the already-existing Flint River water treatment plant.  Four days later, Ed Kurtz stepped down as EM, a move he had announced a month earlier.  Michael Brown, the first EM in this situation, returns as EM.  Just two months later, Brown resigns, citing family issues as his reason.


Three weeks later, Darnell Earley, who had served as interim Mayor for Flint in 2002, becomes its next Emergency Manager.  Fast forward to the Spring of 2014.  Roughly a month before the one-year notice given by Detroit to end supplying water to Flint had expired, Earley writes the Detroit Water and Sewage Department, stating that there will be no need to enter into a new contract, as the Flint River water treatment plant will be fully operational before the almost-expired contract ends. 

It might be good to stop for just a moment to ask, with everything going on, why not just stay hooked up with Detroit until the new pipeline is in place and operational?  Maybe the answer lies in the fact that the city of Detroit is also under the authority of a Governor-appointed Emergency Manager.


In early April, Michigan's environmental regulators approved the move to using Flint River water, and by late April, the city's water supply was now coming exclusively from the Flint River.
                                                                © WNEM-TV

Within weeks, residents complained about the water quality ... its discoloration and smell, as well as making residents sick.
                                                            © Michigan Radio

Now that's funny: The water at the first day from Flint River looks different than weeks later...

Two-and-a-half months after the Flint River became the town's sole water source, its water tested positive for E. coli, with the town issuing several boil-your-water-before-using advisories.  Chlorine is added to combat the bacteria.  By the Fall, a General Motors engine plant stops using Flint River water, citing the additional chlorine would cause corrosion to engine parts.

Over the course of two weeks, beginning on January 2, 2015 ...
Flint is found to be in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act by the state's Department of Environmental Quality (from the presence of cancer-causing total trihalomenthanes (TTHM) resulting from the treatment of the water);
Flint Mayor Dayne Walling says the water is safe to drink;
The University of Michigan-Flint found some water samples from on campus to be high in lead;
Emergency Manager Darnell Earley says Flint will not go back to getting water from Detroit;
and then, EM Earley is reappointed to be Emergency Manager of the Detroit Public School System. 
Earley is replaced by Jerry Ambrose, who had served Flint as a financial advisor under the first and second Emergency Managers, Michael Brown and Ed Kurtz.  (Remember those guys?)

In late February, Flint tested the water of resident Lee Anne Walters, a mother of four, and the results showed the water in her house contained 104 parts per billion (ppb) of lead.  The Environmental Protection Agency's safe limit of lead in water is fifteen ppb; Walters' water was seven times the safe limit.  The test of her home's water would be only the first of several to be conducted by the city of Flint.  The following week, her water was tested again –– this time the lead level had risen from 104 ppb to 397 ppb, nearly 183 times the safe level,
A bottle of Walters' tap water

All of the then-current results from Flint prompt the Environmental Protection Agency to inquire about the city's efforts to combat the situation.  Steve Busch, who was a district supervisor from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, sends an E-mail to the EPA stating that they are executing what he described as an "optimized corrosion control plan", which included pumping phosphates and other chemicals to essentially coat over the internal pipes corrosion.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality was, in fact, doing nothing.

On March 23, 2015, the Flint City Council votes 7-1 in favor of making any and all possible efforts to reconnect with Detroit for water.  Keep in mind, though, under the appointed Emergency Manager, this vote carries no authority.  The children of Lee Anne Walters, whose water was the first tested in Flint, had experienced stomach issues, some hair loss, and rashes since the previous year.  The month following the Flint City Council's vote, Walters learned that one of her young sons, age 4, had lead poisoning.  The city discovers that the lead is in Walter's house's service line that is connected to the city's water system.

The city's (EM's) solution?  Shut off Walters' service line and hook her house up to a neighbor's garden hose.

Terry

TOMORROW
ONLY ONE CRISIS ENDS