Showing posts sorted by date for query GRIZZLY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query GRIZZLY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Friday, November 08, 2024

The Gallatin Range: Now is the Time to Designate It Wilderness



 November 8, 2024
Facebook

The Gallatin Range runs south from Bozeman to Yellowstone National Park.

 Photo George Wuerthner.

The Gallatin Range south of Bozeman is the last major unprotected landscape in the northern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. A minimum of 250,000 acres of the Gallatin Range as advocated by the Gallatin Yellowstone Wilderness Alliance should be designated wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act.

The Gallatin Range is a key area for wildlife, and home to grizzlies, wolves, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, wolverine and a host of other wildlife. It could be a significant area for recolonizing Yellowstone bison moving north out of the park.

Its reputation as a significant wildlife sanctuary started in 1910, when Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the Forest Service, advocated making the southern part of the Gallatin Range a wildlife refuge.

In recognition of the Gallatin Range’s fabulous wildlife habitat values, the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks created a wildlife management area (WMA) primarily in the Buffalohorn and Porcupine drainages in the southern Gallatin Range.

In 1977, Senator Lee Metcalf sponsored the Montana Wilderness Study Act legislation (S.393), which created nine wilderness study areas in Montana, including in the Gallatin Range known as the 155,000-acre Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalohorn WSA.

The legislation says, “The wilderness study areas designated by this Act shall, until Congress determines otherwise, be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain their presently existing wilderness character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

In the 1980s, the Gallatin Range was initially included in the legislation creating the Lee Metcalf Wilderness in the Madison Range. However, during the legislative debate, the Gallatin Range was removed due to a legacy of railroad checkerboard alternative sections of land that some felt would complicate wilderness protections.

The Gallatin Range is critical habitat for grizzly bear. Photo George Wuerthner.

In the 1990s, several legislative efforts led to the removal of railroad checkboards with the express purpose that the roadless lands would eventually be designated wilderness.

Biologist Lance Craighead did a biological assessment of the Gallatin Range noting it’s importance for wildlife.

Wilderness is the “Gold Standard” for conservation. Protecting the area as wilderness is the best way to preserve and ensure the ecological integrity of the Gallatin Range and, by extension, the northern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

We need to create a Gallatin Range Wilderness more than ever. Watch this film to learn more about why we must protect the Gallatin Range, especially the Buffalohorn and Porcupine drainages.

The Gallatin Range wilderness effort must be viewed within the context of preserving the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. An expanded Greater Yellowstone National Park that included the Gallatin north to Bozeman with a wilderness overlap would be the best option for maintaining the ecological and evolutionary processes.

Wilderness designation is about humility. It’s about giving Nature a place for ecological and evolutionary processes to function. It is about sharing the Earth with the rest of life.

Visit the Gallatin Yellowstone Wilderness AllianceGallatin Wildlife Association, and the Alliance for Wild Rockies to learn about the potential for designated wilderness on the Custer Gallatin National Forest.

George Wuerthner has published 36 books including Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy

Friday, October 25, 2024

 Grand Teton grizzly bear No. 399 that delighted visitors for decades is killed by vehicle in Wyoming


Mead Gruver
Wed, October 23, 2024 



The Associated Press


CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A famous grizzly bear beloved for decades by countless tourists, biologists and professional wildlife photographers in Grand Teton National Park is dead after being struck by a vehicle in western Wyoming.

Grizzly No. 399 died Tuesday night on a highway in Snake River Canyon south of Jackson, park officials said in a statement Wednesday, adding the driver was unhurt. A yearling cub was with the grizzly when she was struck and though not believed to have been hurt, its whereabouts were unknown, according to the statement.

The circumstances of the crash were unclear. Grand Teton and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials said they had no further information to release about it.

At 28 years old, No. 399 was the oldest known reproducing female grizzly in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Each spring, wildlife enthusiasts eagerly awaited her emergence from her den to see how many cubs she had birthed over the winter — then quickly shared the news online.

Named for the identity tag affixed by researchers to her ear, the grizzly amazed watchers by continuing to reproduce into old age. Unlike many grizzly bears, she was often seen near roads in Grand Teton, drawing crowds and traffic jams.

Scientists speculate such behavior kept male grizzlies at a distance so they would not be a threat to her cubs. Some believe male grizzlies kill cubs to bring the mother into heat.

The bear had 18 known cubs in eight litters over the years, including a litter of four in 2020. She stood around 7 feet (2.1 meters) tall and weighed about 400 pounds (180 kilograms).

Hundreds of visitors at times would gather at a wide meadow to see her in the evenings, recalled Grand Teton bear biologist Justin Schwabedissen.

Some youngsters "just thought that was just the coolest thing in the world to see a bear out there, cubs wrestling in the wildflowers,” Schwabedissen said.

Another time he met a just-retired Midwest factory worker whose dream was to see a bear in the wild.

“She was in tears that night from being able to have an opportunity to see her,” Schwabedissen said.

News of the bear's death spread quickly on a Facebook page that tracks the grizzly and other wildlife in Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks. By late Wednesday more than 2,000 people posted comments calling the bear a “magnificent queen,” an “icon” and an “incredible ambassador for her species.”

They were heartbroken and devastated by her death, calling it a tragic loss.

The momma bear had fans all over the world, said tour guides Jack and Gina Bayles, who run the Team 399 Facebook page and planned to visit the site where she was killed.

“You might say she was the accidental ambassador of the species,” Jack Bayles said. “My single biggest concern is that people are now gonna lose interest in bears.”

The grizzly lived through a time of strife over her species in the region, as state officials have sought to gain management control over grizzlies from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, saying the bears' numbers have rebounded past the point of being at risk.

Conservation groups have objected, saying climate change imperils some of the bears' key food sources including whitebark pine cones.

Some 50,000 grizzlies once roamed the western United States. But outside Alaska they are now confined to pockets in the Yellowstone region and northern Rockies. They dwindled in the Yellowstone region to just over 100 animals by 1975, when they were first protected as a threatened species.

The region encompassing Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks and surrounding areas in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho is now home to some 1,000 grizzlies. They remain federally protected but in an ongoing tug-of-war between political and court decisions have bounced off and back on the threatened list twice in recent years.

Government biologists say the population is healthy and officials from the three Yellowstone states continue to seek their removal from federal protection.

On average, about three grizzlies annually in the region are killed in vehicle collisions, with 51 killed since 2009, according to data collected by researchers and released by the park. No. 399 was the second grizzly killed in the region by a vehicle this year.

“Wildlife vehicle collisions and conflict are unfortunate. We are thankful the driver is okay and understand the community is saddened to hear that grizzly bear 399 has died,” Wyoming Game and Fish Department Director Angi Bruce said in the statement.

___

Amy Beth Hanson in Helena, Montana, contributed to this report.

Mead Gruver, The Associated Press

Thursday, October 24, 2024

UK
Be more ambitious on restricting harmful ‘forever chemicals’, Government urged

Emily Beament, PA Environment Correspondent
Wed 23 October 2024


The UK should enact wide-ranging restrictions on “forever chemicals”, which could have the potential to harm humans, scientists have urged.

A group of more than 50 scientists from the UK and around the world have written to ministers urging them to be more ambitious in their regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, than the previous government.

They warn the highly persistent group of chemicals show no evidence of degrading in the environment, and have been found across the world from the Arctic to Mount Everest.


They have also been detected in people’s blood, drinking water and foods bought in supermarkets.

They are widely used in industry and consumer goods, from non-stick frying pans to clothing and carpets, with concerns over a range of impacts from cancer to suppressed immune systems, and their ability to move through the environment for long distances.

Some well-studied PFAS have been found to be toxic to humans and wildlife, the scientists warned, and while some substances have been banned, there is little information about the impact of many others.

The letter to UK Government ministers warns the only way to curb them polluting the environment, and reduce their risks, is to regulate all the chemicals as a single group.

But the UK has adopted a “narrow definition” of PFAS which only includes a few hundred substances and excludes thousands more, the experts say.

The EU has adopted an approach which includes 10,000 chemicals with proposals to phase out all PFAS, with a few specific exceptions, and scientists behind the letter say the UK should be doing as well – or better – than the bloc, not lagging behind post-Brexit.

Associate Professor Tony Fletcher, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “I am worried that the effect of Brexit might lead to Britain lagging behind environmental improvements at EU level.

“In the case of PFAS regulation, the EU has some good proposals for regulating them all. We should be as good as that, if not better, and this letter is making the case.

“We have found effects on human health in the few specific PFAS which have been studied in detail, and exposure up to now is so widespread.

“As most uses of PFAS can be substituted with less persistent or less toxic alternatives, the EU initiative to phase out all PFAS (with a few specific exceptions), should be a model adopted by the UK Government.

“We can do at least as well as the EU proposals. I would be very disappointed if Brexit appeared to lead to worse environments for us than being part of the EU.”

Professor Ian Cousins, who works at Stockholm University in Sweden, said: “Because the UK has been slow in acting on PFAS pollution, many British people have been unnecessarily and unknowingly exposed to a whole cocktail of PFAS.

“We only understand the toxicity of a handful of PFAS well, while there are about 10,000 PFAS in use.

“These PFAS continue to be emitted in the UK and will remain in the environment for centuries to come.

“The UK should follow Sweden, and the rest of Europe, in ‘turning off the tap’ of PFAS pollution by enacting a broad restriction of all non-essential PFAS uses.”

A spokesperson for the Environment Department said: “We are charting a new course to develop an ambitious programme to turn the tide and better protect our natural environment.

“This Government has wasted no time in announcing a rapid review of the Environmental Improvement Plan to deliver on our legally binding targets to save nature.

“This includes how best to manage chemicals, including the risks posed by PFAS.”


U$A

Grizzly Research releases Hershey short report amid cancer-link concerns

Investing.com
Wed 23 October 2024 

Investing.com -- Grizzly Research issued a short report on The Hershey Company (NYSE:HSY) Wednesday, raising concerns over the presence of potentially harmful "forever chemicals" (PFAS) detected in the packaging of several of Hershey's popular products.

The short seller claims that independent tests found heightened levels of PFAS contamination in the wrappers of numerous Hershey products, including Reese's Pieces, Almond Joy, and Hershey's Kisses.

PFAS chemicals, which are linked to cancer and other health risks, are commonly used in packaging coatings but are increasingly being regulated or banned.

Grizzly noted that PFAS toxins are particularly dangerous for children and stated, "PFAS, or 'forever chemicals,' are carcinogenic, and a ban or phase-out for plastic food and candy packaging was introduced until 2024 in at least 13 U.S. states."

Grizzly said it commissioned tests from four different labs across the U.S., Germany, and China to compare Hershey's packaging with competitors like Mars and Nestlé.

"All four labs found heightened traces of PFAS in various HSY's products but none or negligible amounts in products by Mars and Nestlé," the report said.

Of the 50 tests conducted, Grizzly claims 20 cases of PFAS contamination over 10 mg/kg were found, with 19 involving Hershey's products.

The report further alleges that Hershey may be using "uncommon, harder-to-detect PFAS compounds" to bypass regulatory bans while still exposing consumers to health risks.

"Our expert heading this case believes that HSY deliberately uses uncommon, harder-to-detect PFAS compounds to avoid detection and bans, while the negative health implications of such uncommon substances remain similar," they argue.

Grizzly added that "as of today, the FDA's Food Contact Substance database does not show any authorization of PFAS use for HSY."

Given Hershey's reliance on North American sales, Grizzly warns that these findings could pose significant legal, reputational, and financial risks for the company.

The firm believes that this issue "can materially affect these brands' recognition and add material reputational and litigation risk to HSY."

Related Articles

Sunday, October 06, 2024

The Revolution Will Not Be Podcast: Pacifica Radio at 75


October 4, 2024

Facebook

The Exacting Ear, ed. Eleanor McKinney, Pantheon 1966.

At three o’clock on a spring afternoon in 1949, in a sixth floor studio above University Avenue in Berkeley, volunteer sound-proofers, “hammering down the carpet at the last moment”, paused in their work. Lewis Hill stepped to a microphone and in his distinctive baritone announced for the first time: “This is KPFA, listener-sponsored radio in Berkeley.” It was an experiment so unlikely (“Why would anyone subscribe to a station they can hear for free?”) that the scoffers in the local Bay Area press predicted it would be lucky to survive six months.

Seventy five years later, the survival of KPFA, founded by conscientious objectors, poets and pacifists in the aftermath of a catastrophic global war, was celebrated by a flying visit to the Bay Area from Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now! which started life in the mid-1990s broadcasting from the Wall Street studios of WBAI, Pacifica’s New York station.

Goodman is a star in the firmament of community radio, and her tribute to Pacifica’s history, in which she has played such a central role for three decades, was warmly applauded by the congregation at the Church of Christ Scientist, Maybeck’s gorgeous architectural masterpiece on the south side of the Berkeley campus. Perhaps the spirit of the occasion forebade mention of the fact that, directly across the street, People’s Park – a landmark both in the history of the city and of KPFA – lies invisible and impenetrable, brutally enclosed by barbed wire and a ring of steel containers planted by the University of California administration bent on erasing both the park and the popular memory of what happened there in the 60s.

The struggle over People’s Park and Pacifica’s own Civil War, triggered by Clinton’s Telecommunications Act of 1996 and culminating in the so-called Battle of Berkeley in 1999, are connected through the deep history of settler-colonial dispossession, neoliberal enclosures and now a re-privatization of the liberated common land. The ill-judged revision of the network’s governance in response to the drastic deregulation of the airwaves has left KPFA, and the Pacifica Foundation that owns the station, in deep financial and managerial trouble.

The originating impulse of the Pacifica project, poetically named as a gesture to the founding vision, was to explore through peaceable dialogue the root causes of conflict — between individuals, nations, and belligerent empires. By bringing to the airwaves “informal, intensely personal, uncensored, and free-ranging discussion” – the description is philosopher Erich Fromm’s – together with the finest of the radio arts, the listening community would be equipped with an “exacting ear”, in the happy phrase of Eleanor McKinney, one of the trio of syndicalist founders.

[Image hereabouts]

There is a special intimacy to radio when not used for commercial or state propaganda, understood as the discourse of domination. The tone and rhythm of those first KPFA broadcasts are crucial to understanding the power of “the Pacifica idea” and the enduring loyalty it has evoked in its audience. Recollecting the very early days at the station, another of the founders, the poet and documentarian Richard Moore, expressed it to me this way: “It was our experiment with form that was radical, as much as any content.” Margot Adler, a student at Berkeley in the mid-60s and later host of a phone-in show on Pacifica’s New York station, recalled: “It’s hard to imagine how different it was to hear someone talking honestly — about anything — on the air.”

The bonds forged between the Pacificans and the audience they conjured out of the air was tested after fifteen months, when in the summer of 1950 the money ran out. Lewis Hill’s imagined audience showed up in the flesh at a packed community meeting at the Fellowship Hall in Berkeley, intent on bailing out the sinking vessel. Lewis Hill was never so moved as by that gathering; “We can’t let this die”, he told his confederates. With collective self-salvage in mind, Hill argued in his 1951 manifesto, “The Theory of Listener Sponsored Radio”, that the KPFA experiment entailed a “two-way responsibility”, a “conscious flow of influences, some creative tension between broadcaster and audience”.

What was “the Pacifica idea”? Firstly, for those at the microphone the freedom of not having “to simulate emotions, intentions and beliefs” was the essence. Hill had not shed a vague sense of ethical corruption from his time as an announcer at a commercial radio station in Washington DC – “the words are familiar, and every sentence is grammatically sound, but the text is gibberish”). “The people who actually do the broadcasting should also be responsible for what and why they broadcast”, insisted Hill the syndicalist. At the other end of the apparatus, for the project to succeed, the listener subscribers demonstrated what he called “a kind of cultural engagement”, amounting to a “mutual stimulus”. Success for Hill would mean the pilot experiment resulting in “a new focus of action or a new shaping influence that can hardly fail to strengthen all of us”. The “us” began for Hill with his personal circle of friends and comrades —the war resisters of the CO camps and the poets, artists and writers in San Francisco’s bohemia — but the aim was also to reach, via the apparatus of radio, the shipyards of Richmond and the neighbourhoods of Oakland.

Hill understood very well that listener-sponsorship could go wrong, if subscribing were reduced, as he said, to a tax write-off, or a response to special gift premiums (“We’ve got hoodies, we’ve got socks, we’ve got water bottles – check it out!”, cajoled one announcer during a recent fund drive on KPFA.) ‘Underwriting’ by big business has led directly to the soporific diet now on offer from NPR. (Is that why they’re constantly advertising mattresses?) The recent decision by Pacifica’s management to take advertisers’ money suggests that it may be time to wind up the experiment. Indeed there might be no option. Some readers of CounterPunch will recall the news that, in December 2022, US marshals seized 305,000 dollars from KPFA’s cash reserves to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by a former interim executive director of the Pacifica Foundation, the legal owner of the station. Since then there have been staff layoffs and preparations to sell off physical assets. KPFA, the flagship of the five listener-sponsored stations, is now in real danger of sinking along with its owner and the rest of the network, thanks to mismanagement at the national level and the perversely bloated Pacifica governance structure adopted in the wake of the crisis of 1999-2001.

Can the Pacifica network survive? Notoriously, Pacifica thrives in times of emergency. Dan Coughlin, the executive director who guided the network away from the brink of bankruptcy at the millennium, drily quipped: “War is the health of the station”. Pacifica’s fortunes wax and wane according to the rhythms of the US imperium. Margot Adler, host of ‘Hour of the Wolf’ in the 1970s, put it bluntly: “The Vietnam War ended, and we lost half our audience. It was as simple as that. WBAI grew from the blood of the Vietnamese.”

Some veteran activists believe that KPFA remains a viable institution, provided that the station can get out from under the Pacifica Foundation, owner turned parasite — and lately, asset stripper. The business of cutting KPFA free from its incubus will require serious forensic skills, and very likely some real street heat.

In any case a campaign for KPFA’s survival will have to be waged in the current mediascape, including the new (anti-)social media, whose wider context is the political economy of telecommunications in the US. The situation remains fundamentally unchanged since I spoke at a Federal Communications Commission Hearing on Media Ownership, in the aftermath of the 1996 Telecommunications Act which led to a predictable looting of the public airwaves (see “A May Day Message to the FCC”, CounterPunch, April 30th, 2003). I noted that “the anti-globalisation and anti-war movements well understand the lethal connections between the so-called market, concentrated media ownership, and untrammeled militarism.” I still stand by my assertion to the Commission that “the flourishing of life…around the planet, now depends on the reappropriation of the commons, and that includes – because the means of communication without limits is the very condition of possibility of all else – the seizing back of the electromagnetic spectrum, the de-commodification of the airwaves.”

Now, suppose the good ship Pacifica goes under. What would be lost? Above all, a dependable forum for the candid and dissenting dialogics that inspired the original vision, still embodied in a handful of excellent Public Affairs programs the founding trio would recognize – such as Letters and Politics, Against the Grain, and Behind the News. The rhythm and cadence of Against the Grain, for example, is recognisably in a venerable KPFA tradition, and helps to account for its enduring vitality. The interviews are recorded in advance, impeccably edited, and broadcast three days a week at noon. Taking turns at the microphone, and making decisions independently as to topics and guests, the hosts Sasha Lilley and C.S. Soong evince a congenial complementarity in style and emphasis. Soong is inclined to the philosophical and esoteric (the shade of Alan Watts hovers nearby), while Lilley clearly draws on her training in political economy. Questions are always posed in a spirit of open inquiry, with the aim of drawing out, maieutically, the fruits of new scholarship or critique, often focused on a recently published book, essay or article. By their deep, evident commitment to socratic form, and by coming to the interviews formidably prepared, a mutual respect with the interlocutor is quickly established and conveyed to the listener.

The original idea for the program emerged in discussions in 2002 between the two producers, who agreed there was a kind of vacuum in strategic thinking on the left. The reasons were perhaps not hard to find. Violent state repression directed at the worldwide movement against capitalist enclosures, aka “globalisation”, had taken a toll, both in the streets and in the theory kitchens. The repression only intensified in the wake of the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center.

It was clear to Lilley and Soong that, for antagonists of capital and empire, these new conditions lacked critical scrutiny. “When we launched”, recalls Sasha Lilley, “we felt strongly that many of the ideas of the anti-globalization movement, the antiwar movement, and the left more broadly, needed interrogation. Apparently many KPFA listeners agreed, because when C.S. Soong and I ran a four part series challenging conventional wisdom on the left, called Free Radicals, it led to a flurry of emails to KPFA management asking for more.”

An opening in KPFA’s schedule gave them the opportunity for extending the interrogations. In their sights, recalls Lilley, was “the localism fetish of the global justice movement; the anti-war movement’s “No Blood for Oil” simplification, the romanticizing of the subaltern and the Global South; and of course conspiracism instead of anticapitalist analysis.”

The boisterous street carnivals of refusal north and south, galvanised by the spellbinding—and spell-breaking—eloquence of Subcommandante Marcos, and amplified by vibrant indymedia, seemed briefly to herald the birth of a countervailing force that might truly disrupt the specialists in ’structural adjustment’ at the IMF and WTO. But the ’second superpower’ (to use the anxious, hyperventilating language of the New York Times commentariat), which flared brightly in Seattle, Porto Allegre and around the planet, turned out to be a will o’ the wisp, its fragile transnational infrastructure interrupted by, among other things, ‘anti-terrorist’ restrictions on travel. In the assessment of Seamus Davis, cartographer of anticapitalist resistance, “By 2003 the movement was punching below its weight”. Things were not helped by the widespread privileging of activism at the expense of analysis and reflection. “Activist” had become, at least in the US, a badge of identity, an occupation without any content except perhaps a romancing of barricades, which, as their historian Eric Hazan drily observed, were already out of date by 1871.

Two decades on, Against the Grain is going strong. It has been, by any worthwhile measure, a resounding success of the kind the founders of the station hoped for, though they could hardly have imagined the instantaneous planetary reach of the program made possible by the internet. The roster of guests amounts to a pantheon of contemporary radical thought —  to name just a few: geographer David Harvey, socialist feminist Silvia Federici, demographer Amartya Sen, urbanist Mike Davis, classicist Ellen Meiksins Wood, economist Thomas Piketty, historians Robin D. G. Kelley, Peter Linebaugh, Vijay Prashad and Howard Zinn, linguist Noam Chomsky, anthropologist David Graeber, journalist Naomi Klein, psychiatrist Joel Kovel, lawyer Staughton Lynd, sociologist Frances Fox Piven. The program’s archive is a treasure house of critical exchange in the early 21st century.

No doubt Against the Grain could take its chances – likewise Doug Henwood’s Behind the News and Mitch Jeserich’s Letters and Politics – and even flourish among the flood of podcasts coming online at the rate of 500 a week (although half of them expire within six months.) Against the Grain, by now an institution within an institution, has conjured into being an ‘imagined community’, albeit uncertain of its collective powers. We badly need such a program in the days ahead, to assist in the hard work of root-and-branch rethinking of the terms and tactics necessary to a planetary politics for commoners, after the Holocene.

I believe it’s also important for KPFA listeners to organize against the loss of the station’s bricks-and-mortar studios, an underused community asset moored like a ghost ship on MLK Way in Berkeley, and to keep broadcasting from Grizzly Peak and its 94.1MHz home on the FM dial, an island in the privatised spectrum, amid the rumbling basso continuo of commercial America (“I drive my car to supermarket / The way I take is superhigh /A superlot is where I park it /And Super Suds are what I buy.”) It was a minor miracle in a nation Melville saw as dedicated only to commerce that Lewis Hill’s pilot experiment took flight. The choice of fare on offer – drama and literature, music, public affairs, children’s programming – was only part of the magic; more potent was the mutual recognition, respect and camaraderie that passed between the pioneering broadcasters and the audience conjured into being.

Unfortunately, the essential syndicalist principles were overlooked – Hill’s anarchist comrades warned him that worker control would be broken on the anvil of bureaucratic governance required by federal regulation, if state censorship didn’t get them first. It’s a grim irony that the new internal governance structure, put in place after the crisis of 1999 to safeguard the network, may materially contribute to the demise of the Pacificans’ noble experiment.

The radical Cornell scholar Benedict Anderson in the 1980s achieved intellectual fame for his notion of the “imagined community”, about which he later remarked that they were “a pair of words from which the vampires of banality have by now sucked almost all the blood.” Anderson coined the phrase to theorize not the radio but the printing press and the emergence of “the nation,” specifically, the role of print capitalism in the spread of nationalism. Anderson defined the nation as a collection of strangers who do not know each other and will never meet but nevertheless are able to exert a world-changing social force. I think it fair to say that Lewis Hill had such business in mind when he composed “The Theory of Listener Sponsored Radio” back in 1951. But if KPFA is reduced, at best, to an online ‘platform’ of serial, atomized podcasts, then what will surely be lost is the integrating impulse of Hill’s vision, the possibility of a collectively imagined “focus of action” necessary to the building of a peaceable world.

Iain Auchinleck Boal is a social historian of science, technics and the commons. He is associated with the Retort group of antinomians based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In London, he co-founded MayDay Rooms, a safe haven for archives of dissent and a meeting place for weary utopians. He can be reached via carpenox@sonic.net