Taking Monsanto to the People's Court

by Blair Braverman  -  Published: Thursday 26 April 2012
“The Monsanto Hearings are based on a robust international tradition of peoples’ tribunals that dates back 40 years to the Russell Tribunal, which examined human rights violations by the U.S. military in Vietnam.”

On April 21, approximately 100 people came to a courtroom in Iowa City to attend a mock trial called the Monsanto Hearings, the second of five such events scheduled nationwide. The trial was modeled after a preliminary hearing, an attempt to collect stories about harm caused by agribusiness giant Monsanto and determine if further public scrutiny is warranted.

The court’s five presiding judges — including a professor, a graduate student and an organic farmer — made no pretense of impartiality. “We are under no obligation to be even-handed,” they announced early on, “because in the court of public opinion, Monsanto is not even-handed. They have money for lobbyists, advertisements, corporate-funded research and media campaigns. The influence of this hearing, by contrast, depends on the power and truth of what is said.” The court, they explained, would not be considering legal violations, but rather violations of nature, ethics and human rights.

Moyers: Are financial powers more profitable than ever?

Moyers and economists James Kwak and Simon Johnson wonder whether the financial powers are more profitable, and more resistant to regulation than ever.

April 23, 2010 

 

 

 

The following is a transcript taken from Bill Moyers' recent interview with Simon Johnson and James Kwak on Bill Moyers Journal.


So even if the Tea Party folks saw the light, what can ordinary Americans do?

That's the question I want to put to my guests, Simon Johnson and James Kwak. They have written this new book,13 Bankers: The Wall St. Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. It's a must read - already a best seller -- and it couldn't have come at a better time. This book could change the debate over financial reform by tipping it in favor of the public.

Simon Johnson is a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. He now teaches at MIT's Sloan School of Management and is a Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 
James Kwak is studying law at Yale Law School - a career he decided to pursue after working as a management consultant at McKinsey & Company and co-founding the successful software company, Guidewire. Together James Kwak and Simon Johnson run the indispensable economic websiteBaselineScenario.com

Welcome to you both.

Let me get to the blunt conclusion you reach in your book. You say that two years after the devastating financial crisis of '08 our country is still at the mercy of an oligarchy that is bigger, more profitable, and more resistant to regulation than ever. Correct? 

Proposed Olympia City Council Resolution

(see Executive Council Documents for related info).

WHEREAS, government of, by and For The People has long been a cherished American value and legal foundation; and

WHEREAS, free and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self-governance; and

WHEREAS, “persons” are rightfully recognized as human beings whose essential needs include clean air, clean water, and safe and secure food; and

WHEREAS, corporations are not and have never been human beings; and therefore are rightfully subservient to human beings and governments as our legal creations; and

WHEREAS, it is the inherent right of large corporations are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings; and

WHEREAS, The Olympia City Council believes that local legislation which embodies the fundamental interests of the community, including, without limitation, the Declaration of Independence’s provision that governments are instituted to secure the rights of people, and the Washington State Constitution’s recognition that “all political power is inherent in the People;” and

WHEREAS, the Olympia City Council believes that local legislation which embodies the fundamental interests of the community is mandated by the doctrine of the consent of the governed; and

WHEREAS, communities across our nation are joining forces to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to Abolish Corporate Personhood;

Therefore, be it Resolved,

The City of Olympia hereby calls upon the Washington State Legislature and the United States Congress to initiate steps to amend the United States Constitution with provisions that clearly state that:

1) Corporations are not human beings, and only human beings are endowed with Constitutional rights.

2) Contributions and expenditures for political purposes are not Constitutionally-protected speech. Therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.

3) Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate contributions and expenditures for campaigns and ballot measures, and to require public disclosure of the sources of such contributions and expenditures.

Be it further Resolved,

That a true, correct and complete copy of the Resolution be transmitted promptly to the President of the United States, to members of the US Congress from Washington State’s Governor, and all members of the Washington State Legislature; and also submitted to local media outlets.

BP Oil Spill: Health Disaster

by Antonia Juhasz, April 2012

On March 3 Nicole Maurer learned of the proposed settlement between BP and hundreds of thousands of Gulf Coast businesses and residents harmed by its 2010 oil spill, the largest in US history.
 
In her cramped but immaculate trailer on a muddy back road in the small town of Buras, Louisiana, Nicole tells me that the two years since the tragedy began on April 20, 2010, have been “a total nightmare” for her family. Not only has her husband William’s fishing income all but vanished along with the shrimp he used to catch but the entire family is plagued by persistent health problems.

For months following the onset of the disaster, she says, there was an oil smell outside their home and “a constant cloudiness, like a haze, but it wasn’t fog.” Her 6-year-old daughter Brooklyn’s asthma got worse, and she now has constant upper respiratory infections. “Once it goes away, it comes right back,” Nicole explains.

Before the spill, Elizabeth, 9, was her “well kid.” But now Elizabeth constantly suffers from rashes, allergies, inflamed sinuses, sore throat and an upset stomach.

Nicole stares at me and catches her breath; she apologizes for the tears that flow down her face. “It’s a touchy subject,” she says. “They are just tired. Tired of being sick.”

William worked from June to October 2010 as part of the Vessels of Opportunity program that paid the fishermen BP put out of business to use their boats to clean up its oil. William transported giant bags, called bladders, used to collect oil, to the shore. When he came home at night, says Nicole, his clothes “smelled oily.” Not only were his clothes blackened; so was William.

Jeju Island and

Please join South Korean artist and peace activist Gillchun Koh, Bruce Gagnon, and others on Monday, April 30, 2012 at 4:00 PM at the Seattle South Korean Consulate in a protest against the construction of a new naval base on Jeju Island.

This naval base is unnecessary, a drain on our economy ($$$$), will destabilize relations (both South Korean and U.S.) with China, and will put the people of Jeju Island at risk as a strategic target for China.

Please read further to understand the important history of Jeju Island as well as the importance of stopping construction of this base.

Coalition Urges Public Financing in NY

NY Times, April 12, 2012

ALBANY — An unusual and well-heeled coalition, trying to tap public anger over the flood of money into politics, is pushing to enact a public financing system for elections in New York State.

The backers include media moguls — Barry Diller and Chris Hughes, a founder of Facebook — as well as investment bankers, unions,MoveOn.org, the restaurateur Danny Meyer and the philanthropist David Rockefeller Sr.

They say New York, which they call a symbol of institutionalized corruption, could become a national model for the effort to free elections from the grip of big money. The campaign will start next week with mailings to the constituents of four state senators.

For years, government watchdog groups have pressed unsuccessfully for public financing of elections. Leaders of the coalition say the Citizens United ruling and the role of “super PACs” in the presidential race have made campaign finance a more broadly understood and urgent issue.

ALEC Disbands Task Force Responsible for...

Stand Your Ground, Voter ID, Prison Privatization, AZ's SB 1070
by Brendan Fischer — April 17, 2012 - 3:38pm

Topics: Corporations

Projects: ALEC Exposed, Wisconsin Protests

Under growing public pressure and the departure of multiple corporate members, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has announced it is disbanding the Task Force that has been responsible for some of the organization's most controversial pieces of legislation. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker introduced several bills approved by that Task Force when he was a legislator in the 1990s and early 2000s.

For at least three decades, the corporations, special interest groups, and legislators on the ALEC Public Safety & Elections Task Force (known as the Criminal Justice Task Force until 2009) have approved model bills that promote for-profit prisons and lengthen prison sentences, criminalize immigrants, expand the "war on drugs," thwart evidence-based pre-trial release programs in favor of for-profit bail-bonding, and many other policies.

In recent weeks, ALEC has been under increasing scrutiny for that Task Force's role in advancing laws that promote voter suppression, and for adopting the so-called Stand Your Ground law, which in Florida had been cited to prevent the prosecution of the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Corporate Exodus Leads to Disbanding Task Force

As the result of a campaign by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), Color of Change, Common Cause, People for the American Way, CREDO, and others, a stampede of ALEC member corporations have announced they are severing their ties from the organization.

ALEC had been replying to the campaign with a series of increasingly frantic press releases, bemoaning whatthey called an "intimidation campaign."

Anacortes citizens fight to save water resource

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Water in Washington state: citizens organizing to have a say in Anacortes

by Sandra Spargo

On Sept. 13, 2010, the people of Anacortes, Wash., opened their Sunday paper to read the headline, “Anacortes water, bottled?” The next evening, the City of Anacortes, Wash., approved selling five million gallons of municipal water from the Skagit River for thirty years to Tethys Enterprises of Everett, Wash. The contract can be extended to 2040 and contains two optional, five-year renewal terms. The contract allows Tethys, a startup venture capital company, to flip the proposed one million square foot beverage bottling company in three years.

Anacortes citizens had neither an opportunity to review nor comment on the contract’s implications before the city council’s approval of the Tethys contract. It was approved the next day, Sept. 14, 2010. According to the Skagit Valley Herald, Mayor Dean Maxwell had met with Tethys and Anacortes city council members for five previous months, exchanging information on an individual basis, and, thus, city officials were not required to discuss the business proposal in an open, public session.  An interesting note is that Mayor Ray Stephanson of Everett, Wash., turned down Steve Winters, CEO of Tethys Enterprises, regarding a similar municipal water contract after fifteen months of negotiations.

Due to the appalling lack of City of Anacortes-citizen communication, I searched the Internet for local environmental groups that would band together to confront the Tethys contract decision. Unfortunately, there were none. Either local environmental groups are tied to the city with municipal grants/projects or are exhausted from battling the city over development and policy issues that affect neighborhoods and the environment. However, my persistency found people online who were willing to come to my home and hear Dr. Rebecca Wolfe of the Alliance for Democracy and the Sierra Club speak about environmental issues related to beverage and water bottling companies and the corporate control of water. She gave us support when no one else stepped up to the plate—and she has continued to guide us.

www.ALEC Exposed.org: Great Source of Information

What is ALEC?
ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. We agree. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door.

Who funds ALEC?

More than 98% of ALEC's revenues come from sources other than legislative dues, such as corporations, corporate trade groups, and corporate foundations. Each corporate member pays an annual fee of between $7,000 and $25,000 a year, and if a corporation participates in any of the nine task forces, additional fees apply, from $2,500 to $10,000 each year. ALEC also receives direct grants from corporations, such as $1.4 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2009. It has also received grants from some of the biggest foundations funded by corporate CEOs in the country, such as: the Koch family Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Koch-managed Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Scaife family Allegheny Foundation, theCoors family Castle Rock Foundation, to name a few. Less than 2% of ALEC’s funding comes from “Membership Dues” of $50 per year paid by state legislators, a steeply discounted price that may run afoul of state gift bans.

Resolution going before Olympia City Council

 Proposed Resolution:  Olympia City Council

WHEREAS, government of, by, and for the People has been a long cherished American value and legal foundation; and Corporations are not human beings and therefore, as our legal creations, are rightfully subservient to human beings and governments;

WHEREAS, free and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self-governance, and the Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission decision supersedes state and local efforts to regulate corporate activity in their elections;

WHEREAS, it is the inherent right of the residents of the City of Olympia to govern their own community, including, without limitation, the Declarations of Independence’s provision that governments are instituted to secure the rights of people and the Washington State Constitution’s recognition that “all political power is inherent in the people”; and

WHEREAS, the Olympia City Council believes that local legislation that embodies the fundamental interests of the community is mandated by the doctrine of the consent of the governed;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Olympia affirms and upholds the principle that the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Federal, State and local government shall regulate all political contributions and expenditures made for the purpose of influencing in any way the electoral process and shall mandate that all political contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that nothing contained in this resolution shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that by the adoption of this Resolution, with the concurrence of the Mayor, the City of Olympia hereby indicates its SUPPORT for Legislative actions ensuring corporations are not entitled to the protections or "rights" of human beings, but only to the rights enumerated in their charters which created them as legal entities; and specifically that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.

Discussion re: ACLU position on Corporate Rights

This continues to be a major point of concern with re: to the ACLU's interpretation of First Amendment rights...and is posted on Reclaim Democracy's website.

The ACLU on Commercial Speech and Kasky v. Nike

(and our responses to ACLU claims)

The ACLU statement appears as published on NCACLU.org (2003)

Editor's Note: While this statement was written by the ACLU's Northern CA chapter, the national headquarters directed people to it as representing the national ACLU's position onKasky v. Nike. The ACLU statement is followed by our rebuttals to specific points.
While we are grateful for the ACLU's work in defense of civil liberties, we urge its directors to reconsider what we consider counter-productive advocacy to advance "corporate free speech" and the concept that spending money to influence elections is free speech (more on that topic).

The ACLU is often asked why we file a brief in support of a controversial speaker. That is the case with our brief in Kasky v. Nike, Inc., which was recently decided by the California Supreme Court. Our main concern in cases like Nike is to ensure that important First Amendment protections are not eroded because the speaker or the speech in question is unpopular or controversial. Thus our brief was not about the merits of the controversy surrounding the conditions under which Nike's products are manufactured nor did it take a position on whether or not Nike's statements in defense of its business practices were accurate. Rather, the purpose of our brief was to assure that the question of the truthfulness of Nike's assertions was judged by the same set of rules that would apply were someone to question the truthfulness of the assertions of its critics.

The actual question before the Court in Nike was whether a specific set of statements that Nike made in a specific set of documents should be considered commercial speech (i.e., advertising) that is entitled to a lower degree of First Amendment protection than the protection accorded to the statements of its critics made in comparable documents. We filed a friend of the court brief arguing that, on the particular facts of the case, Nike was entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment in responding to the criticism leveled at it by others. Although the California Supreme Court ultimately held that Nike's statements should be considered commercial speech, we believe that the Court's decision is inconsistent with fundamental First Amendment principles that protect the rights of those on both sides of a debate to speak their minds freely on issues with ramifications that go beyond the simple question of whether or not to buy a particular product.

Top 0.1 percent Hoard the Country's Wealth

[good resource for presentations]

Americans Don't Realize Just How Badly We're Getting Screwed by the Top 0.1 Percent Hoarding the Country's Wealth
With an unprecedented sum of wealth held within the top one-tenth of one percent of the US population, we now have the most severe inequality of wealth in US history.
August 14, 2011 |



With an unprecedented sum of wealth, tens of trillions of dollars, held within the top one-tenth of one percent of the US population, we now have the most severe inequality of wealth in US history. Not even the robber barons of the Gilded Age were as greedy as the modern-day economic elite.

As American philosopher John Dewey said, “There is no such thing as the liberty or effective power of an individual, group, or class, except in relation to the liberties, the effective powers, of other individuals, groups or classes.”

In my report, The Economic Elite vs. the People, I reported on the strategic withholding of wealth from 99 percent of the US population over the past generation. Since the mid-1970s, worker production and wealth creation has exploded. As the statistics throughout this report prove, the dramatic increase in wealth has been almost entirely absorbed by the economic top one-tenth of one percent of the population, with most of it going to the top one-hundredth of one percent.

If you are wondering why a critical mass of people desperately struggling to make ends meet are still not fighting back with overwhelming force and running the mega-wealthy aristocrats out of town, let’s consider two significant factors:


1) People are so busy trying to maintain their current standard of living that their energies are consumed by holding onto the little they have left.

2) People have very little understanding of how much wealth has been consolidated within the top economic one-tenth of one percent.

Corporate Power Spring Tax Day in Tacoma

1%ers like Verizon have sent our community into a healthcare crisis by refusing to pay their fare share of care for vets, military, and Medicare retirees. Rather, they advocate further cutting their taxes that fund healthcare. Join with the civilian workers at local military bases, their union AFGE, and JwJ to make Tax Day part of the next national day of action of Confront Corporate Power Spring. Support Verizon workers and their unions to hold this greedy corporation accountable for billions of dollars in compensation and profits while denying us healthcare and good jobs. 

Supreme Court update

When President Gerald Ford nominated him in 1975, Justice John Paul Stevens occupied the ideological center of the Supreme Court. By the time he retired in 2010, he was the Court’s most liberal member. Over those thirty-five years, the Court changed far more than Stevens did. “What was once on the extreme right is now merely conservative,” wrote University of Chicago constitutional law professor Cass Sunstein. “What was once conservative is now centrist. What was centrist is now left wing. What was once on the left no longer exists.”

Ari Berman is a contributing writer for The Nation magazine and an Investigative Journalism Fellow at The Nation...

According to a study using Martin-Quinn scores, “the current court is the most conservative since at least the 1930s,” wrote Nate Silver of the New York Times recently. Of the ten most conservative members of the Court from 1937 to 2006, five are serving today: Clarence Thomas (1), Antonin Scalia (3), John Roberts (4), Samuel Alito (5) and Anthony Kennedy (10). The fact that Kennedy is now regarded as a moderate swing vote underscores how far to the right the Court has moved. (Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes the most liberal list, at number 10.)
That rightward shift of the Roberts Court is especially pronounced today, in the wake of the ghastly 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision and the prospect that the Court may invalidate the Obama administration’s healthcare law. These consequential decisions could be a frightening preview of things to come. In the next year or two, the Court will consider a number of blockbuster cases. In late April the justices will hear arguments on Arizona’s draconian “papers please” immigration law. The fall term, which begins in October, includes a challenge to affirmative action at the University of Texas.

Global Warming news and a film at OFS

See the Events page for a not-to-miss Sundance documentary April 22nd, Climate Refugees. This news from NOAA grabbed my attention:

Published on Monday, April 9, 2012 by Common Dreams

Record Warm March Temperatures Continue Record-Breaking Periods
More than 15,000 warm temperature records broken during March
- Common Dreams staff

The contiguous United States experienced the warmest March ever in the warmest start of the year ever in the warmest 12-month period ever, according to new data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The record warm March temperatures hit the entire nation with each state having experienced at least one record warm daily temperature. The NOAA reports that there were over 15,000 warm temperature records broken during the month.

The NOAA also connected the record breaking March temperatures to the slew of tornadoes saying that "warmer-than-average conditions across the eastern U.S. also created an environment favorable for severe thunderstorms and tornadoes."

The first three months of the year were record warm for the contiguous United States with an average temperature of 42.0°F, 6.0°F above the long-term average.

The April 2011 to March 2012 period, which included the second hottest summer and fourth warmest winter, was the warmest such period in the contiguous U.S..

Jerry Meehl, climate scientist: “Everybody has this uneasy feeling. This is weird. This is not good.”Looking at whether human-caused global warming was a factor, NOAA analysts wrote in a draft assessment on "Meteorological March Madness 2012": "Our current estimate of the impact of GHG (greenhouse gases) forcing is that it likely contributed on the order of 5% to 10% of the magnitude of the heat wave during 12-23 March. And the probability of heatwaves is growing as GHG-induced warming continues to progress."

And Jerry Meehl, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, toldthe Associated Press, “Everybody has this uneasy feeling. This is weird. This is not good.”

A report issued last month from the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) linked the increase in extreme weather with human-caused global warming. “The information is all on the table,” Thomas Stocker, one of the report’s lead authors, told EurActiv. “If you have high emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, then you will increase the incidence of ‘hottest days’ by a factor of 10.”

* * *

NOAA: This animation shows the locations of each of the 7,793 daytime and 7,493 nighttime records (or tied records) in sequence over the 31 days in March.

Charter Revocation for Massey Coal?

Two years ago today, on April 5th, 2010, the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia exploded, killing 29 miners who were working inside.

An official state report found that Massey Energy, the corporation that owned the mine, was responsible for their deaths. And now the mine’s superintendent has pled guilty to federal charges related to the explosion.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called Massey a “criminal enterprise”1, and we agree. That’s why we’re calling for Massey’s corporate charter to be revoked by the state of Delaware, where Massey is officially based.

Join our call to put Massey Energy out of business.

A corporation as reckless as Massey should lose its right to exist. As Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, recently wrote in Yes! Magazine, “charter revocation effectively constitutes the death penalty for a corporation. Even occasional use against large corporations would be a major deterrent to corporate wrongdoing."2

Meet Kinder Morgan: Coal Pollution in our Backyard

The Facts about Kinder Morgan
Executive Summary

April 2012

In January, Kinder Morgan—a giant energy conglomerate—announced plans to use an Oregon port on the Columbia River to export 30 million tons of coal annually to China and other Asian markets. Many people in the Northwest are concerned about the health risks, pollution, and economic risks that are entailed by the plans. A look at Kinder Morgan’s track record in communities where the company already exports coal reveals that these worries may be well-founded.

Many of Kinder Morgan’s coal export operations in the US blight neighborhoods and foul rivers. The company’s track record in the Northwest and beyond is one of pollution, law-breaking, and cover-ups. Moreover, the proposed Oregon terminal would be the company’s biggest yet.

· In Louisiana, Kinder Morgan’s coal export facilities are so dirty that satellite photos clearly show coal dust pollution spewing into the Mississippi River.

· In South Carolina, coal dust from Kinder Morgan’s terminal contaminates oysters, pilings, and boats. Locals have even caught the company on video washing coal directly into sensitive waterways.

· In Virginia, Kinder Morgan’s coal export terminal is an open sore on the neighborhood, coating nearby homes in dust so frequently that even the mayor is speaking out about the problem.

· In Portland, Kinder Morgan officials bribed a ship captain to illegally dump contaminated material at sea, and their operations have repeatedly polluted the Willamette River.

Coal train activity: Olympia impacted

The biggest rise in train traffic from coal transport is expected along the I-5 corridor and the Columbia River Gorge, as coal trains move west from Wyoming and then head up the coast. |credit: Cambridge Systematics report for the Washington State Transportation Commission |rollover image for more


There’s a lot of coal in the middle of the United States, and China wants it.

That puts the Northwest squarely in the middle of supply and demand. Train routes would take coal from deposits like the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to shipping terminals along the West Coast.

From there, the coal could be delivered by boat to Asian markets.

EarthFix’s Ashley Ahearn turns to Eric de Place, a researcher with Sightline Institute –- a 
think tank in Seattle.




.

EarthFix: I’ve heard the Powder River Basin in Wyoming described as the “Saudi Arabia of coal”. What does that mean for how much coal is going to be coming out of Northwestern ports essentially?

Eric de Place: Right. It’s the most productive coal region in the U.S. and in North America these days. What we’re looking at is about 100 million tons of coal proposed to be moved through the Pacific Northwest and then out of the terminals — and it possibly could be more than 100 million tons depending on how you do the numbers.