Been following some of the hundreds and thousands of daily/nightly/constant protests around the world with a focus on Portland, Oregon. I want to see whether any of this is going to amount to anything good. So far, I can't say.
What I can say from what I've been seeing on the various livestreams is that there are far too many police, and most of them are doing nothing useful at all. Their primary task in Portland and many other places is protection of their fortresses. That's it. Nothing else. Night after night, day after day, the police assemble in multitudes while the public assembles their on their own account, and then they do battle in the streets. Or not. All to protect and defend the police and (in)justice offices, courts, jails, headquarters, fortresses.
They march. They run. They pant. They brutalize. They run. They halt and catch their breaths. They run and brutalize. They tumble and fall over people running away from them. They halt. They pant. They yell. They thwack people who don't run fast enough. They confiscate bicycles, umbrellas, back packs, water. They pop the tires of the Snack Van, over and over and over again. They run. They pant. They yell.
This is Portland, but it's also hundreds of cities and countries around the world. Minsk. Paris. Beirut. Bolivia. Thailand. Hong Kong. Chicago. Baltimore. Washington, DC. Seattle. Los Angeles. On and on.
The protest movement is like water. Everywhere. Nowhere. All at once. Intermittent.
The issues: Dignity. Justice. Community. Peace. The issues: corruption, injustice, racism, no-future. Increasing suffering. Hunger. Homelessness. Debt. Illness and death.
And most police do nothing useful at all. They are emblems, symbols of a useless, death-dealing ruling class, united against the people they fear and despise.
Showing posts with label Protest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protest. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2020
Thursday, July 23, 2020
Garbage Fire -- A Metaphor
Last night in Portland, the scene was different than before, but strangely the same. A huge crowd assembled at the Multnomah County Justice Center on the next block over from the federal courthouse. They were, as they are every night, primarily focused on the Black Lives Matter movement and supporting the de-racialization of police, justice and society. It's festive, angry and determined. There were upwards of two thousand people in attendance; I'd say closer to four or five thousand, but it was impossible for me to see the edges of the crowd from the live-streamers' pov.
At a certain point, many of the demonstrators moved over to the federal courthouse on the adjacent block. It had been surrounded by a high metal mesh fence, much like the one deployed in DC to keep the rabble away from the White House and out of Lafayette Park. Point of interest: it may actually be the same one, transported by DHS over the past few weeks. Maybe they'll take it all around the country as to "quell" protests.
The fence appeared to surround the whole building, but that wasn't entirely clear. There are sally ports on the sides and rear of the building, and you'd think the feds would want to keep access to them open, but who knows? The fencing had obviously been erected sometime after the previous night's festivities, and it appeared that while the fencing was being put up, all the trash and debris collected under the portico in front of the building had been removed. The cleanup made things look a little less gross, but the graffiti decorating the building remained to remind us of what was going on.
As the crowd assembled in front of the courthouse, there was no sign of federal officers (or whatever they are) protecting the building. Someone pointed out however that the front entrance sally port was open, so no doubt at some point, the feds would get to work and "quell" the protests.
There were gates in the fence, and apparently it was easy enough to open them and wander around inside the barricade. Some chose to do so while others collected trash (from the park across the street?) and placed it in bags along the perimeter of the fence. At some point, the trash was thrown over the fence and lit on fire. Multiple garbage fires burned inside the fence, not threatening the building, but certainly serving as an emblem of the disaster the federal "law enforcement" presence was in Portland.
As the fires burned, protesters wandered in and out of the barricaded area, and the feds finally bestirred themselves to do something about it. While some chased the protesters out of the barricaded area, others tackled protesters (one woman was caught and screamed lustily as she was dragged inside by the feds), others shot teargas and impact munitions at the crowd outside (every tear gas canister I saw was thrown back) and one used a fire extinguisher to put out some of the fires. Others kept burning.
Tear gas was shot outside the fence and was immediately thrown back. Clouds of teargas were dispersed with leaf blowers, fireworks were shot at the building, some exploding very loudly, others flashing brightly.
A riot was declared, and protesters ordered to disperse. They did not. Mutual fire went back and forth between the feds and the protesters for some time. Teargas, fireworks, bottles, impact munitions, and so on, and the crowd outside the barricade did not seem to diminish. It looked to be close to a thousand. Many were hit, yet because of the fence, not as many were hurt as in previous confrontations.
Eventually, things calmed down as they tend to do. The crowd went home, the fires were out, and the feds retreated into their fortress.
What was different was that the feds did not go beyond their fenced perimeter -- at least I didn't see them do so. The Federal Protective Service made several announcements that damaging the fence would lead to tear gas and impact munitions, but damaging that fence was pretty much impossible, and there was abundant tear gas and impact munitions fired no matter. The declaration of riot and dispersal orders came from the Portland Police -- and they were ignored. So far as I could tell, the PPB did not enforce their orders, but maybe they did. Hard to say.
Did I mention the mayor was there? Oh yes, he got lustily insulted by the crowd and was told to resign. He also got teargassed by the feds. Lucky him. It was sort of like seeing Minneapolis's boy-mayor get humiliated by the BLM crowd back in the day.
Now if the feds have secured a defensible perimeter around the courthouse -- just that, nothing else -- and they stay inside it, I would be willing to guess that the protests will continue but not as intensely. After all, it was the feds going wilding on the streets of Portland that led to the huge protests we've seen since Sunday. If they stay inside their fortress, I think nobody will much care anymore. I imagine garbage fires will be set now and then -- metaphorically stating the case that the federal government is a garbage fire that will keep burning and flaring up until substantial change is made.
It's being called a revolution, and the protests in Portland certainly evoke the uprisings in many other countries, but a revolution, no. Not yet, perhaps not possible. Demands are being made, and some are being met. That's about as far as it will go.
De-policing, de-racializing policing, dignity, community, justice in all forms, these are among the demands. Will they be achieved? Some, yes. But not easily, and not soon.
Trump's days on the throne are numbered. His reality show is being canceled. Aw too bad. His surge of law enforcement in Portland has been a disaster. The notion that he can bypass local authorities and dictate what and how law enforcement will be done (and by whom) is ludicrous. It appears that in the Chicago and Albuquerque "surges" his agents are working directly with police unions, cutting out local electeds altogether. This won't end well. But we've been saying that about the Trump regime for years.
And it's not ending well.
Not well at all...
Much of what I saw of last night's actions in Portland came from Sergio Olmos's and Cory Elia's coverage.
At a certain point, many of the demonstrators moved over to the federal courthouse on the adjacent block. It had been surrounded by a high metal mesh fence, much like the one deployed in DC to keep the rabble away from the White House and out of Lafayette Park. Point of interest: it may actually be the same one, transported by DHS over the past few weeks. Maybe they'll take it all around the country as to "quell" protests.
The fence appeared to surround the whole building, but that wasn't entirely clear. There are sally ports on the sides and rear of the building, and you'd think the feds would want to keep access to them open, but who knows? The fencing had obviously been erected sometime after the previous night's festivities, and it appeared that while the fencing was being put up, all the trash and debris collected under the portico in front of the building had been removed. The cleanup made things look a little less gross, but the graffiti decorating the building remained to remind us of what was going on.
As the crowd assembled in front of the courthouse, there was no sign of federal officers (or whatever they are) protecting the building. Someone pointed out however that the front entrance sally port was open, so no doubt at some point, the feds would get to work and "quell" the protests.
There were gates in the fence, and apparently it was easy enough to open them and wander around inside the barricade. Some chose to do so while others collected trash (from the park across the street?) and placed it in bags along the perimeter of the fence. At some point, the trash was thrown over the fence and lit on fire. Multiple garbage fires burned inside the fence, not threatening the building, but certainly serving as an emblem of the disaster the federal "law enforcement" presence was in Portland.
As the fires burned, protesters wandered in and out of the barricaded area, and the feds finally bestirred themselves to do something about it. While some chased the protesters out of the barricaded area, others tackled protesters (one woman was caught and screamed lustily as she was dragged inside by the feds), others shot teargas and impact munitions at the crowd outside (every tear gas canister I saw was thrown back) and one used a fire extinguisher to put out some of the fires. Others kept burning.
Tear gas was shot outside the fence and was immediately thrown back. Clouds of teargas were dispersed with leaf blowers, fireworks were shot at the building, some exploding very loudly, others flashing brightly.
A riot was declared, and protesters ordered to disperse. They did not. Mutual fire went back and forth between the feds and the protesters for some time. Teargas, fireworks, bottles, impact munitions, and so on, and the crowd outside the barricade did not seem to diminish. It looked to be close to a thousand. Many were hit, yet because of the fence, not as many were hurt as in previous confrontations.
Eventually, things calmed down as they tend to do. The crowd went home, the fires were out, and the feds retreated into their fortress.
What was different was that the feds did not go beyond their fenced perimeter -- at least I didn't see them do so. The Federal Protective Service made several announcements that damaging the fence would lead to tear gas and impact munitions, but damaging that fence was pretty much impossible, and there was abundant tear gas and impact munitions fired no matter. The declaration of riot and dispersal orders came from the Portland Police -- and they were ignored. So far as I could tell, the PPB did not enforce their orders, but maybe they did. Hard to say.
Did I mention the mayor was there? Oh yes, he got lustily insulted by the crowd and was told to resign. He also got teargassed by the feds. Lucky him. It was sort of like seeing Minneapolis's boy-mayor get humiliated by the BLM crowd back in the day.
Now if the feds have secured a defensible perimeter around the courthouse -- just that, nothing else -- and they stay inside it, I would be willing to guess that the protests will continue but not as intensely. After all, it was the feds going wilding on the streets of Portland that led to the huge protests we've seen since Sunday. If they stay inside their fortress, I think nobody will much care anymore. I imagine garbage fires will be set now and then -- metaphorically stating the case that the federal government is a garbage fire that will keep burning and flaring up until substantial change is made.
It's being called a revolution, and the protests in Portland certainly evoke the uprisings in many other countries, but a revolution, no. Not yet, perhaps not possible. Demands are being made, and some are being met. That's about as far as it will go.
De-policing, de-racializing policing, dignity, community, justice in all forms, these are among the demands. Will they be achieved? Some, yes. But not easily, and not soon.
Trump's days on the throne are numbered. His reality show is being canceled. Aw too bad. His surge of law enforcement in Portland has been a disaster. The notion that he can bypass local authorities and dictate what and how law enforcement will be done (and by whom) is ludicrous. It appears that in the Chicago and Albuquerque "surges" his agents are working directly with police unions, cutting out local electeds altogether. This won't end well. But we've been saying that about the Trump regime for years.
And it's not ending well.
Not well at all...
Much of what I saw of last night's actions in Portland came from Sergio Olmos's and Cory Elia's coverage.
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Murder Holes and Sally Ports
I've been watching some of the independent media coverage of the "Portland Insurrection." The coverage is very good and very extensive and gives one a much better understanding of what's going on than anything you'll see in the major mass media. Most of it is not politically shaded. They just want people to see for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
The uprising is somewhat evocative of Occupy but not really. There's a park across the street from the Federal Courthouse which is used as a staging and rest area by the protesters. There's food, water, medical supplies, and many helpers to look after the needs of the protesters and anyone who is injured by the forces arrayed against them. People don't camp out in the park, however. It's not being used to house people, though I suppose it could be. Nevertheless, the various stations in the park look to be semi-permanent, even though they are partially destroyed by the "secret police" whoever they are every night.
The protests go on day and night, but it is at night when things become chaotic and often violent. The courthouse itself has been heavily fortified and heavily vandalized. Layers and layers of graffiti cover the walls and pillars and plywood protective coverings of the building. Many fires have been set in the front portico of the building, none of which have done any particular damage. They can't. The building is concrete and stone and glass and is in essence a fortified castle. Inside are some dozens of defenders, said to be from ICE, CBP, Marshal's Service and other federal law enforcement agencies, none of which can be sorted out by the public. Officers wear camo and try to look badass like military -- much to the objection of the military -- while some wear black uniforms that look identical to the Portland Police (and have been mistaken for them). Nobody knows though, because there is no identification of who is actually defending the building from the protesters at any given time or instance.
They're afraid you see. Oh yes. They're terrified of the "mob" -- of moms and dads and black folks.
The crowds of protesters have been growing every night since the deployment of feds to "proactively" arrest and drag away in unmarked vans people they choose on the streets. From a few hundred a week ago, the crowds have grown to maybe five thousand last night, the biggest so far, and signs are they will keep growing at least until the feds are neutered or removed. It's a diverse lot of people, that's for sure, and it's becoming more diverse every night.
What there aren't many of is older people. That's wise. The protests are intense, they're loud and long, and often, protesters are crowded very close together. Though most everyone wears face coverings -- often gas masks -- the close quarters and much shouting puts oldsters at risk of the virus. Not to mention all the tear gas, pepper balls and spray, and other munitions shot and thrown at the protesters.
One thing to note: the building defenders are heavily armed and armored. They carry and use "less lethal" as well as lethal weapons, and they are not particularly hesitant to use them -- though I'm not aware of anyone who's been killed. Hundreds in the crowds have been injured, some severely. Perhaps some of the feds have been injured too. It's hard to tell. What they say cannot be relied on because they lie. All the time.
They lie in wait inside the building while the crowds outside chant and sing and whatnot, the usual protest business. The crowds are not armed -- at least so far as we know -- and not armored, though some have made make-shift shields and many wear gas masks when things get rough. Their weapons, such as they are, consist mostly of plastic water bottles which get tossed at the building with some regularity. Also trash. Which gets tossed but then is often cleaned up. Water bottles are also thrown at the feds when they come out of their sally ports, but they rarely connect with individuals. Sometimes they do, it's true, and the whiny little bitches moan and groan about it as if they'd been shot with bullets.
The feds use lots of tear gas, flash bangs, pepper rounds, rubber bullets and other "less lethal" munitions on the crowds when they emerge from their hidey holes -- which they do periodically without announcement. They have sally ports on the front, the sides and the rear of the building and they have what are called "murder holes" from which they can watch the crowds and fire munitions at them without taking water bottle fire in return.
It all seems quite patterned, and those who have been protesting for any length of time know the drill.
But something changed last night, and it was quite astonishing to watch. The feds were attempting to expand their perimeter beyond the building, clear the park in front, and push the crowd farther and farther away from the blocks near the court house. Well, they got a surprise.
According to Sergio Olmos, one of the independent media observing and reporting on all this, activist used colored smoke grenades (red in this case) to obscure what the crowd (assembled about a block away from the feds) was doing. When the smoke was thick, someone shot fireworks into the midst of the feds. The fireworks exploded spectacularly -- but probably (?) harmlessly -- and the crowd started moving back toward the park. It wasn't immediately clear, but the fireworks caused the feds to retreat immediately -- they must have run back to their fortress because they were gone completely by the time the crowd reached the park. It was then a clear path back to the courthouse for the protesters.
Amazing.
I've seen fireworks used in other demonstrations. In Spain, for example, protesters used fireworks rockets shot directly at police, which caused panic and apparently injuries among them. They were quite deliberate in their aim, too. In Kiev, on the other hand, protesters set police on fire with gasoline and molotov cocktails, and ran them over with bulldozers. Dozens of police were killed, hundreds injured. Fire bombs of various kinds were used against police in Athens, and there have been many other examples of protesters using lethal force against police throughout the protest seasons world wide, but that's not been the case in the United States. Last night, the protest came close, I'd say, to becoming lethal for police or at least it looked like it.
They say that the DHS employees are becoming alarmed and demoralized by all this. I would imagine so. It will go on until it is stopped. And the wonder is that nobody has yet attempted an intervention to stop it.
But I'm pretty sure there will have to be one. Or... well, let's stay positive.
A good overview of the protests is provided by Veteran for Peace on YouTube. His camera is held on high so you can see a much wider view of what's going on. He's been shot numerous times with rubber bullets and pepper balls, clearly targeted. But he keeps coming back.
There is lots of other independent media coverage, #pdxprotest will start you on your journey if you're interested, but warning, there is so much, it quickly becomes protest porn.
This is something different for the US. Whether it will last and be transformative, I don't know. But it is certainly worth paying attention to.
The uprising is somewhat evocative of Occupy but not really. There's a park across the street from the Federal Courthouse which is used as a staging and rest area by the protesters. There's food, water, medical supplies, and many helpers to look after the needs of the protesters and anyone who is injured by the forces arrayed against them. People don't camp out in the park, however. It's not being used to house people, though I suppose it could be. Nevertheless, the various stations in the park look to be semi-permanent, even though they are partially destroyed by the "secret police" whoever they are every night.
The protests go on day and night, but it is at night when things become chaotic and often violent. The courthouse itself has been heavily fortified and heavily vandalized. Layers and layers of graffiti cover the walls and pillars and plywood protective coverings of the building. Many fires have been set in the front portico of the building, none of which have done any particular damage. They can't. The building is concrete and stone and glass and is in essence a fortified castle. Inside are some dozens of defenders, said to be from ICE, CBP, Marshal's Service and other federal law enforcement agencies, none of which can be sorted out by the public. Officers wear camo and try to look badass like military -- much to the objection of the military -- while some wear black uniforms that look identical to the Portland Police (and have been mistaken for them). Nobody knows though, because there is no identification of who is actually defending the building from the protesters at any given time or instance.
They're afraid you see. Oh yes. They're terrified of the "mob" -- of moms and dads and black folks.
The crowds of protesters have been growing every night since the deployment of feds to "proactively" arrest and drag away in unmarked vans people they choose on the streets. From a few hundred a week ago, the crowds have grown to maybe five thousand last night, the biggest so far, and signs are they will keep growing at least until the feds are neutered or removed. It's a diverse lot of people, that's for sure, and it's becoming more diverse every night.
What there aren't many of is older people. That's wise. The protests are intense, they're loud and long, and often, protesters are crowded very close together. Though most everyone wears face coverings -- often gas masks -- the close quarters and much shouting puts oldsters at risk of the virus. Not to mention all the tear gas, pepper balls and spray, and other munitions shot and thrown at the protesters.
One thing to note: the building defenders are heavily armed and armored. They carry and use "less lethal" as well as lethal weapons, and they are not particularly hesitant to use them -- though I'm not aware of anyone who's been killed. Hundreds in the crowds have been injured, some severely. Perhaps some of the feds have been injured too. It's hard to tell. What they say cannot be relied on because they lie. All the time.
They lie in wait inside the building while the crowds outside chant and sing and whatnot, the usual protest business. The crowds are not armed -- at least so far as we know -- and not armored, though some have made make-shift shields and many wear gas masks when things get rough. Their weapons, such as they are, consist mostly of plastic water bottles which get tossed at the building with some regularity. Also trash. Which gets tossed but then is often cleaned up. Water bottles are also thrown at the feds when they come out of their sally ports, but they rarely connect with individuals. Sometimes they do, it's true, and the whiny little bitches moan and groan about it as if they'd been shot with bullets.
The feds use lots of tear gas, flash bangs, pepper rounds, rubber bullets and other "less lethal" munitions on the crowds when they emerge from their hidey holes -- which they do periodically without announcement. They have sally ports on the front, the sides and the rear of the building and they have what are called "murder holes" from which they can watch the crowds and fire munitions at them without taking water bottle fire in return.
It all seems quite patterned, and those who have been protesting for any length of time know the drill.
But something changed last night, and it was quite astonishing to watch. The feds were attempting to expand their perimeter beyond the building, clear the park in front, and push the crowd farther and farther away from the blocks near the court house. Well, they got a surprise.
According to Sergio Olmos, one of the independent media observing and reporting on all this, activist used colored smoke grenades (red in this case) to obscure what the crowd (assembled about a block away from the feds) was doing. When the smoke was thick, someone shot fireworks into the midst of the feds. The fireworks exploded spectacularly -- but probably (?) harmlessly -- and the crowd started moving back toward the park. It wasn't immediately clear, but the fireworks caused the feds to retreat immediately -- they must have run back to their fortress because they were gone completely by the time the crowd reached the park. It was then a clear path back to the courthouse for the protesters.
Amazing.
I've seen fireworks used in other demonstrations. In Spain, for example, protesters used fireworks rockets shot directly at police, which caused panic and apparently injuries among them. They were quite deliberate in their aim, too. In Kiev, on the other hand, protesters set police on fire with gasoline and molotov cocktails, and ran them over with bulldozers. Dozens of police were killed, hundreds injured. Fire bombs of various kinds were used against police in Athens, and there have been many other examples of protesters using lethal force against police throughout the protest seasons world wide, but that's not been the case in the United States. Last night, the protest came close, I'd say, to becoming lethal for police or at least it looked like it.
They say that the DHS employees are becoming alarmed and demoralized by all this. I would imagine so. It will go on until it is stopped. And the wonder is that nobody has yet attempted an intervention to stop it.
But I'm pretty sure there will have to be one. Or... well, let's stay positive.
A good overview of the protests is provided by Veteran for Peace on YouTube. His camera is held on high so you can see a much wider view of what's going on. He's been shot numerous times with rubber bullets and pepper balls, clearly targeted. But he keeps coming back.
There is lots of other independent media coverage, #pdxprotest will start you on your journey if you're interested, but warning, there is so much, it quickly becomes protest porn.
This is something different for the US. Whether it will last and be transformative, I don't know. But it is certainly worth paying attention to.
Friday, June 5, 2020
"The Police Just Went Nuts"
I've been reviewing some of the stories of police abuse coming out of literally everywhere since the start of the George Floyd protests. I thought I had been shocked to the core by police misconduct years and years ago and that nothing would come close to events I'd witnessed in person or virtually in years gone by. Little did I know.
The George Floyd murder-by-cop in Minneapolis triggered mass demonstrations in the streets all over the country and all over the world. It was an egregious -- and very deliberate -- act of police power over the black body of a man pleading for his life while that life was being crushed out of him by one officer whose knee on his neck wouldn't be removed until George Floyd was good and dead. Three other officers either participated in the murder or idled nearby doing nothing to intervene. All captured on video taken by bystanders, some of whom attempted to intervene but were blocked by officers.
I've seen similar scenes before, many times, but nothing quite as appalling in its tortuousness and murderous intent. Second and third degree murder charges have been laid against the officer whose knee eventually killed George Floyd and the other officers have been charged as accessories aiding and abetting, but the calls for first degree intentional murder charges have only increased as the anger against police brutality has led to massive demonstrations that continue to this day.
The police response in many cities has been grotesquely out of control. That lack of discipline and control is the essence of what is being protested, the reason why so many people are marching against police brutality, and over and over and over again, day in and day out, police are showing themselves to be unworthy of public trust or support.
One of numerous incidents in Philadelphia involved police firing chemical weapons and rubber bullets at thousands of protesters, many trapped on an embankment with nowhere to retreat, injuring hundreds, and arresting "dozens." The fourteen minute overhead video captures much of the scene, but doesn't really show the affect on so many.
This was perhaps the worst of what I've seen so far, but it's by no means unique. The police in many cities have adopted a hostile and deliberately cruel attitude toward protesters leading to constant abuse of the public, much of it documented on video, far too much of it defended by police chiefs and elected officials because somebody did something somewhere at some point, and order must be maintained.
We see this justification from the White House practically daily as the blowback from the "clearance" of protesters from DC's Lafayette Square on Monday using tear gas, munitions, mounted officers and brutality intensifies. All so Trump could pose in front of St. John's Church, holding aloft a book he claimed was a bible and then assemble his sycophants for more pictures before shambling back to the White House bunkers.
Damn,
There have been a few contrasting scenes of police trying to show solidarity with the protesters by marching with them, kneeling with them, expressing outrage at the murder of George Floyd, etc. But those are rare compared to the violence and yes, murder by police committed too often in too many places as unrest continues.
Our rulers like to try to shame China for the treatment of demonstrators in Hong Kong, but truly, Chinese police and troops in Hong Kong have been utterly restrained compared to the US. The world looks on in bemused horror.
I don't know how this episode of police outrage will be resolved, if it will. But many see it as the death rattle of a failed regime -- not simply the Trump regime, but the general apparatus of neoliberal rule. Maybe. We'll see.
In the meantime, given everything that's going on -- pandemic disease, economic collapse, wilding by police, looting by the overclass -- the next few months will be somewhat more than "interesting."
Stay well and safe.
The George Floyd murder-by-cop in Minneapolis triggered mass demonstrations in the streets all over the country and all over the world. It was an egregious -- and very deliberate -- act of police power over the black body of a man pleading for his life while that life was being crushed out of him by one officer whose knee on his neck wouldn't be removed until George Floyd was good and dead. Three other officers either participated in the murder or idled nearby doing nothing to intervene. All captured on video taken by bystanders, some of whom attempted to intervene but were blocked by officers.
I've seen similar scenes before, many times, but nothing quite as appalling in its tortuousness and murderous intent. Second and third degree murder charges have been laid against the officer whose knee eventually killed George Floyd and the other officers have been charged as accessories aiding and abetting, but the calls for first degree intentional murder charges have only increased as the anger against police brutality has led to massive demonstrations that continue to this day.
The police response in many cities has been grotesquely out of control. That lack of discipline and control is the essence of what is being protested, the reason why so many people are marching against police brutality, and over and over and over again, day in and day out, police are showing themselves to be unworthy of public trust or support.
One of numerous incidents in Philadelphia involved police firing chemical weapons and rubber bullets at thousands of protesters, many trapped on an embankment with nowhere to retreat, injuring hundreds, and arresting "dozens." The fourteen minute overhead video captures much of the scene, but doesn't really show the affect on so many.
This was perhaps the worst of what I've seen so far, but it's by no means unique. The police in many cities have adopted a hostile and deliberately cruel attitude toward protesters leading to constant abuse of the public, much of it documented on video, far too much of it defended by police chiefs and elected officials because somebody did something somewhere at some point, and order must be maintained.
We see this justification from the White House practically daily as the blowback from the "clearance" of protesters from DC's Lafayette Square on Monday using tear gas, munitions, mounted officers and brutality intensifies. All so Trump could pose in front of St. John's Church, holding aloft a book he claimed was a bible and then assemble his sycophants for more pictures before shambling back to the White House bunkers.
Damn,
There have been a few contrasting scenes of police trying to show solidarity with the protesters by marching with them, kneeling with them, expressing outrage at the murder of George Floyd, etc. But those are rare compared to the violence and yes, murder by police committed too often in too many places as unrest continues.
Our rulers like to try to shame China for the treatment of demonstrators in Hong Kong, but truly, Chinese police and troops in Hong Kong have been utterly restrained compared to the US. The world looks on in bemused horror.
I don't know how this episode of police outrage will be resolved, if it will. But many see it as the death rattle of a failed regime -- not simply the Trump regime, but the general apparatus of neoliberal rule. Maybe. We'll see.
In the meantime, given everything that's going on -- pandemic disease, economic collapse, wilding by police, looting by the overclass -- the next few months will be somewhat more than "interesting."
Stay well and safe.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
She was the only brown person there
I may have mentioned that Ms Ché spent the last three weeks at the Naropa University Summer Writing Program ("The Jack Kerouac School of Disembodied Poetics"). She just returned yesterday, her flip phone (sometimes called a Rez phone) loaded with photos of her adventure, her bags filled with papers and books from her workshops and instructors. She did not visit Allen Ginsberg's grave (well, the depository of a third of his ashes on the Shambhala mountainside two hours from Boulder.) She's an Old Lady, aka Elder, now. Climbing that mountain was not either necessary or physically possible for her. Oh well!
On Saturday, students from the Summer Writing Program assembled on Pearl Street in historic Boulder, Colorado, to participate in the nationwide -- actually international -- demonstrations: "Families Belong Together."
It's been a long time since she took to the streets -- I've been much more active on that front, though not lately. She said she looked around and realized she was the only brown person marching and carrying signs that morning in Boulder, though the Latino garbage collectors tooted their horns as the modest multitude of mostly Anglos marched by. I've seen reports that that was the case in many other locations too -- Anglo allies marching and chanting on behalf of the mostly Central American families separated at the border by order of the regime in Washington, an order carried out by the more and more notorious Gestapo-like border patrol and immigration cops who seem to relish their freedom to harm their victims.
Given the tensions of the time, it's understandable if brown people chose to stay away from some of the demonstrations. They might be targets. When Ms. Ché stopped for a moment along the route of the march in Boulder, a man sidled up to her and whispred, "Better watch out that some yahoo doesn't run his car into the march." Yep True enough. These are the times we live in.
There's been some discussion about why some -- or many? -- Native Americans have been supportive of the migrants who have been so cruelly abused in the current roundups and family separations. After all, weren't the Indians overrun by immigrants back in the day? Shouldn't they want to keep them out now? (Besides, Hillary!, Obama!, etc.)
Ms. Ché's father was a non-white immigrant; her mother was full-blood Cherokee. Her mother was sent to Indian boarding school from the first to the eighth grade. Her father faced the kind of racial and new-comer discrimination that has infected this country from the outset. Many Natives do support the current migrants ("legal" or not) because they understand the suffering so many have experienced, and because so many of those are being abused at the southern border are indigenous peoples. There were no borders before the white folks invented them.
People migrated from place to place throughout the Americas before the white folks came and divided the land into countries with secure borders. People who needed help got help in most cases. People from elsewhere were often integrated or adopted into the tribes who offered them assistance. This is not to over glamorize Native society. It wasn't necessarily rainbows and unicorns, but there wasn't the routine sorts of cruelty we've been seeing from the Trump government (and previous ones.)
So Natives are not inclined to follow the government's lead regarding the current migrant crisis. Regardless of who occupies the White House.
Colorado still has a lot of cruel history to deal with, and progress hasbeen slow. The demonstration in Boulder was small, but the one in Denver was huge. For Ms. Ché, her participation in the Boulder demonstration was an important statement. She has plenty to say about the bullshit infecting the country. And she'll do her part...
[Meant to post this yesterday, but life intervened ... 😎😎]
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Ugly and getting uglier
Kind of interesting from the view at 30,000 feet, but I don't know how much longer I'll bebe able to maintain my distance from the roiling unrest in the streets, nor do I have any real insight into how far it's going to spread.
There were said to be 100,000 in the streets of LA yesterday protesting the elevation of Trump to the Presidency. If it was reported that way, the number was probably quite a bit more given the media tendency to low-ball "leftist" crowd estimates.
Gee.
The protests in Portland have been called "riots" and the police have responded by firing into the crowds with "rubber projectiles," gas and smoke grenades and flash-bangs after assuring us that the protesters threw "objects" at them. A sniper apparently fired live ammunition at a protester, wounding him.
And so it goes.
On the other side, Trump partisans are either claiming the protests don't matter -- after all, the protesters are so few and they're just losers, whiners, and no accounts -- or they are Soros-funded attempts at a domestic "Color Revolution" -- and they don't matter, because Soros, and who cares, anyway?
Well, I'm not aware of any Color Revolution aspects -- yet. But the protests have been growing and spreading, and they are destabilizing wherever they pop up. There was a demonstration in Albuquerque the other day (I think it was Wednesday, I forget!) in which about 600 participated. A handful of what I assume were anarchists targeted a restaurant along the route for vandalism, and sure enough, that's what caught the local media eye (they are always on the lookout for protester "violence.") Another protest was apparently announced for Thursday night and all the mechanisms for suppression were marshaled by the authorities, but whoopsy! The protest didn't happen.
I have to say Albuquerque's local protest community is well experienced in psyching out authority, and apparently they've been doing that. Bless their hearts.
But what I'm seeing reported in the media about protests around the country should be starting to alarm Our Rulers. It's not a Color Revolution yet, but it could become one -- or something like one -- very quickly.
Personally, I wouldn't want that to happen, partly because the results where they have happened have not necessarily been what their participants intended -- sometimes they've been closer to the opposite. They tend to cause the institutionalization of a neo-liberal, exploitative and extractive power structure that acts against the interests of the People. We already have that, duh. But if a Color Revolution type general protest occurs in this country, Trump will be toast. I don't know of any target of a Color Revolution who has managed to survive the... um, process. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't look good for the survival of the current wildly corrupt and purposefully contrary power structure.
While that might be desirable in the abstract, what would take its place?
That's the problem. While there are many, many reasons to take to the streets over this appalling and outrageous (s)election, no one I know of is able to articulate an alternative. What are we supposed to do, and what sort of difference is supposed to be made?
Are we supposed to install Hillary instead of Trump? I don't see that as viable. First of all, she is saying -- along with the entire political class and the media -- to "accept" the results essentially without question and get used to Trump-the-President. The people in the streets refuse.
While Hillary has a widening popular vote lead, now estimated to top out at 2 million, but it might go to three or even four million by the time all the votes are counted, and if that happened, that would give her a clear majority in the popular vote, no one has yet looked closely at the "battleground" state totals that so surprisingly "flipped" from Clinton to Trump by a very narrow margin at the last minute -- giving him an Electoral College victory without the need for a popular vote plurality or majority.
Given all the talk about rigged elections and Putin's interference (OMG! Putin!) it's remarkable that after Trump's "shocking" "historic" "upset" no one said a word about rigging or interference again.
The Memory Hole sucked it right down.
How... interesting.
Clinton, for her part, is telling donors she "lost" because of Comey's interference. Wait. What about PUTIN????!!!!! No word.
Of course because Trump "won" he no longer has anything to say about "rigged elections," does he?
Jeebus.
They must think the Rabble are complete idiots. Well...
All right, I don't know what happened in the "battleground" states. The excuses I've heard for the "surprising" flip Clinton to Trump in those states -- and those states alone -- are that white women broke for Trump at the very last minute (because Comey -- that was Hillary's excuse) and there were all these hidden white rural voters who came out of the woods to vote for Trump, and what could you do, it was just enough to give him an EC victory, and that's it. Just accept it.
The people in the streets are saying, "No! Fuck No! Not. This. Time!"
We were told the same thing when Bush2 was handed the Presidency by a lawless Supreme Court. "Just accept it." And many did. A lot said "No," but that time, they were ignored. 60,000 or more protested Bush's inauguration in DC on the day, and there was almost no mention of it in the media. It went right down the Memory Hole too, and today hardly anybody knows it happened. "Get over it" was the constant refrain of the Busheviks, but many never did, and the outrages that Busheviks committed were so appalling and so destructive that today it's almost impossible to believe such a damaging regime was allowed to do what it did by the entire political class cheered on by a captive media. What were they thinking?
Millions took to the streets to protest the Iraq War, and they were ignored. But many, many others protested practically every aspect of the Bush Regime, and except for Cindy Sheehan sitting in her ditch in Crawford shaming Bush the Lesser, you practically wouldn't know there were any protests at all these days, because most of them were ignored at the time, and forgotten.
But they happened nonetheless and had the cumulative effect of destabilizing the regime. Not that it did any good, but it happened.
The horrors of the Bush2 Regime are not forgotten, despite the fact that the protests largely were, and I think part of the motivation of the current protests is a recognition that Trump is like Bush2 on steroids, raging and champing at the bit to commit even more mayhem to more people, faster and harder than the Busheviks did.
We will not willingly repeat that horror show.
Trump and his gang of thieves, mountebanks, torturers and warmongers have done nothing to assure us they won't engage in the kind of monstrousness the Busheviks did. In fact, they've been pretty clear they'd "finish the job" the Busheviks left undone by dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other remnants of a social safety net they can find, by deporting every brown person they can round up, building a higher wall to keep them Messicans out, by suppressing every aspect of dissent they can, by restricting the voting franchise to only People Who Matter, by dispensing favors to loyalists, denying them to everyone else, by going hog-wild with extraction and transport of fossil fuels (damn the Indians acting against the Dakota Access Pipeline, Trump himself stands to profit from it, get outta the way, ya damn savages!), restoring official torture programs, glassing any opposition to hegemony in the Middle East, by re-engaging in acts of war against Iran, by allying the United States with every rightwing/fascist regime on earth and on and on and on. That's the program Trump and his R cronies in Congress have been laying out, essentially daring anyone to do anything about it.
His defenders insist we must give him the benefit of the doubt because of all the Good Things he's going to do. Never mind the Bad. He's promising to increase infrastructure spending to create "jobs" -- for whom, doing what? Well, we don't know, do we? But not to worry, it will be Wonderful, and long overdue! He'll get rid of that Obamacare abomination, leaving -- perhaps -- the "prior conditions" denial of coverage provisions and offspring coverage on parents' policies until age 26 as remnant sops to the takers, losers, and whiners. But that's it. Nothing else. 20 some odd million to lose coverage, and wonder of wonders, to lose any ability to get coverage. Tough luck, suckers!
He won't start WWIII with Putin, so that's good, no? He will start a war with Iran and China and whoever else gets in his way or defies him, but they deserve it, right?
Gah. On and on.
"Give him a chance!" And more and more of the People say, "No. Not this time."
I don't know what will happen. I don't want to think the worst, but it's hard not to under the circumstances. This man and his cronies must not take office. Period.
God save us.
There were said to be 100,000 in the streets of LA yesterday protesting the elevation of Trump to the Presidency. If it was reported that way, the number was probably quite a bit more given the media tendency to low-ball "leftist" crowd estimates.
Gee.
The protests in Portland have been called "riots" and the police have responded by firing into the crowds with "rubber projectiles," gas and smoke grenades and flash-bangs after assuring us that the protesters threw "objects" at them. A sniper apparently fired live ammunition at a protester, wounding him.
And so it goes.
On the other side, Trump partisans are either claiming the protests don't matter -- after all, the protesters are so few and they're just losers, whiners, and no accounts -- or they are Soros-funded attempts at a domestic "Color Revolution" -- and they don't matter, because Soros, and who cares, anyway?
Well, I'm not aware of any Color Revolution aspects -- yet. But the protests have been growing and spreading, and they are destabilizing wherever they pop up. There was a demonstration in Albuquerque the other day (I think it was Wednesday, I forget!) in which about 600 participated. A handful of what I assume were anarchists targeted a restaurant along the route for vandalism, and sure enough, that's what caught the local media eye (they are always on the lookout for protester "violence.") Another protest was apparently announced for Thursday night and all the mechanisms for suppression were marshaled by the authorities, but whoopsy! The protest didn't happen.
I have to say Albuquerque's local protest community is well experienced in psyching out authority, and apparently they've been doing that. Bless their hearts.
But what I'm seeing reported in the media about protests around the country should be starting to alarm Our Rulers. It's not a Color Revolution yet, but it could become one -- or something like one -- very quickly.
Personally, I wouldn't want that to happen, partly because the results where they have happened have not necessarily been what their participants intended -- sometimes they've been closer to the opposite. They tend to cause the institutionalization of a neo-liberal, exploitative and extractive power structure that acts against the interests of the People. We already have that, duh. But if a Color Revolution type general protest occurs in this country, Trump will be toast. I don't know of any target of a Color Revolution who has managed to survive the... um, process. I could be wrong, but it wouldn't look good for the survival of the current wildly corrupt and purposefully contrary power structure.
While that might be desirable in the abstract, what would take its place?
That's the problem. While there are many, many reasons to take to the streets over this appalling and outrageous (s)election, no one I know of is able to articulate an alternative. What are we supposed to do, and what sort of difference is supposed to be made?
Are we supposed to install Hillary instead of Trump? I don't see that as viable. First of all, she is saying -- along with the entire political class and the media -- to "accept" the results essentially without question and get used to Trump-the-President. The people in the streets refuse.
While Hillary has a widening popular vote lead, now estimated to top out at 2 million, but it might go to three or even four million by the time all the votes are counted, and if that happened, that would give her a clear majority in the popular vote, no one has yet looked closely at the "battleground" state totals that so surprisingly "flipped" from Clinton to Trump by a very narrow margin at the last minute -- giving him an Electoral College victory without the need for a popular vote plurality or majority.
Given all the talk about rigged elections and Putin's interference (OMG! Putin!) it's remarkable that after Trump's "shocking" "historic" "upset" no one said a word about rigging or interference again.
The Memory Hole sucked it right down.
How... interesting.
Clinton, for her part, is telling donors she "lost" because of Comey's interference. Wait. What about PUTIN????!!!!! No word.
Of course because Trump "won" he no longer has anything to say about "rigged elections," does he?
Jeebus.
They must think the Rabble are complete idiots. Well...
All right, I don't know what happened in the "battleground" states. The excuses I've heard for the "surprising" flip Clinton to Trump in those states -- and those states alone -- are that white women broke for Trump at the very last minute (because Comey -- that was Hillary's excuse) and there were all these hidden white rural voters who came out of the woods to vote for Trump, and what could you do, it was just enough to give him an EC victory, and that's it. Just accept it.
The people in the streets are saying, "No! Fuck No! Not. This. Time!"
We were told the same thing when Bush2 was handed the Presidency by a lawless Supreme Court. "Just accept it." And many did. A lot said "No," but that time, they were ignored. 60,000 or more protested Bush's inauguration in DC on the day, and there was almost no mention of it in the media. It went right down the Memory Hole too, and today hardly anybody knows it happened. "Get over it" was the constant refrain of the Busheviks, but many never did, and the outrages that Busheviks committed were so appalling and so destructive that today it's almost impossible to believe such a damaging regime was allowed to do what it did by the entire political class cheered on by a captive media. What were they thinking?
Millions took to the streets to protest the Iraq War, and they were ignored. But many, many others protested practically every aspect of the Bush Regime, and except for Cindy Sheehan sitting in her ditch in Crawford shaming Bush the Lesser, you practically wouldn't know there were any protests at all these days, because most of them were ignored at the time, and forgotten.
But they happened nonetheless and had the cumulative effect of destabilizing the regime. Not that it did any good, but it happened.
The horrors of the Bush2 Regime are not forgotten, despite the fact that the protests largely were, and I think part of the motivation of the current protests is a recognition that Trump is like Bush2 on steroids, raging and champing at the bit to commit even more mayhem to more people, faster and harder than the Busheviks did.
We will not willingly repeat that horror show.
Trump and his gang of thieves, mountebanks, torturers and warmongers have done nothing to assure us they won't engage in the kind of monstrousness the Busheviks did. In fact, they've been pretty clear they'd "finish the job" the Busheviks left undone by dismantling Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and any other remnants of a social safety net they can find, by deporting every brown person they can round up, building a higher wall to keep them Messicans out, by suppressing every aspect of dissent they can, by restricting the voting franchise to only People Who Matter, by dispensing favors to loyalists, denying them to everyone else, by going hog-wild with extraction and transport of fossil fuels (damn the Indians acting against the Dakota Access Pipeline, Trump himself stands to profit from it, get outta the way, ya damn savages!), restoring official torture programs, glassing any opposition to hegemony in the Middle East, by re-engaging in acts of war against Iran, by allying the United States with every rightwing/fascist regime on earth and on and on and on. That's the program Trump and his R cronies in Congress have been laying out, essentially daring anyone to do anything about it.
His defenders insist we must give him the benefit of the doubt because of all the Good Things he's going to do. Never mind the Bad. He's promising to increase infrastructure spending to create "jobs" -- for whom, doing what? Well, we don't know, do we? But not to worry, it will be Wonderful, and long overdue! He'll get rid of that Obamacare abomination, leaving -- perhaps -- the "prior conditions" denial of coverage provisions and offspring coverage on parents' policies until age 26 as remnant sops to the takers, losers, and whiners. But that's it. Nothing else. 20 some odd million to lose coverage, and wonder of wonders, to lose any ability to get coverage. Tough luck, suckers!
He won't start WWIII with Putin, so that's good, no? He will start a war with Iran and China and whoever else gets in his way or defies him, but they deserve it, right?
Gah. On and on.
"Give him a chance!" And more and more of the People say, "No. Not this time."
I don't know what will happen. I don't want to think the worst, but it's hard not to under the circumstances. This man and his cronies must not take office. Period.
God save us.
Friday, November 11, 2016
As The Protests Grow
This could get very ugly.
I haven't really been following the continuing nationwide protest actions against the outcome of the election, but what I have seen indicates that they are spreading, growing, occasionally result in "violence" -- ie: property damage, vandalism, police overreaction -- and involve a wide range of mostly young people who see no future for themselves under a "President" Trump.
Police repression so far is relatively light, but the indications are that is soon going to get heavier under the joint control of the incoming and the outgoing regimes. Their first level of cooperation will be to crush the incipient revolt in other words, and thus ensure the traditional "peaceful transfer of power" -- by any means necessary.
Oh dear.
I think the young people who have taken to the streets are brave as heck. Good for them. I hope they don't back down -- but I would understand if they do back down under the paramilitary assault that is sure to come their way. I myself am too old and infirm to join them in more than spirit, but they have my support to the extent I can give it.
On the other hand, I'm hearing (some unconfirmed) reports that violent racist outbreaks are taking place all over the country, proliferating like never before in recent times (of course they're part of a long history of violent racism in this country that has only recently been tamped down a bit).
I live in a majority Hispanic rural county in New Mexico, and if anybody tried that racist shit here there would be the devil to pay. This backwater voted for Trump over Clinton to be sure, but not for the Trump package of racism.
In fact, most of the Trump voters I know, either in my family or among my friends and acquaintances, did so out of their own personal sense of being ever more constrained and in some cases overwhelmed by government interference and impositions. They are for the most part small business people, operating farms, ranches, various businesses of many kinds, most doing relatively well -- some are quite well off -- but they feel increasingly overburdened by taxes and increasingly complex regulations that are "crushing them."
In some cases, they are deeply fearful of crime and criminals and of terrorists and terrorism. Why that is so, I have no idea. I don't know anyone who has actually been a victim of either crime or terrorism, but they sure fear it in their bones. They want protection, and they feel Trump will give it to them, whereas Hillary would just make things worse.
The immigration question is somewhat dicey. Most of New Mexico is pretty laissez faire on immigration from Mexico because of long cultural and social ties. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was never really accepted as binding in some ways, nor has the border really be a barrier. Until recently, anyway, and then more rhetorically than actually. I'd put it this way: they don't see the border as worthy of all the focus there is on it.
That's because the numbers of immigrants from south of the border hasn't been very high in New Mexico, at least not since the first waves of invasion that seized the land from the Indians and made of them foreigners in their own territory. There were far more Anglo invaders following the War of aggression that took the territory from Mexico in 1846. New Mexicans have long, long memories, and those events among others still resonate. Being of the Anglo persuasion myself, I'm well aware of the discomfort my mere presence can sometimes cause. Not necessarily hostility, just discomfort.
So while "illegal" immigration is sometimes seen as a problem, it's more theoretical than real; there hasn't been a wave of immigration from Mexico to New Mexico that compares with the experience of some other areas of the country. And of course Anglos are not in the majority in New Mexico, so a lot of the Anglo racism that you see on display elsewhere is much lower key or nonexistent here. I saw one guy down at the local baseball field sporting a huge Confederate flag on the back of his pick up truck the other day, and I thought, "Gee that won't go over well." I haven't seen anything like it since.
The spirit here is much more Live and Let Live, basically, and Get the Government Off My Back. Trump voters think they voted for that. I'm pretty well convinced they're in for a shock with a Trump regime, and they will, like people do, rationalize the new impositions that will come as "necessary" -- until they don't any more, and the revolt that is starting with outraged -- and often hopeless -- young people and minorities will spread to many of those who took Trump at his word and discover they've been conned.
The con job is basic to the Trump approach to rule, and because he's done it so successfully, I'm pretty sure that's why so many Republican Pooh Bahs are pledging their fealty right now despite their previous denunciations. They see him as a meal ticket like no other in recent memory -- maybe Reagan could do it for them, but no one else comes close.
Republicans consider conning their constituents as a fundamental part of their jobs, and they've been doing it pretty well over the years, but nothing like the Trump methods. Democrats do it too, don't get me wrong, and their cons can be just as destructive, if not so successful (I guess because they're easier to see through.)
As I said in an earlier post, TPTB can intervene in this growing Trumpian disaster, but will they? So far, no, they won't. They seem convinced for the time being that it's going to be OK -- for them. As long as that's the case, they will have no reason to intervene.
But as the protests grow and spread and involve more and more of the Right People as opposed to just the Rabble, they will have to do something. I don't know that Trump himself is capable of being judicious about doing anything, and I suspect that Obama would be "helpful" in ways that don't help Trump at all.
Canceling the inauguration -- my preferred action -- is unlikely, but a violent crackdown on the protests will have lasting and destabilizing repercussions. It will have the effect of delegitimizing the rule of these assholes, to a far greater extent than the Bush 2 regime was delegitimized by the protests against it. (Credit Cindy Sheehan for actually doing the job...)
Once his rule is delegitimized, as it very nearly is already, the whole apparatus of the Ruling Clique is destabilized. Shit gonna get real.
What have we done to deserve this? I find the whole thing just appalling. Why are Our Rulers so intent on making our lives as miserable as possible? What is with that? Trump has been elevated to be their avatar in office against the advice of most of the Better People, few of whom have any redeeming qualities themselves, and yet they appear to be going along with his program because I think they believe he can con enough people to get away with it, whereas they can't.
Maybe, maybe. But I see that when the mask comes off -- which is pretty much has -- there will be hell to pay.
I would prefer he never take office. Right now, I think pushing the "rigged election" aspect, which he himself is responsible for, may be the way to go. So far it hasn't got any traction, but things are moving fast, and things can change in a heartbeat.
Solidarity. It's gonna be a hard slog. But it ain't over till it's over.
I haven't really been following the continuing nationwide protest actions against the outcome of the election, but what I have seen indicates that they are spreading, growing, occasionally result in "violence" -- ie: property damage, vandalism, police overreaction -- and involve a wide range of mostly young people who see no future for themselves under a "President" Trump.
Police repression so far is relatively light, but the indications are that is soon going to get heavier under the joint control of the incoming and the outgoing regimes. Their first level of cooperation will be to crush the incipient revolt in other words, and thus ensure the traditional "peaceful transfer of power" -- by any means necessary.
Oh dear.
I think the young people who have taken to the streets are brave as heck. Good for them. I hope they don't back down -- but I would understand if they do back down under the paramilitary assault that is sure to come their way. I myself am too old and infirm to join them in more than spirit, but they have my support to the extent I can give it.
On the other hand, I'm hearing (some unconfirmed) reports that violent racist outbreaks are taking place all over the country, proliferating like never before in recent times (of course they're part of a long history of violent racism in this country that has only recently been tamped down a bit).
I live in a majority Hispanic rural county in New Mexico, and if anybody tried that racist shit here there would be the devil to pay. This backwater voted for Trump over Clinton to be sure, but not for the Trump package of racism.
In fact, most of the Trump voters I know, either in my family or among my friends and acquaintances, did so out of their own personal sense of being ever more constrained and in some cases overwhelmed by government interference and impositions. They are for the most part small business people, operating farms, ranches, various businesses of many kinds, most doing relatively well -- some are quite well off -- but they feel increasingly overburdened by taxes and increasingly complex regulations that are "crushing them."
In some cases, they are deeply fearful of crime and criminals and of terrorists and terrorism. Why that is so, I have no idea. I don't know anyone who has actually been a victim of either crime or terrorism, but they sure fear it in their bones. They want protection, and they feel Trump will give it to them, whereas Hillary would just make things worse.
The immigration question is somewhat dicey. Most of New Mexico is pretty laissez faire on immigration from Mexico because of long cultural and social ties. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was never really accepted as binding in some ways, nor has the border really be a barrier. Until recently, anyway, and then more rhetorically than actually. I'd put it this way: they don't see the border as worthy of all the focus there is on it.
That's because the numbers of immigrants from south of the border hasn't been very high in New Mexico, at least not since the first waves of invasion that seized the land from the Indians and made of them foreigners in their own territory. There were far more Anglo invaders following the War of aggression that took the territory from Mexico in 1846. New Mexicans have long, long memories, and those events among others still resonate. Being of the Anglo persuasion myself, I'm well aware of the discomfort my mere presence can sometimes cause. Not necessarily hostility, just discomfort.
So while "illegal" immigration is sometimes seen as a problem, it's more theoretical than real; there hasn't been a wave of immigration from Mexico to New Mexico that compares with the experience of some other areas of the country. And of course Anglos are not in the majority in New Mexico, so a lot of the Anglo racism that you see on display elsewhere is much lower key or nonexistent here. I saw one guy down at the local baseball field sporting a huge Confederate flag on the back of his pick up truck the other day, and I thought, "Gee that won't go over well." I haven't seen anything like it since.
The spirit here is much more Live and Let Live, basically, and Get the Government Off My Back. Trump voters think they voted for that. I'm pretty well convinced they're in for a shock with a Trump regime, and they will, like people do, rationalize the new impositions that will come as "necessary" -- until they don't any more, and the revolt that is starting with outraged -- and often hopeless -- young people and minorities will spread to many of those who took Trump at his word and discover they've been conned.
The con job is basic to the Trump approach to rule, and because he's done it so successfully, I'm pretty sure that's why so many Republican Pooh Bahs are pledging their fealty right now despite their previous denunciations. They see him as a meal ticket like no other in recent memory -- maybe Reagan could do it for them, but no one else comes close.
Republicans consider conning their constituents as a fundamental part of their jobs, and they've been doing it pretty well over the years, but nothing like the Trump methods. Democrats do it too, don't get me wrong, and their cons can be just as destructive, if not so successful (I guess because they're easier to see through.)
As I said in an earlier post, TPTB can intervene in this growing Trumpian disaster, but will they? So far, no, they won't. They seem convinced for the time being that it's going to be OK -- for them. As long as that's the case, they will have no reason to intervene.
But as the protests grow and spread and involve more and more of the Right People as opposed to just the Rabble, they will have to do something. I don't know that Trump himself is capable of being judicious about doing anything, and I suspect that Obama would be "helpful" in ways that don't help Trump at all.
Canceling the inauguration -- my preferred action -- is unlikely, but a violent crackdown on the protests will have lasting and destabilizing repercussions. It will have the effect of delegitimizing the rule of these assholes, to a far greater extent than the Bush 2 regime was delegitimized by the protests against it. (Credit Cindy Sheehan for actually doing the job...)
Once his rule is delegitimized, as it very nearly is already, the whole apparatus of the Ruling Clique is destabilized. Shit gonna get real.
What have we done to deserve this? I find the whole thing just appalling. Why are Our Rulers so intent on making our lives as miserable as possible? What is with that? Trump has been elevated to be their avatar in office against the advice of most of the Better People, few of whom have any redeeming qualities themselves, and yet they appear to be going along with his program because I think they believe he can con enough people to get away with it, whereas they can't.
Maybe, maybe. But I see that when the mask comes off -- which is pretty much has -- there will be hell to pay.
I would prefer he never take office. Right now, I think pushing the "rigged election" aspect, which he himself is responsible for, may be the way to go. So far it hasn't got any traction, but things are moving fast, and things can change in a heartbeat.
Solidarity. It's gonna be a hard slog. But it ain't over till it's over.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Protests in Albuquerque Over the Mistrial of Sandy and Perez
The news yesterday evening was hyperventilating over a protest organized by UnOccupy Albuquerque at the courthouse and police headquarters over the mistrial of Keith Sandy and Dominque Perez for the killing of James Boyd.
Oh my, oh my. The news claimed the protest "turned violent" when protesters took to the street and blocked traffic briefly. Some of the drivers decided to proceed, in spite of people in the street blocking the way, and that resulted in some pushing and shoving between vehicles and people, and there was one report of a fight between a driver and someone in the street. There was also an instance in which a driver, plowing through people attempting to block his way, had his vehicle hit with a sign.
That was the "violence."
News people on the scene practically had the vapors.
Police eventually arrived and closed off the streets in the vicinity which dampened some of the conflict between drivers and protesters. At police headquarters, police with automatic weapons and dressed in camo fatigues guarded the building. Bless their hearts. Snipers were stationed on nearby rooftops (as had been the case during protest the night before.)
Then as darkness fell, police arrived at the courthouse (where the protest had reassembled) with their LRAD -- which I didn't see them use -- together with a half-dozen or so camoed-up and AR-15 wielding SWAT officers.
They were mocked and shouted at by protesters from ten yards away or so, most with their hands up ("don't shoot") and some on their knees. The news people watching this practically had their heart attacks at this point.
Finally, the last I saw of the protest, a line of several dozen camoed and AR carrying po-po assembled on one side of the street while the protesters formed a line on the other, and a stand off ensued.
I'll go check the news now and see if anything more happened. I suspect the protesters ultimately dispersed except for the more radical anarchist contingent, two or three of whom probably got themselves arrested.
We'll see.
The story, as seen on the 10pm news...
[I had to delete the teevee news segment due to an autoplay feature that I could not dismiss...fooey]
A slide show of the hoo-hah: [Deleted the slide show as well. Still having the autoplay problems...fooey]
And a link to the news story
Just to make clear, Albuquerque has a very active police abuse protest community, but it has factions. While some are inclined to confront police, others are more nuanced and subtle. I saw both factions in play in the videos and news reports, and I recognized some of the participants from other protests I've been involved with. These are people who are dedicated to making waves and precipitating change.
The problem is and has been that when change occurs, as it has with APD, there is so little recognition of it...
Oh my, oh my. The news claimed the protest "turned violent" when protesters took to the street and blocked traffic briefly. Some of the drivers decided to proceed, in spite of people in the street blocking the way, and that resulted in some pushing and shoving between vehicles and people, and there was one report of a fight between a driver and someone in the street. There was also an instance in which a driver, plowing through people attempting to block his way, had his vehicle hit with a sign.
That was the "violence."
News people on the scene practically had the vapors.
Police eventually arrived and closed off the streets in the vicinity which dampened some of the conflict between drivers and protesters. At police headquarters, police with automatic weapons and dressed in camo fatigues guarded the building. Bless their hearts. Snipers were stationed on nearby rooftops (as had been the case during protest the night before.)
Then as darkness fell, police arrived at the courthouse (where the protest had reassembled) with their LRAD -- which I didn't see them use -- together with a half-dozen or so camoed-up and AR-15 wielding SWAT officers.
They were mocked and shouted at by protesters from ten yards away or so, most with their hands up ("don't shoot") and some on their knees. The news people watching this practically had their heart attacks at this point.
Finally, the last I saw of the protest, a line of several dozen camoed and AR carrying po-po assembled on one side of the street while the protesters formed a line on the other, and a stand off ensued.
I'll go check the news now and see if anything more happened. I suspect the protesters ultimately dispersed except for the more radical anarchist contingent, two or three of whom probably got themselves arrested.
We'll see.
The story, as seen on the 10pm news...
[I had to delete the teevee news segment due to an autoplay feature that I could not dismiss...fooey]
A slide show of the hoo-hah: [Deleted the slide show as well. Still having the autoplay problems...fooey]
And a link to the news story
Just to make clear, Albuquerque has a very active police abuse protest community, but it has factions. While some are inclined to confront police, others are more nuanced and subtle. I saw both factions in play in the videos and news reports, and I recognized some of the participants from other protests I've been involved with. These are people who are dedicated to making waves and precipitating change.
The problem is and has been that when change occurs, as it has with APD, there is so little recognition of it...
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Call Out The Guard -- Update: The Court Denies Injunction Against the Pipeeline
Powwow in Bismark coming up this weekend, so what does the gov do? Calls up the National Guard to Protect the Pipeline from all those Wild Indians.
This won't end well.
Court denies injunction.
Protests to continue.
This won't end well.
Court denies injunction.
Protests to continue.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Wild Indians
Up in North Dakota there is a huge gathering of Indians and allies who have been camping and protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline for months. They call themselves "Water Protectors" -- among other things -- and their goal is to prevent the construction of this pipline that is supposed to carry crude oil from Montana to Illinois, crossing the Missouri River twice as it does.
The complaint is that oil pipelines can't be secured from leaks and blow outs and water contamination is inevitable if the pipeline is constructed and put in operation. The Indians are trying to preserve and protect the water. Note has also been made of the fact that the route of the pipeline goes through Indian burial grounds, sacred sites and ceremonial grounds, and that already, numerous Indian remains have been destroyed by over enthusiastic bulldozers, including last Saturday when there was a violent confrontation between the protectors of the water and the protectors of the bulldozers. It did not turn out well.
Attack dogs were set upon the crowd by the security guards who'd been hired by the construction company and numerous individuals were bitten -- including a horse.The guards used pepper spray on the protectors. There were reports that a child was bitten by one of the dogs, but a published photo of the purported child victim had actually been taken in 2012, so the incident on Saturday in which a child was bitten was not yet documented as of Saturday.
The guards claimed that four of their number had to be hospitalized (a lie) and that two of their dogs were injured severely enough to be seen by a vet (unknown if true.) The guards claimed that the water protectors attacked them with sticks, flagpoles and horses, but it's clear from video of the incident that the attack came entirely from the guards and their dogs, and that at least one of the dogs actually turned on its handler and attacked her. At least one dog escaped from the leash and went wild in the crowd. In several cases, the protectors tried to defend themselves as best they could against the onslaught of dogs and pepper spray, and in other cases, protectors attempted to defuse the situation.
Story and video from Democracy Now!
Nasty business. Indian Country Today has a good story on the incident and there is more in their news section.
Students at the Institute of American Indian Arts where Ms Ché is studying are collecting food, water and donations to send to North Dakota in support of the action. The campsite is said to host thousands at this point, almost doubling during the weekend after Saturday's violence.
These incidents and protests are becoming more and more common as our neoLibCon overlords insist on exercising their might against any and all popular outcries. This pipeline, like so many others, simply isn't needed, and it is an active danger to water supplies for millions of Americans including the Standing Rock Sioux who are spearheading the protests. Our overlords do not care, and when they are challenged this way, they have a tendency to double down -- until they give up.
Give up they will, but not without any number of incidents like Saturday's.
People have been and are gonna get hurt. It's the way these things play out. But I don't see the Indians and their allies giving up.
It may be a small matter in the vast eternal scheme to stop this madness, but it has to be done.
March in Solidarity, October 6, 2016
The complaint is that oil pipelines can't be secured from leaks and blow outs and water contamination is inevitable if the pipeline is constructed and put in operation. The Indians are trying to preserve and protect the water. Note has also been made of the fact that the route of the pipeline goes through Indian burial grounds, sacred sites and ceremonial grounds, and that already, numerous Indian remains have been destroyed by over enthusiastic bulldozers, including last Saturday when there was a violent confrontation between the protectors of the water and the protectors of the bulldozers. It did not turn out well.
Attack dogs were set upon the crowd by the security guards who'd been hired by the construction company and numerous individuals were bitten -- including a horse.The guards used pepper spray on the protectors. There were reports that a child was bitten by one of the dogs, but a published photo of the purported child victim had actually been taken in 2012, so the incident on Saturday in which a child was bitten was not yet documented as of Saturday.
The guards claimed that four of their number had to be hospitalized (a lie) and that two of their dogs were injured severely enough to be seen by a vet (unknown if true.) The guards claimed that the water protectors attacked them with sticks, flagpoles and horses, but it's clear from video of the incident that the attack came entirely from the guards and their dogs, and that at least one of the dogs actually turned on its handler and attacked her. At least one dog escaped from the leash and went wild in the crowd. In several cases, the protectors tried to defend themselves as best they could against the onslaught of dogs and pepper spray, and in other cases, protectors attempted to defuse the situation.
Story and video from Democracy Now!
Nasty business. Indian Country Today has a good story on the incident and there is more in their news section.
Students at the Institute of American Indian Arts where Ms Ché is studying are collecting food, water and donations to send to North Dakota in support of the action. The campsite is said to host thousands at this point, almost doubling during the weekend after Saturday's violence.
These incidents and protests are becoming more and more common as our neoLibCon overlords insist on exercising their might against any and all popular outcries. This pipeline, like so many others, simply isn't needed, and it is an active danger to water supplies for millions of Americans including the Standing Rock Sioux who are spearheading the protests. Our overlords do not care, and when they are challenged this way, they have a tendency to double down -- until they give up.
Give up they will, but not without any number of incidents like Saturday's.
People have been and are gonna get hurt. It's the way these things play out. But I don't see the Indians and their allies giving up.
It may be a small matter in the vast eternal scheme to stop this madness, but it has to be done.
March in Solidarity, October 6, 2016
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Tenten
I recorded the video above last night outside the Embassy Suites in Albuquerque. It's part of the talk by Corrina ("Tenten") Shoemaker, the sister of Victor Villalpando, a youth shot and killed by Espanola, NM, police a year ago last June. I had just heard about Victor's killing when I headed out that day to a meeting to discuss a protest march planned for later in June to highlight the continued police killings in Albuquerque and elsewhere despite the scathing DoJ report on the city's pattern and practice of unconstitutional policing.
When I heard about Victor's death, I was shocked. At the time, it was not at all clear what had happened. There were news stories that the boy had threatened the police with a gun, and thus he "needed killing," but there was something clearly off about that. We hear those kinds of stories in the aftermath of police shootings all the time, and very often they later turn out to be untrue. There were stories that someone had called police from a fast-food joint in Espanola saying there was a young male outside waving a gun around. Then there were stories that Villalpando himself had been the caller. Thus, in some people's eyes, this was clearly an incident of "suicide by cop." The video of the killing itself, however, showed that that wasn't the case. The video showed him attempting to flee when he was shot and killed. He was not threatening the police in any way. Nevertheless, the Rio Arriba County grand jury ruled the homicide "justified" because Villalpando was "armed" with a cap gun, and how were the police to know it wasn't real?
Perhaps Victor lacked wisdom, but since when is a sixteen year old expected to be wiser than the supposed adults, like the police involved in his killing?
There was a march last evening in Albuquerque to protest -- yet again -- the city's hosting of what I call the Killer Kop Kompetition, an elaborate, multi-day shooting contest by Albuquerque's and the nation's "finest."
Last year's Killer Kop Kompetition was won, we were told, by an APD officer who would later go on to some notoriety when he shot and severely wounded an undercover officer engaged in a drug sting. The shooter was the supervisor... It was quite a remarkable situation and starkly demonstrated how trigger-happy and out of control APD's officers had become. On the other hand, it was one of very few police involved shootings by APD after July of 2014 when such shootings -- once commonplace -- came to an abrupt halt. At least for several months, there were no killings by APD.
Then, the day after the shooting of the undercover officer by his supervisor, John Okeefe was shot and killed by APD after a foot chase down an alley. The police claimed that Okeefe was shooting at them, and a stolen revolver was recovered at the scene beside Okeefe's body. The revolver, it turned out, had been stolen from the home of a sheriff's deputy a few days before, a factoid that set off an alarm bell or two among police-watchers, as did the fact that this killing took place almost coincidentally with the shooting of an undercover cop by his supervisor ("Ooops!") and the announcement that Dominque Perez and Keith Sandy, the killers of James Boyd, were being charged with Murder 2 by the Bernalillo County DA.
A lot of threads were woven together in last night's march and protest. Initially, I didn't intend to march with the rest of the protesters as I am still kind of lame from the episode of sciatica almost two years ago now. The march route was said to be a mile and a half through downtown Albuquerque, but it looked farther than that to me, and the tail end of it was uphill. I don't do uphill well at all.
Nonetheless, when I heard Victor Villalpando's mother and sister talk to the assembly prior to the march, I knew I had to go on the march with the rest, no matter whatever difficulty in doing so I might encounter. I'm glad I did.
The march was one of the most orderly protests I think I've ever been involved in. There were perhaps 100 or so participants, no police escort -- and if there were undercover officers seeded among the marchers, I didn't notice any. We marched in the street or on the sidewalk, depending on the preference of individual marchers. I carried the "Abolish Police Departments" sign -- in part because I am an abolitionist rather than a reformer these days (I've done my time as a police reformer... and found the results to be.... less than I had hoped.)
 |
| Signs prior to the march |
Medics on foot and on bikes accompanied the march, and monitors with caution tape controlled the traffic while the marchers passed. Many, many drivers honked their support for the marchers. There were water stations set up along the route, and the medics distributed water to anyone who asked. Organizers let people know what was going on and how the march would proceed. Everyone felt comfortable and protected. It was the formation of a spontaneous community, something that will become increasingly necessary as the efforts to end violent policing continue.
While the uphill climb to the Embassy Suites was a bit tough for me, I made it, and the sunset view from the top of the ridge was spectacular. (I wanted to capture it in paint or pastel, and I still may try... the art-part of my life coming close to an obsession these days...)
As we reached the turn into the hotel driveway, a couple of bicycle officers appeared to help with traffic control. They were the first uniformed officers we had seen, even as we marched past the sheriff's and police departments downtown. These bicycle officers together with some other uniformed APD officers would form a phalanx protecting the lobby of the hotel from the protest rabble outside.
After reading the names of the dead at the hands of APD ("Presente!") about half the marchers made their way toward the lobby of the hotel. Access was denied. However, during the protest, a number of the participants in the shooting competition came out to observe the proceedings, and one even had himself photographed with the protesters.
Tenten wanted to talk to a police-officer competitor and to anyone associated with Embassy Suites, but the police inside were too afraid of her, and the hotel refused to send out a representative (at least this was my impression from observations and talking with some of the participants.) Eventually, an APD officer (along with a backup officer "just in case") spoke with Tenten outside the lobby, but nothing was resolved. My video above starts just after the APD officers retreated back to the lobby.
Fear. The officers were so frightened... I call them cowards. They see the public -- at least an expressive portion of the public -- as their enemies, and they live in constant mortal fear of those enemies, and so they lash out, sometimes murderously, when confronted with protest, demands, or disobedience.
Last night, for the most part, they hid.
There was no hint of violence within the crowd of protesters last night, but at one point I was told that the officers inside the hotel were demanding that the protesters pledge to be "peaceful" if they wanted to speak to an officer inside. It was a ludicrous demand given the nature of the event being protested, but it was an example of kind of fear the police have of any expression of public outrage at their behavior. The same fear is seen among the occupying armies of our nation's vast overseas imperial adventures. It's inculcated from the top down.
Ultimately, the point was made -- that this competition is an insult to the many hundreds, indeed thousands of dead at the hands of police, and it is not wanted in the city of Albuquerque, not after everything that has happened, the piles of dead bodies, the protests, the pain and the outrage.
Victor Villalpando's sister and mother brought those points home to me more strongly than I think I have felt them up to now, and I've been involved in the protests against violent policing for many a long year.
We marched back to Robinson Park in the downtown area, and I slowed down the closer we got. A kind driver asked if I'd like a ride for the last few blocks, and I said yes. Well, I coulda made it on my own, but it would have taken me probably another half hour or so. Had a great talk with the driver, Sara Ruth (I think), someone who feels like I do that the context of policing, the culture, and the behavior of police must change or be abolished.
Friday, April 10, 2015
We've Got to Get Beyond the "National Conversation" About Police Violence to Action
The United States has been engaged in a "National Conversation" about police violence and murder since last August when Ferguson, MO police officer Darren Wilson gunned down an unarmed black youth named Michael Brown.
This "conversation" has been driven and moderated by the media, a media which is fully in the hands of the Powers That Be and which determines the course of "discussion." The People are permitted to participate in the "discussion" so long as they adhere to the rules set by the media moderators. When they operate outside those rules, they are ignored, and so they are not part of the "discussion."
I've wondered why, during the course of this ongoing, rolling "National Conversation" the initial police killing and protests in Albuquerque in March of last year, in which an illegally camping mentally ill man named James Boyd was ruthlessly gunned down by two APD snipers, has been all but disappeared from the "discussion."
The issue of police violence and murder became nationalized due to the killing of James Boyd last year, but you hardly ever hear about it these days, and it isn't part of the overall "discussion." The activists who were determined to cause fundamental changes in the way the police in Albuquerque behave -- and so enable Albuquerque to become a model for police reform in the rest of the country -- have largely either shut up about it or have moved on to other projects.
Meanwhile, the "National Conversation" about police violence continues, as more and more Americans are killed by police -- still at the consistent rate of about three a day -- and hundreds and hundreds are assaulted and abused as part of routine policing. When these incidents of violence and death are particularly egregious and caught on video, there is a momentary shift in the "conversation" to focus on this or that incident. But on the whole, little seems to change. Police violence and killing continues as the "conversation" rolls on.
The "conversation" is in essence a stalling tactic used by elites and their allies to ensure that the status quo is maintained -- or that the appearance of the status quo is maintained while adjustments in the way Power is maintained are made behind the scenes. The "conversation" exists primarily to divert attention from the necessity for Action.
Two recent incidents of police violence have caused slight shifts in the "conversation." In one, the video of the killing of Walter Scott in North Charleston, SC, caused a remarkable action by the local PTB: they arrested the officer who killed Scott and charged him with murder one, an almost unheard of action against a police officer in the performance of his duties.
In the other, the apprehension and savage beating by sheriff's deputies of a man who fell off a stolen horse in the hills above Apple Valley, CA, has caused the typical action of police departments when confronted with video evidence of apparent misconduct: an acknowledgement that the "video is disturbing" (ie: the video is disturbing, not the actions of the deputies caught on video), and the incident will be "thoroughly investigated," which typically means exoneration of the officers involved in the incident -- due to internal, unknown and unknowable policies and procedures that authorize such violence against non-resisting suspects. Happens all the time.
Sadly, in the Apple Valley incident, the local ACLU issued a mealy-mouthed and useless statement acknowledging the authorization of the use of force by law enforcement -- an authorization that may or may not have been exceeded in this case. There was no real attempt by the local ACLU to hold police accountable for the violence documented in the video. Just as a side note, San Bernardino County was the site of sheriffs deputies burning alive Christopher Dorner who dared to point out the inherent racism and violence of the LAPD and took matters into his own hands to settle some scores after he was dismissed from the force.
The tendency in the "National Conversation" about police violence is to cast the problem/issue in racial terms, even though the issue is (IMHO) more a matter of class than race. Race enters into the picture through class, not independently, at least for the most part. Yes there are racists in police departments all over the country, and some of those departments operate from a racist basis. But the focus on race to the exclusion of class or other aspects of modern policing suggests that the issues of police violence and murder can only be solved by solving the inherent racism of American society (as teacherken suggests in this essay at dKos.)
Well, no. That's a further distraction -- perhaps one of the worst going -- because "solving" the inherent racism of American society is not something that can or will happen anytime soon, if ever. In fact, racism is so deeply ingrained in American consciousness and subconscious that it probably can't be solved short of divine intervention.
What can be solved and what must be solved through persistent action is the problem of police violence and murder which seem to be universal in American policing -- but aren't quite.
I mentioned the uproar in Albuquerque that followed the egregious police killing of James Boyd in March of last year, and how that uproar seems to have dissipated or disappeared. Something else has changed, though. The killing stopped. Well, mostly stopped. There has been one killing by APD since last July. I believe there have been three killings by Bernalillo County deputies in the unincorporated areas, and two by State Police in the outlying areas since last July. Though it is still too high, that's a remarkable reduction in the rate of police killings compared to previous periods, and it happened because of concerted public action and the determination of certain segments of the Powers That Be to conduct a thoroughgoing reform of the Albuquerque Police Department's policies regarding violence and use of lethal force.
The first thing to do was to stop the killing.
It really is that simple. The order must go out to STOP THE KILLING.
And then STOP THE VIOLENCE.
Both of these actions can be taken almost instantaneously if there is the will -- and the order -- to do so. It does not mean that the inherent racism of American society is cured or even addressed. But it does mean that the violence and killing perpetrated by police (which is one aspect of inherent racism) is curbed, and at least for a while, the other social and cultural problems can be dealt with.
The actions that caused such a steep reduction in police killings in Albuquerque are mirrored in some other cities such as Oakland, CA. The lesson is that the police can unilaterally stop killing and stop being violent assholes, and the world won't come to an end, the Apocalypse isn't any more nigh than it ever was.
The further lesson is that police violence and killing simply isn't necessary -- let alone desirable -- for a civil society to function. When police are responsible for a double digit percentage of homicides in this country (as they are), then a big part of the problem is the police themselves, not the criminal element they are supposedly protecting the rest of us from.
The public needs to mobilize against police violence and murder, but in some ways the "conversation" prevents mobilization. It's by design, of course. Those who benefit from the status quo of violent policing and all of its many subsidiary aspects, including mass incarceration and the criminalization of whole categories of the population, will do practically anything to prevent the disruption of that status quo. But at times and in certain places, the People combined with the operators of the structures of Power can not only disrupt the status quo but institute a new status quo in which official violence on the part of police is curbed and the constant litany of killing by police is suppressed.
Those who benefit from the status quo include the media -- which is driving and moderating the "National Conversation" about violent policing. It's time to get beyond the "conversation" to action, and if that means that protests intensify and actions become inconveniences, so be it.
The killing by police must stop.
The violence by police must be curbed.
It's really that simple.
This "conversation" has been driven and moderated by the media, a media which is fully in the hands of the Powers That Be and which determines the course of "discussion." The People are permitted to participate in the "discussion" so long as they adhere to the rules set by the media moderators. When they operate outside those rules, they are ignored, and so they are not part of the "discussion."
I've wondered why, during the course of this ongoing, rolling "National Conversation" the initial police killing and protests in Albuquerque in March of last year, in which an illegally camping mentally ill man named James Boyd was ruthlessly gunned down by two APD snipers, has been all but disappeared from the "discussion."
The issue of police violence and murder became nationalized due to the killing of James Boyd last year, but you hardly ever hear about it these days, and it isn't part of the overall "discussion." The activists who were determined to cause fundamental changes in the way the police in Albuquerque behave -- and so enable Albuquerque to become a model for police reform in the rest of the country -- have largely either shut up about it or have moved on to other projects.
Meanwhile, the "National Conversation" about police violence continues, as more and more Americans are killed by police -- still at the consistent rate of about three a day -- and hundreds and hundreds are assaulted and abused as part of routine policing. When these incidents of violence and death are particularly egregious and caught on video, there is a momentary shift in the "conversation" to focus on this or that incident. But on the whole, little seems to change. Police violence and killing continues as the "conversation" rolls on.
The "conversation" is in essence a stalling tactic used by elites and their allies to ensure that the status quo is maintained -- or that the appearance of the status quo is maintained while adjustments in the way Power is maintained are made behind the scenes. The "conversation" exists primarily to divert attention from the necessity for Action.
Two recent incidents of police violence have caused slight shifts in the "conversation." In one, the video of the killing of Walter Scott in North Charleston, SC, caused a remarkable action by the local PTB: they arrested the officer who killed Scott and charged him with murder one, an almost unheard of action against a police officer in the performance of his duties.
In the other, the apprehension and savage beating by sheriff's deputies of a man who fell off a stolen horse in the hills above Apple Valley, CA, has caused the typical action of police departments when confronted with video evidence of apparent misconduct: an acknowledgement that the "video is disturbing" (ie: the video is disturbing, not the actions of the deputies caught on video), and the incident will be "thoroughly investigated," which typically means exoneration of the officers involved in the incident -- due to internal, unknown and unknowable policies and procedures that authorize such violence against non-resisting suspects. Happens all the time.
Sadly, in the Apple Valley incident, the local ACLU issued a mealy-mouthed and useless statement acknowledging the authorization of the use of force by law enforcement -- an authorization that may or may not have been exceeded in this case. There was no real attempt by the local ACLU to hold police accountable for the violence documented in the video. Just as a side note, San Bernardino County was the site of sheriffs deputies burning alive Christopher Dorner who dared to point out the inherent racism and violence of the LAPD and took matters into his own hands to settle some scores after he was dismissed from the force.
The tendency in the "National Conversation" about police violence is to cast the problem/issue in racial terms, even though the issue is (IMHO) more a matter of class than race. Race enters into the picture through class, not independently, at least for the most part. Yes there are racists in police departments all over the country, and some of those departments operate from a racist basis. But the focus on race to the exclusion of class or other aspects of modern policing suggests that the issues of police violence and murder can only be solved by solving the inherent racism of American society (as teacherken suggests in this essay at dKos.)
Well, no. That's a further distraction -- perhaps one of the worst going -- because "solving" the inherent racism of American society is not something that can or will happen anytime soon, if ever. In fact, racism is so deeply ingrained in American consciousness and subconscious that it probably can't be solved short of divine intervention.
What can be solved and what must be solved through persistent action is the problem of police violence and murder which seem to be universal in American policing -- but aren't quite.
I mentioned the uproar in Albuquerque that followed the egregious police killing of James Boyd in March of last year, and how that uproar seems to have dissipated or disappeared. Something else has changed, though. The killing stopped. Well, mostly stopped. There has been one killing by APD since last July. I believe there have been three killings by Bernalillo County deputies in the unincorporated areas, and two by State Police in the outlying areas since last July. Though it is still too high, that's a remarkable reduction in the rate of police killings compared to previous periods, and it happened because of concerted public action and the determination of certain segments of the Powers That Be to conduct a thoroughgoing reform of the Albuquerque Police Department's policies regarding violence and use of lethal force.
The first thing to do was to stop the killing.
It really is that simple. The order must go out to STOP THE KILLING.
And then STOP THE VIOLENCE.
Both of these actions can be taken almost instantaneously if there is the will -- and the order -- to do so. It does not mean that the inherent racism of American society is cured or even addressed. But it does mean that the violence and killing perpetrated by police (which is one aspect of inherent racism) is curbed, and at least for a while, the other social and cultural problems can be dealt with.
The actions that caused such a steep reduction in police killings in Albuquerque are mirrored in some other cities such as Oakland, CA. The lesson is that the police can unilaterally stop killing and stop being violent assholes, and the world won't come to an end, the Apocalypse isn't any more nigh than it ever was.
The further lesson is that police violence and killing simply isn't necessary -- let alone desirable -- for a civil society to function. When police are responsible for a double digit percentage of homicides in this country (as they are), then a big part of the problem is the police themselves, not the criminal element they are supposedly protecting the rest of us from.
The public needs to mobilize against police violence and murder, but in some ways the "conversation" prevents mobilization. It's by design, of course. Those who benefit from the status quo of violent policing and all of its many subsidiary aspects, including mass incarceration and the criminalization of whole categories of the population, will do practically anything to prevent the disruption of that status quo. But at times and in certain places, the People combined with the operators of the structures of Power can not only disrupt the status quo but institute a new status quo in which official violence on the part of police is curbed and the constant litany of killing by police is suppressed.
Those who benefit from the status quo include the media -- which is driving and moderating the "National Conversation" about violent policing. It's time to get beyond the "conversation" to action, and if that means that protests intensify and actions become inconveniences, so be it.
The killing by police must stop.
The violence by police must be curbed.
It's really that simple.
Friday, February 13, 2015
The Summary Execution of A Rock-Thrower in Pasco, Washington and the Tricky Arguments Over Police Violence
A few days ago, a man was shot and killed by police in Pasco, WA in front of dozens of horrified onlookers, some of whom captured part of the incident on their camera-phones.
Those of us who have followed the issue of police violence for any length of time know that killings similar to this one -- summary executions in the streets of America, often in front of witnesses -- go on all the time, practically every day, and that for the most part they are ruled "justified" or are even regarded as "heroic" by police departments, grand juries, DAs and courts.
In other words, regardless of the facts of the matter, the only things that matter to the men and women who determine -- shall we say -- "the rules of engagement" between police and the public is that the officer(s) who kill and brutalize say the magic words, "I was afraid for my life" and that's the end of it.
There is no appeal to a higher authority.
The dead are dead and the officers who kill (almost) always go free to kill again, and even if they are not publicly hailed as heroes, internal rewards can mount up handsomely.
The police are doing the job they are assigned to do, and summary execution is part of that job.
Yesterday, James Comey, head of the FBI, offered his wisdom on the current confrontations between police and protesters over the matter of police killings of black men, often unarmed, greatly out of proportion to their alleged criminal actions.
It's really quite stunning for its apparent blindness to what is going on and why there is such an outcry against police killings and violence across this land. Mr. Comey, along with most police chiefs and their departments, appears to be living in a self-generated dreamland of perpetual threat -- everywhere -- that must be neutralized with as much force as necessary, even if the "threat" is only in the mind of the police officer who kills or brutalizes.
An ever-present threat that must always be neutralized before any other consideration is the ground state of American police forces, and it comes in part from the beliefs propagated at the FBI and the Department of Justice. What happens in the streets is a direct consequence.
What happens in the streets too often involves brutality and death by police when such action is not necessary or warranted.
Except that the rule-makers almost always say it is OK for police to brutalize and kill.
So arguing that the police are out of control is somewhat specious. They are out of control in many cases, but making that argument is practically irrelevant. The police are just "doing their jobs" according to those who make the rules. Acting like out of control, violent freaks, shooting and killing whenever they sense a threat or fear for their lives is a part of doing their jobs. It's what they are expected to do, required to do, by their peers and supervisors, and by the power structure they are a part of.
Summary execution in the streets in front of witnesses is a part of doing their jobs, and according to leaders like (Lt Col) Dave Grossman, it is their highest achievement and a great honor for them to kill the enemy. It is fulfillment of their reason for being.
Beating to death someone like Kelly Thomas -- who was no threat at all -- is a part of doing their jobs.
This is what they have been hired and trained to do, and the violence with which they do their jobs is part of their very identity.
Arguing against police violence is arguing against the very identity of the police themselves. This identity, distinct from that of the people they ostensibly protect and serve, is a major reason why demonstrators were unable to convince police to go against their orders to suppress the Occupy demonstrations when time was, and why they will not go against orders to suppress the Black Lives Matter demonstrations these days.
The tactics of suppression may change, just as the tactics of protest and demonstration do, but the practice of violent policing and death doesn't -- not unless intense scrutiny is applied, and pressure that cannot be ignored is employed.
I've often mentioned that the practice of violent policing and death seems to have changed in Albuquerque, for example. The issue was a spate of bloody and deadly encounters between Albuquerque police and citizens that left dozens dead and injured, encounters often initiated by police and almost always escalated by them into deadly confrontations. Police were never held to account, never disciplined, never charged with crimes during this killing spree. As the dead piled up, the police department and city officials insisted that there was nothing wrong with what was going on, Albuquerque was just a super-violent place where criminals would be running wild if the police weren't on top of the matter and killing them right and left.
Except that so many of the dead weren't criminals at all or were at most low-level miscreants. Half were mentally ill. Others were drug users, alcoholics, homeless, or other marginalized residents whose encounters with the law may have been frequent but whose crimes were mostly status crimes.
Too often shots were fired by police because their target "failed to obey." That was also the case in Pasco documented at the top of this post.
Failure to obey is a capital offense.
So is "reaching" for anything near ones waistband if only to hold up ones trousers while one is running away from the threat to ones life that police have become.
Police are so convinced that everyone (within certain categories) represents an existential threat to their own lives that they feel justified shooting and killing even the most benign individuals even in the most non-threatening circumstance -- because of what they sense "might be."
They're programmed, conditioned and trained that way.
They are expected to sense and respond to "threats" -- even when there are none -- and to neutralize them with whatever force is necessary.
Defiance is a threat, disobedience is a threat, an armed Negro is an existential threat to be neutralized on sight, even if the Negro is not armed... the perception that he/she is armed is a sufficient threat for immediate neutralization with deadly force.
Mental illness is a threat, alcohol and drug intoxication is a threat, homelessness is a threat, being black or brown in America is a threat, and on and on, through the lists and categories of threats to be neutralized by the police.
The litany is long.
Arguing against the violence of police officers assigned to neutralize threats, however, is often ineffective because they are almost always protected by higher authority, even when judgements totaling millions of dollars are assessed in civil court. Almost nothing can be done against police violence in criminal courts -- at least not so far -- but civil courts often award substantial sums to survivors and victims' loved ones, or civil settlements are reached prior to trial. This may not be justice but it is a means of acknowledging that police violence isn't always appropriate. Sometimes -- perhaps rarely -- it may not be...
Oops.
But overall, with few exceptions, the pattern of violence does not change.
An exception is in Albuquerque where the police department is undergoing overhaul and reform based on a consent decree reached with the Department of Justice to correct "unconstitutional policing." It has meant a spectacular decline in the rate of police killings. They haven't completely stopped, although for six months, APD refrained from killing. But the number now is nowhere near previous levels of police homicide. It appears that the level of police violence against the public has also been significantly reduced, though it is harder to assess that number.
The resistance in Albuquerque has had a multi-pronged approach, never focusing on only one aspect of police violence to the exclusion of all others. The resistance protested every killing, even if the facts seemed to suggest it was truly justified. They fought in every venue and on the streets against police violence. They documented and detailed incidents as they occurred, and they let it be known that the killings and police violence were not tolerable prices to pay for a "civilized society."
They identified and shamed individuals within the department -- men and women who had killed or who enabled killing and violence by police -- and they were relentless in exposing the cozy relationships between police administrators, city administrators, the district attorney and the criminal courts which almost all and almost always backed the police, no matter the facts.
They shamed the media for its fawning coverage of police violence and its continual smearing of the victims of police violence.
The cumulative effect of these and other actions combined with an apparent decision by those who make the rules in Albuquerque to reduce police violence has apparently had the desired effect.
But there are thousands of police departments in the United States, and reforming them one by one is a monumental task. As we can see from the statistics maintained by Killed by Police, the three-a-day rate of police homicide across the country remains almost constant, no matter what happens in individual jurisdictions.
And as we see in the Pasco video, summary execution in front of witnesses is still a common police practice.
Change comes when there is no alternative.
For many police departments, perhaps for most, there are still plenty of alternatives to changing a culture of violence and death that's become the standard or best practice.
The argument against police violence needs to focus more on the culture of violence and death than on the individuals. Yet shaming the individuals who kill and enable killing and violent policing is necessary as well.
Still a long row to hoe.
Those of us who have followed the issue of police violence for any length of time know that killings similar to this one -- summary executions in the streets of America, often in front of witnesses -- go on all the time, practically every day, and that for the most part they are ruled "justified" or are even regarded as "heroic" by police departments, grand juries, DAs and courts.
In other words, regardless of the facts of the matter, the only things that matter to the men and women who determine -- shall we say -- "the rules of engagement" between police and the public is that the officer(s) who kill and brutalize say the magic words, "I was afraid for my life" and that's the end of it.
There is no appeal to a higher authority.
The dead are dead and the officers who kill (almost) always go free to kill again, and even if they are not publicly hailed as heroes, internal rewards can mount up handsomely.
The police are doing the job they are assigned to do, and summary execution is part of that job.
Yesterday, James Comey, head of the FBI, offered his wisdom on the current confrontations between police and protesters over the matter of police killings of black men, often unarmed, greatly out of proportion to their alleged criminal actions.
It's really quite stunning for its apparent blindness to what is going on and why there is such an outcry against police killings and violence across this land. Mr. Comey, along with most police chiefs and their departments, appears to be living in a self-generated dreamland of perpetual threat -- everywhere -- that must be neutralized with as much force as necessary, even if the "threat" is only in the mind of the police officer who kills or brutalizes.
An ever-present threat that must always be neutralized before any other consideration is the ground state of American police forces, and it comes in part from the beliefs propagated at the FBI and the Department of Justice. What happens in the streets is a direct consequence.
What happens in the streets too often involves brutality and death by police when such action is not necessary or warranted.
Except that the rule-makers almost always say it is OK for police to brutalize and kill.
So arguing that the police are out of control is somewhat specious. They are out of control in many cases, but making that argument is practically irrelevant. The police are just "doing their jobs" according to those who make the rules. Acting like out of control, violent freaks, shooting and killing whenever they sense a threat or fear for their lives is a part of doing their jobs. It's what they are expected to do, required to do, by their peers and supervisors, and by the power structure they are a part of.
Summary execution in the streets in front of witnesses is a part of doing their jobs, and according to leaders like (Lt Col) Dave Grossman, it is their highest achievement and a great honor for them to kill the enemy. It is fulfillment of their reason for being.
Beating to death someone like Kelly Thomas -- who was no threat at all -- is a part of doing their jobs.
This is what they have been hired and trained to do, and the violence with which they do their jobs is part of their very identity.
Arguing against police violence is arguing against the very identity of the police themselves. This identity, distinct from that of the people they ostensibly protect and serve, is a major reason why demonstrators were unable to convince police to go against their orders to suppress the Occupy demonstrations when time was, and why they will not go against orders to suppress the Black Lives Matter demonstrations these days.
The tactics of suppression may change, just as the tactics of protest and demonstration do, but the practice of violent policing and death doesn't -- not unless intense scrutiny is applied, and pressure that cannot be ignored is employed.
I've often mentioned that the practice of violent policing and death seems to have changed in Albuquerque, for example. The issue was a spate of bloody and deadly encounters between Albuquerque police and citizens that left dozens dead and injured, encounters often initiated by police and almost always escalated by them into deadly confrontations. Police were never held to account, never disciplined, never charged with crimes during this killing spree. As the dead piled up, the police department and city officials insisted that there was nothing wrong with what was going on, Albuquerque was just a super-violent place where criminals would be running wild if the police weren't on top of the matter and killing them right and left.
Except that so many of the dead weren't criminals at all or were at most low-level miscreants. Half were mentally ill. Others were drug users, alcoholics, homeless, or other marginalized residents whose encounters with the law may have been frequent but whose crimes were mostly status crimes.
Too often shots were fired by police because their target "failed to obey." That was also the case in Pasco documented at the top of this post.
Failure to obey is a capital offense.
So is "reaching" for anything near ones waistband if only to hold up ones trousers while one is running away from the threat to ones life that police have become.
Police are so convinced that everyone (within certain categories) represents an existential threat to their own lives that they feel justified shooting and killing even the most benign individuals even in the most non-threatening circumstance -- because of what they sense "might be."
They're programmed, conditioned and trained that way.
They are expected to sense and respond to "threats" -- even when there are none -- and to neutralize them with whatever force is necessary.
Defiance is a threat, disobedience is a threat, an armed Negro is an existential threat to be neutralized on sight, even if the Negro is not armed... the perception that he/she is armed is a sufficient threat for immediate neutralization with deadly force.
Mental illness is a threat, alcohol and drug intoxication is a threat, homelessness is a threat, being black or brown in America is a threat, and on and on, through the lists and categories of threats to be neutralized by the police.
The litany is long.
Arguing against the violence of police officers assigned to neutralize threats, however, is often ineffective because they are almost always protected by higher authority, even when judgements totaling millions of dollars are assessed in civil court. Almost nothing can be done against police violence in criminal courts -- at least not so far -- but civil courts often award substantial sums to survivors and victims' loved ones, or civil settlements are reached prior to trial. This may not be justice but it is a means of acknowledging that police violence isn't always appropriate. Sometimes -- perhaps rarely -- it may not be...
Oops.
But overall, with few exceptions, the pattern of violence does not change.
An exception is in Albuquerque where the police department is undergoing overhaul and reform based on a consent decree reached with the Department of Justice to correct "unconstitutional policing." It has meant a spectacular decline in the rate of police killings. They haven't completely stopped, although for six months, APD refrained from killing. But the number now is nowhere near previous levels of police homicide. It appears that the level of police violence against the public has also been significantly reduced, though it is harder to assess that number.
The resistance in Albuquerque has had a multi-pronged approach, never focusing on only one aspect of police violence to the exclusion of all others. The resistance protested every killing, even if the facts seemed to suggest it was truly justified. They fought in every venue and on the streets against police violence. They documented and detailed incidents as they occurred, and they let it be known that the killings and police violence were not tolerable prices to pay for a "civilized society."
They identified and shamed individuals within the department -- men and women who had killed or who enabled killing and violence by police -- and they were relentless in exposing the cozy relationships between police administrators, city administrators, the district attorney and the criminal courts which almost all and almost always backed the police, no matter the facts.
They shamed the media for its fawning coverage of police violence and its continual smearing of the victims of police violence.
The cumulative effect of these and other actions combined with an apparent decision by those who make the rules in Albuquerque to reduce police violence has apparently had the desired effect.
But there are thousands of police departments in the United States, and reforming them one by one is a monumental task. As we can see from the statistics maintained by Killed by Police, the three-a-day rate of police homicide across the country remains almost constant, no matter what happens in individual jurisdictions.
And as we see in the Pasco video, summary execution in front of witnesses is still a common police practice.
Change comes when there is no alternative.
For many police departments, perhaps for most, there are still plenty of alternatives to changing a culture of violence and death that's become the standard or best practice.
The argument against police violence needs to focus more on the culture of violence and death than on the individuals. Yet shaming the individuals who kill and enable killing and violent policing is necessary as well.
Still a long row to hoe.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
St Louis Today
 |
| RebZ's view of protesters escorted by police, the Arch and Old Courthouse, St. Louis, 31 Dec 2014. |
What I Learned This Year -- Part The Third
Activism works.
Of course I knew that from long experience, but we have been living under a system which insists that only "approved" activism works. Color revolutions only, you see?
The revolt against police violence and abuse seemed to take the Powers That Be by surprise (putting it mildly), and they still haven't figured out what to do about it. My sense of the situation has been that they will try to crack down, hard and all at once, much as they did with Occupy, but something tells me now, before the New Year, that they may try a different tactic:
Taking out or buying off the "leaders" who aren't slippery enough to escape their grasp.
I've seen many signs of it already.
The massing of military style police forces, just like an occupying army would do, after James Boyd was killed in Albuquerque, then after Mike Brown was killed in Ferguson, along with the massing of police-troops all over the country to counter the protests that ensued became something of an embarrassment to Our Rulers given the constant rhetoric about freedom of expression and assembly and so on.
No, it wouldn't work.
Military-style forces were told to stand down, and for the most part they did, though in St. Louis they were held in reserve "just in case" the Negroes got too far above themselves. Faith leaders and even the New Black Panthers were recruited to manage the protest crowds instead. The police continued their false claims of being fired on and assaulted by members of the crowds of protesters, but for the most part, protests went on relatively unimpeded, except when the feelings of the police were hurt -- as in Berkeley (CA), Oakland (CA), New York, and St. Louis, where the po-po are always butt-hurt over something or other.
Direct assaults against protests were limited; the snatch and grab tactic along with arrests and/or smears of protest "leaders" were substituted. By taking out the most outspoken or the most eagerly followed activists, it was thought that the protests would collapse. Didn't happen though.
I remember at one point, Antonio French, who was seen as a leader of the protest movement -- he isn't though -- was arrested and held for quite a while, but it only further inflamed the protests, it didn't cause them to collapse. That was because Antonio French wasn't leading the protests.
A concerted effort was launched to smear Mustafa Hussein who had been valiantly livestreaming the protests for Argus Radio News. So far as I can tell at this point, Mustafa has stepped back and is no longer in the vanguard of livestreamers from Ferguson. He was clearly hurt by the smears and other assaults he faced. But it didn't end the livestream coverage of the protests. If anything, there are more streamers now.
Another livestreamer, Bassem Masri, is currently being smeared. He's also been arrested a number of times on bogus charges, and there have been reports that he's been offered "something" to turn against the protesters or to serve as a mole of some sort. Whether any of that is true, I don't know. But he's still out there covering the actions as best he can, and not solely in Ferguson and St. Louis. He's been traveling quite a bit around the country, and has made a number of mainstream television appearances.
An outspoken member of the Ferguson Commission was arrested for something, I forget what, the day after he was at the White House meeting with the President; another outspoken activist was arrested for arson and burglary for setting fires the night Antonio Martin was killed in Berkeley (MO).
A livestreamer in Los Angeles, Bryan Hayes, was run down by a driver from Rhode Island the other night -- no consequences to the driver, apparently. The running down/running over of protesters has become one of the "things" anti-protesters do, as the protests have been blocking streets and freeways as civil disobedience tactics.
Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of protesters have been arrested since August. Some have been charged with felonies for trivial offenses. That too is part and parcel of the government tactics against this uprising
There have been reports that all of the protest "leaders" are being monitored by the FBI -- COINTELPRO on steroids.
The primary tactic, however, appears to be to wait out the protests on the premise that they will go away on their own. A few bones will be thrown now and again to divert attention from the problem of police violence and abuse, but nothing substantive will change.
Except that substantive changes are being made in the way the country is policed, and radicals are actually proposing and here and there implementing alternatives that will eliminate police as we have grown accustomed to them.
Big changes are afoot.
Peter Gelderloos has written a pretty profound manifesto regarding "A World Without Police." Whether we'll get there, I don't know. But his insight and powerful rhetoric on the topic will have an influence, no doubt.
Albuquerque's police culture appears to have changed dramatically in the last several months. New York's police unions are focusing on change there. We're seeing the spread of change throughout the national policing culture. Activism works.
It is a profound lesson that needs to be relearned from time to time.
Of course I knew that from long experience, but we have been living under a system which insists that only "approved" activism works. Color revolutions only, you see?
The revolt against police violence and abuse seemed to take the Powers That Be by surprise (putting it mildly), and they still haven't figured out what to do about it. My sense of the situation has been that they will try to crack down, hard and all at once, much as they did with Occupy, but something tells me now, before the New Year, that they may try a different tactic:
Taking out or buying off the "leaders" who aren't slippery enough to escape their grasp.
I've seen many signs of it already.
The massing of military style police forces, just like an occupying army would do, after James Boyd was killed in Albuquerque, then after Mike Brown was killed in Ferguson, along with the massing of police-troops all over the country to counter the protests that ensued became something of an embarrassment to Our Rulers given the constant rhetoric about freedom of expression and assembly and so on.
No, it wouldn't work.
Military-style forces were told to stand down, and for the most part they did, though in St. Louis they were held in reserve "just in case" the Negroes got too far above themselves. Faith leaders and even the New Black Panthers were recruited to manage the protest crowds instead. The police continued their false claims of being fired on and assaulted by members of the crowds of protesters, but for the most part, protests went on relatively unimpeded, except when the feelings of the police were hurt -- as in Berkeley (CA), Oakland (CA), New York, and St. Louis, where the po-po are always butt-hurt over something or other.
Direct assaults against protests were limited; the snatch and grab tactic along with arrests and/or smears of protest "leaders" were substituted. By taking out the most outspoken or the most eagerly followed activists, it was thought that the protests would collapse. Didn't happen though.
I remember at one point, Antonio French, who was seen as a leader of the protest movement -- he isn't though -- was arrested and held for quite a while, but it only further inflamed the protests, it didn't cause them to collapse. That was because Antonio French wasn't leading the protests.
A concerted effort was launched to smear Mustafa Hussein who had been valiantly livestreaming the protests for Argus Radio News. So far as I can tell at this point, Mustafa has stepped back and is no longer in the vanguard of livestreamers from Ferguson. He was clearly hurt by the smears and other assaults he faced. But it didn't end the livestream coverage of the protests. If anything, there are more streamers now.
Another livestreamer, Bassem Masri, is currently being smeared. He's also been arrested a number of times on bogus charges, and there have been reports that he's been offered "something" to turn against the protesters or to serve as a mole of some sort. Whether any of that is true, I don't know. But he's still out there covering the actions as best he can, and not solely in Ferguson and St. Louis. He's been traveling quite a bit around the country, and has made a number of mainstream television appearances.
An outspoken member of the Ferguson Commission was arrested for something, I forget what, the day after he was at the White House meeting with the President; another outspoken activist was arrested for arson and burglary for setting fires the night Antonio Martin was killed in Berkeley (MO).
A livestreamer in Los Angeles, Bryan Hayes, was run down by a driver from Rhode Island the other night -- no consequences to the driver, apparently. The running down/running over of protesters has become one of the "things" anti-protesters do, as the protests have been blocking streets and freeways as civil disobedience tactics.
Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of protesters have been arrested since August. Some have been charged with felonies for trivial offenses. That too is part and parcel of the government tactics against this uprising
There have been reports that all of the protest "leaders" are being monitored by the FBI -- COINTELPRO on steroids.
The primary tactic, however, appears to be to wait out the protests on the premise that they will go away on their own. A few bones will be thrown now and again to divert attention from the problem of police violence and abuse, but nothing substantive will change.
Except that substantive changes are being made in the way the country is policed, and radicals are actually proposing and here and there implementing alternatives that will eliminate police as we have grown accustomed to them.
Big changes are afoot.
Peter Gelderloos has written a pretty profound manifesto regarding "A World Without Police." Whether we'll get there, I don't know. But his insight and powerful rhetoric on the topic will have an influence, no doubt.
Albuquerque's police culture appears to have changed dramatically in the last several months. New York's police unions are focusing on change there. We're seeing the spread of change throughout the national policing culture. Activism works.
It is a profound lesson that needs to be relearned from time to time.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
DeRay McKesson Issues Beatitudes on the Twit Machine
Blessed are those unafraid to proclaim a love/for blackness, for you keep us focused on justice and liberation. #Ferguson
0 replies
134 retweets
178 favorites
Blessed is the unapologetic truth-teller, for your fearlessness awakened us and empowers us to fight another day. #Ferguson
0 replies
92 retweets
111 favorites
Blessed is the act of protest, for it may transform the world. #Ferguson
0 replies
123 retweets
143 favorites
Blessed are those who support from afar, for we know that we are never alone in this struggle and that makes us stronger. #Ferguson
0 replies
133 retweets
222 favorites
Blessed
are our elders who cling to a monolithic notion of activism, for we
know how to appreciate the past without staying in it. #Ferguson
0 replies
81 retweets
98 favorites
Blessed are those who attack the character of protestors, for we see your desperation and we remain focused on freedom. #Ferguson
0 replies
135 retweets
150 favorites
Blessed are those who still know love despite facing such sustained evil, for one day you will know the joy of freedom. #Ferguson
0 replies
107 retweets
127 favorites
Blessed
are those who protest in speech, for this is a battle of mental
confrontation as much as it is of physical confrontation. #Ferguson
0 replies
94 retweets
113 favorites
Blessed are the those finding their gift(s) in the midst of protest, for you are now awake and ready to change the world. #Ferguson
0 replies
86 retweets
108 favorites
Blessed are our critics, for you keep this space honest as we work to build a new future together. #Ferguson
0 replies
52 retweets
68 favorites
-----------------------------------------------------
DeRay McKesson has become one of the most oft-quoted of the many "leaders" of the movement against police violence that has grown up this year. I tend to stay away from Twitter, but I saw this last night, and it appealed to me more and more. The Movement DeRay and so many others are part of is a moral one, intentionally building awareness and tweaking consciences one by one and in batches.
People who encounter the protests are often caught off guard, sometimes they're annoyed and angry, other times they wait mindlessly till the protest passes, but every now and again, someone has an awakening... a conscience is moved among the otherwise disengaged or oblivious.
By offering blessings this way, DeRay helps move and change the situation -- I think for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)