Julia Child's TV Kitchen c. 1964

 Fascinating.

Later in her TeeVee career, she used her own kitchen in her Cambridge, Massachusetts, home rather than a television set, but early on, she worked in a number of somewhat different studio kitchens that strongly resembled what an average middle class housewife would have. It's interesting to see them now and compare and contrast with today's "insane" kitchen renovation ideas.

The first thing you notice in her "Chicken Dinner in Half an Hour" video is... the island. Islands were not common in real kitchens in those days -- except on TeeVee. And why? Well, in order to demonstrate her cooking on screen, she -- and the food -- needed to face the camera. Prep and cooking in a real kitchen would almost always be done with the housewive's back to the room. And in her Chicken Dinner video we see her using a GE push button electric cooktop on the island while there is another similar cooktop on the counter to her right. She never uses it on the screen. Electric wall ovens -- which we don't see in the Chicken Dinner video, but they're there -- are to the left of the countertop cooktop, and a bottom freezer refrigerator is to the left of that. Uh no. The refrigerator is a top freezer model and it is way to the right of the sink, barely seen most of the time. Behind her is a double bowl porcelain on iron or steel sink with a pull out sprayer. Bench tops/counters form an L-shape. The kitchen set is compact, and if it were real, the island would probably be a counter (without the cooktop) against a wall.

What is a GE push button electric cook top? Indeed, you don't see those any more. We had one in our house built in 1957. It was considered ultramodern at the time. A built in cook top with push button control was very Space Age, though GE had been producing push button freestanding ranges since the '40s. The burners were Calrod open coils, and the push buttons allowed for several levels of heat from Lo-simmer to High-sear. The burners heated up pretty fast but not as fast as a gas burner, and they cooled much more slowly than a gas burner, meaning that pans had to be taken off the burner altogether to lower their temperature quickly and prevent burning the food. OK, you had four burners on the cook top, rarely used more than three at a time, so there was one open burner where you could put a pan to cool. 

Julia wound up facing something of a dilemma as she cooked her Chicken Dinner as she was using all four burners at a time, and she didn't have any place to put a pan to cool. So she turned the burner off under the pan that needed cooling and hoped for the best. It seemed to work out ok. Whew.

She had three saute pans going at once and a huge boiling kettle. Each of her saute pans was different. The first was a Farberware stainless steel (with aluminum core) frying pan. I know because we had one just like it. In this she sauted her cut up chicken. The first thing I noticed was that the chicken didn't stick. I never had a problem with sticking on Farberware stainless steel saute/fry pans either, but they say newer stainless steel pans -- like Allclad and so on -- are notorious for sticking. Everything. There are supposedly work-arounds to make them nonstick, but experience says it's hit or miss at best.

Julia also used a Teflon coated fry/saute pan to cook her diced potatoes. She often said how much she loved the non-stick pans that were just being introduced at that time. Very Space Age. She never mentioned the obvious problems with them - the fact that the Teflon would peel off all by itself or when the surface was scratched in normal use. Interestingly, Teflon coated pans still have that problem. 

Her third saute pan appeared to be a professional kitchen aluminum pan that was not widely available for civilians at the time. Much later, we had one and we loved it. Even heat, excellent cooking, easy clean up. As long as it wasn't used for acid foods like tomatoes, it was a joy to use. 

Her boiling pot was an enormous aluminum job, which once it was filled with water was practically unmovable even by someone as sturdy as Julia. She boiled her eight zucchinis and three tomatoes in it. These days such a pot would be used for pasta, spaghetti especially, and not much else. Because they are so heavy and awkward when filled with water, renovators have taken to installing "pot filler" faucets at the cooktop/range, but there is still the little problem of disposing of the water once the boiling is done. An alternative method of cooking pasta has become fashionable: boil it in just enough water to cover, let the pasta absorb most of the water, and then have very little to drain and wrestle around. 

There appears to be no dishwasher on her kitchen set, actually there is one to the left of the sink, I just didn't see it initially, but not having  dishwasher would actually be the situation in most homes at the time. Our 1957 kitchen had a space that could be used for a built in dishwasher but none was installed, and that was fairly typical of all but the fanciest middle class homes at the time. They save you the trouble of washing dishes, but they don't really save you at all since the dishes and pots and pans need to be washed by hand first before they are put in the dishwasher. Hopefully they will come out cleaner. We had a portable dishwasher rather than a built in, and we used it now and then. The point was to "disinfect" which the hot water and soap was supposed to do. You still had to wash the dishes and pots and pans by hand first.

Julia had a lot of counter space in her TeeVee kitchen, and that was pretty typical of home kitchens at the time, too. Her counters appeared to be surfaced with Formica. Now of course Formica has fallen out of favor, and no renovator with any sense of pride or dignity would use it. That's too bad. Formica and its variations were excellent counter top materials and they still are. The issue these days is that Formica is "cheap," and "cheap looking." Whether or not it wears well and serves the purpose is irrelevant.

Counter tops must look and be expensive, which stone and its many synthetic imitations are. So stone and quartz and whatever actually is expensive are mandatory in new renovations -- or you may as well disappear.

Formica was good enough for Julia Child, though. Even in Cambridge. At least that's what her counter tops appeared to be. Most of the time. (Actually, according to the Smithsonian which proudly displays her Cambridge kitchen, her home counter tops were wood, butcher block. Hm.)

On her TeeVee set she also had a large wooden cutting board that sat on the counter top beside the island cook top/range. There she chopped and chopped and chopped and chopped. Later, I think she had a marble pastry board installed on the other side of the cook top. But as far as I remember, at no time did she replace her work surfaces with granite, all marble, or quartz.

Julia also had a large number of built-in cabinets on her TeeVee set -- but not, as I recall, at her home. These cabinets, uppers and lowers, stored everything. There were no open shelves. The idea of open shelves was appalling. Dust, grime, the mess, endless cleaning. Every upper cabinet had doors, as did every lower storage cabinet. Drawers held miscellaneous tools and equipment, but she also had a magnetized knife rack on the wall beside the sink and what looked like a plastic fishing tackle box with many little drawers screwed to the wall on the other side of the sink for spices and other condiments.  I imagine that was her idea, or possibly her husband Paul's. 

Julia's TeeVee kitchens changed and changed over time, and finally, she used her home kitchen -- with an island installed so she and her guests could face the cameras. It was... cramped. 

But the kitchen set where she prepared her half hour chicken dinner was perhaps the best of the lot, the closest to what many middle class housewives had in their post-war houses -- well, except for the island.

And there is some nostalgia for recreating that among us old folks. 

One thing nostalgic kitchens feature is the built in range and oven, the oven(s) at a convenient height so you don't have to bend down, and a broiler at eye level and not on the floor. It is possible -- but very expensive -- to do that these days. But I guess it's not as expensive as one of those monster French or Italian ranges that are so fashionable! 😄

So a nod to Julia Child for never being afraid and never being a victim of kitchen fashion. You go girl!

Some Thoughts on the Presidential "Debates" -- and the presidency in general

The final presidential candidate "debate" was held on Thursday in Nashville moderated by Kristen Welker, an African American NBC News personality -- which inspired plenty of pre-game fireworks and insults from Mr. Trump.

The performance by Mr. Trump was less of an imitation of the Tasmanian Devil from Warner Brothers cartoons than the first "debate" but he did little to reassure the haters and the leery that he was at all well-wrapped and capable of understanding anything that wasn't entirely about him. The man's id and ego dominates everything and spills over into the real world with sometimes devastating consequences. He's a destroyer -- at least his public persona is. He has become Death, Destroyer of Worlds.

I got to thinking about that some time ago, because he has long had a reputation (however often sullied) in the real estate business as preservationist and builder. You look at his performance as president and that seems impossible. The man could not build anything if his life depended on it. As for preservation, his contempt and chaos would destroy anything in his path. Wouldn't it?

Well, I don't know. Apparently certain signature properties of his -- Mar a Lago, the DC Post Office building, the Plaza Hotel and several other historic buildings in NYC  -- are worthy preservation and adaptive re-use efforts that he was set on doing and did with considerable brio. How they were done is not the question. That they were done and still stand as relatively well-done examples of the genre -- and with his name on them -- is the point. 

None of it could have been easy and watching him as president you would think it wouldn't have been possible for him to do it at all. He's too out of it, too crazy, to chaotic. And yet... somehow these projects and many others got done.

There was nothing in the "debate" on Thursday that let me see or know that part of him. Maybe it's gone, I don't know. There was certainly nothing that convinced me that he even remotely understood the devastating and continuing effects of the Virus on American lives and livelihoods, or that the devastation is in large part due to the failures of his administration to adequately address the situation. Blank stares is about all you'll ever get from them.

Trump's demands that everybody just go back to work and school and shop till they drop again while they "learn to live with it" -- the Virus -- seems hollow and bizarre. The premise is that everything is up to the individual and the market, and if things go south, oh well, too bad, so sad, there's nothing to be done. 

That's the status quo right now, and he won't deviate a jot or a tittle from it.

Meanwhile, there's Old Joe Biden. Sigh. I was convinced Democrats would not nominate him simply because I didn't think the political situation would be stable enough to put up such a tired retread against the Destroyer. But in spite of all the objections, they did it anyway. Oh. Dear.

Joe is not as feeble as he's been made out to be by his critics and haters, but he's not entirely there either. He's old. And it shows. During the performance on Thursday, he lost track and misspoke several times, and he seemed to fade out as the evening wore on. Assuming he wins, he'll have to be molly-coddled through his reign, much like Reagan had to be and Wilson had to be toward the end, and probably lots of others had to be, but that's not always a bad thing. What bothered me is that from a policy standpoint, he seems to be trying to revive the early '90s, and I got the willies. No, we can't go back, we have to go forward, a direction he and his handlers don't seem to recognize. 

Oh. Dear.

That means to me that things are not going to get better with either old man on the throne. And that is apparently the policy of our rulers regardless of party. No. That's their watchword. No.

So we sleepwalk into the Darkness... 

The presidency itself has been jokified by Trump and his antics, and I don't see Biden somehow reverting it to dignity. Yet the presidency has too much power and too much deference is granted to presidential bullshit. There's no sign of reining in the powers of the presidency (just the opposite) nor of restoring some sense of monkish  propriety to the office holder. We're going down another path of ever wilder and obnoxious presidents it seems. 

The Revolution doesn't come. But the transformation isn't delayed. 

Buckle up. 

Kitchen Vernacular and ASMR

 [Once again a diversion from the multiple crises afflicting our fair globe and nation, crises I believe we can do little about. The pandemic still keeps me mostly at home; if I go out it's for groceries and supplies, or to various medical appointments. So I spend at least some of my time exploring the YouTubes and reading glossy magazines where I make discoveries.]

Kitchen design has evolved somewhat during my lifetime. Above is a picture of a typical kitchen in what I suspect is a farmhouse c. 1930. It's large and square and "unfitted." Ie, without built in cabinets. This means the house and kitchen probably date from around 1900, but the equipment is newer. The stove is probably from the mid-1920s or even 1930, and the refrigerator is a 1930 or later GE Monitor Top. 

Though I don't remember it clearly, this is probably similar to the kitchen in my father's house in Iowa where I only lived a few months after I was born and returned to for a few months in the summers of 1961 and 1962. The house was old, parts of it very old (c.1845-50), but the kitchen was an add-on around 1900 when my grandfather bought it and had it expanded. When I visited in the summers of 1961 and 62, the kitchen was modernized somewhat. I remember there was one of those steel cabinet sinks under the bank of windows on one side and a newer stove and refrigerator but beyond that, I don't remember much.

The first house we lived in in California was built in 1930 and had a very plain and simple kitchen. It was a narrow corridor along the back of the house (actually it was a duplex). There was a black stove up on legs (c. 1930) and a small refrigerator (flat-top c. 1935) on one wall. The other side was a built-in cabinet with sink under the tiny window and tile drainboards on either side. There were upper cabinets for dishes and dry foods. And by the side door, there was a broom closet. There wasn't room for much else, though there might have been a "California Cooler" on the same wall as the sink and the broom closet might have been on the wall with the stove and refrigerator. There was a single overhead light (might even have been a bare bulb), and I remember the room seemed dark and cramped -- even when I was just a toddler. The flooring was varied gray linoleum with a small figure and a border.

We moved from there to another bigger house when I was three. I don't remember the kitchen or much of the interior of that house at all. The house itself was practically new, built as Post War housing on a lot next to a high water Victorian. I remember the kitchen in that Victorian house better than the one next door where I lived. The Victorian one was plain and unfitted except for the steel cabinet sink -- those seemed to have been ubiquitous for a while -- and had a round table and chairs at one end, newer stove and refrigerator at the other. There was a dish cabinet, too. It wasn't a Hoosier, but was simpler, with an upper section with glass doors and a lower section with drawers on one side and a wood-doored section next to the drawers. I believe the cabinet was on wheels. There was one electric light on a dangling cord in the center of the room and there may have been another one over the stove but I'm not sure. 

After that, we lived in a succession of pre-and-post-War houses in Los Angeles County, only one of which left much of an impression on me. It was a very cozy and homey house in West Covina built around 1939 or so, with a corridor kitchen. Built in cabinets, sink under the window, blue and white tiled counter tops, an older but functional stove and refrigerator, both dating from about the time the house was built, and an eating area in a bay window at the back. There was ivy-decorated white wall paper. The room was light and bright -- I remember the sunlight in the breakfast area well -- and I liked it. 

We moved from there to a brand new house a few miles away. It also had a corridor kitchen, but without the charm of the one we'd left. There was the usual sink and tile drainboard built-in cabinet on one side with the usual upper cabinets on either side of the window over the sink and a stove and refrigerator on the other side. We went through a succession of used refrigerators dating from the mid-thirties to the late forties, none of which lasted very long (the longest lasting was a Servel gas refrigerator) before getting a new Kenmore refrigerator which we kept for at least ten or even fifteen years and hauled around to a number of different houses. The stove, however, was an indestructible Wedgewood that had been purchased with the house, and which stayed with the house when we moved again five years later. 

At the far end of this corridor kitchen was an eating area with a window (no bay window) that also served as a laundry area. We had a Kenmore automatic washer but no dryer, and there was no room for a dryer anyway. Laundry was hung on the clothes line out in the side yard or on one of those folding wooden racks indoors when the weather was bad.

The flooring was linoleum with an overall pattern, no border, and I think it was green like the tile border on the countertops. There was a cabinet next to the stove that held the water heater and some brooms and such.  There was one overhead light in the kitchen proper and one in the eating/laundry area.

Be Like Water

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.

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.

Normalizing the Spectacle

Summer tends to be the media silly season dominated by sharks and missing white women. But because there is Trump and Republican dominance of government at every level, among other things, the usual summer media obsessions have to take a backseat. In fact, I haven't heard a single missing white woman story this summer, have you?

Something's different. Something's changed.

Without cable news in our house, our media landscape is somewhat different than that of many Americans, but the fact that we watch television news at all means that we're still subject to the propaganda, lies and strict gatekeeping that are big parts of the media landscape. Our preferred television news outlets are Democracy Now! and PBS NewsHour. On Sundays, we tend to watch one or another of the Sabbath Gasbag Shows, though sometimes we skip it. Why bother, right?

It's a rare thing if we watch one of the network news shows or one of the morning shows. (We watch endless repeats of "Laramie" on GRIT instead.)

Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! tends to restrict her coverage to those issues and stories she is personally interested in or invested in. She corrals her topics so strictly sometimes that "news" -- as in what's going on now -- is absent while a sort of academic consideration of potentialities and so forth dominates her hour. When you're familiar enough with her ways, this isn't too bothersome, but it can be frustrating.

NewsHour is a more general and standard-model television news program -- with a twist. They have literary pretensions, and they often feature artists and writers who have something to say. Because Ms. Ché is in a creative writing program at the Institute of American Indian Arts, she's more than a little interested in that part of the NewsHour.

Both news programs must be conscious of their funders and do what they can, and sometimes what they must, not to cross them.

Amy's funding tends to be somewhat opaque, but it appears to come from Pacifica and a select group of well-off patrons and foundations which seek to ensure that a leftish perspective on the news is at least available to the public if not dominant therein.

NewsHour's funding is much more mainstream. Thus their news is, too, but with that literary/artistic twist that you generally won't find in the typical network or cable news program.

With all that said, it appears that the entire news media industry has collectively decided to normalize the spectacle of Trump-de-do this summer in place of the usual diet of sharks and missing white women.

In other words, whatever he tweets, whatever he does, wherever he goes, and whomever he chitters with will dominate all news cycles of every outlet almost as if he were a shark or missing white woman.  We're supposed to be amazed and appalled, I guess.

It's the spectacle that matters most. And making believe it's like any other summer spectacle. Keep the Rabble entertained and unable to focus on what's really going on.

So long as Trump can do that, so long will he be secure in office.

He seems to be doing that with a kind of sharp-elbowed relish that we haven't seen in presidents for a long time -- most of us alive today have never seen it which is why it's so shocking on the one hand, and so entertaining on the other. Mr. Trump has no sense of noblesse politesse. 

He's a gangster, and a lot of Americans like that.

He's an upper crust twit. Some Americans seem to like that, too.

He's a buffoon. Addled. Clearly out of his depth, but he doesn't care, nor do enough Americans to worry about.

He obviously doesn't have enough handlers to keep him in line, but so what? The presidency has been so jokified during his reign to date, all the handlers in the world wouldn't be able to restore the "dignity" to the office. That's gone. Precedent has been set. Oh well!

From now on, presidencies will have to include a lummox squiring around a surgically remodeled Stepford Wife, A boy that "ain't right." A craven group of toadies. An ultra-craven group of ideologically driven "disruptors." Incompetence and incoherence will be the standard of rule from the Oval Office. There will be no going back.

I always dread the summer silly season because it tends to shroud the important issues that can easily lead to catastrophe after Labor Day. We've been down this road before. But this is different, I think, because more of those issues are out in the open. The precipitated crisis in the Persian Gulf, for example, over Qatar's "support for terrorism" could very easily lead--  stupidly and inadvertently -- to a Guns of August scenario that could touch off the War of the Ages . Who knew that the Balkan Thing and the assassination of an Archduke nobody liked would lead to WWI for example. The Saudi royals simply  aren't very bright, but none of these anachronisms in the Gulf seem to have very much on the ball smarts-wise.

Inject something like the Trump Spectacle into the midst of it, and... whoopsy!

So it goes.

But then, taking advantage of crisis is what it's all about, isn't it? Even if you have to engineer crisis. Somebody comes out on top, no? So let it be...who?

This is all becoming normalized.

I'm such a stick in the mud, I don't like it. Doesn't get my juices flowing.

It's garbage day out here in the wilderness. Have to get m'sef in gear and get the can out to the road. At least we have garbage pick up. A lot of folks around here -- even the fancy ones -- have to shlepp their trash to the transfer station themselves. The way of the world...

Freaks

We're pretty upset in the Ché household over what's been going on at the #NoDAPL actions in North Dakota, and we're glad that our friends who went up there on a supply run over the weekend are not only OK but appear to be stronger for their experience so far. They plan to spend the week in spirit, prayer and solidarity with their brothers and sisters and their allies fighting the good fight nonviolently against the marshaled might of the state and its corporate owners.

Freaks these paramilitaries fighting the People are.

And yet, that's America today. That's where we are, and that's where we've been for quite a long time. It's upsetting to me in part because it evokes the same sort of militarized violence used against Occupy and the Ferguson protests, and many others during the last half-decade and more. It's become a ritual, wherein the People in their multitudes rise up over this or that injustice, they discommode the powerful -- by loudly protesting, massing in large numbers or sometimes not so large, marching and carrying signs, blocking roads and highways, subjecting themselves to police brutality and mass arrest, being covered by police snipers (I've seen that too many times to count now) and being subjected to military tactics and use of military equipment designed to intimidate and to inspire fear. And always being lied about. Always.

Somehow I doubt it'll get better any time soon.

What's happening at Standing Rock is a microcosm of what's been happening to The People around the world, but particularly in the Euro-American Imperial sphere, when they confront injustice perpetrated by the global corpro-state. It's the same everywhere you look, sometimes a bit more violence by the police, sometimes with a bit more return violence from the protesters (I'm thinking specifically of the protests against Euro-austerity in Greece, but there have been others like them). It's a ritual which so far the corpro-state has been winning handily. Though their moral suasion fails every time.

Of course. They have the Power. They are still learning how to use it. I've seen the Standing Rock situation, which has been going on for months in a so-called stand off, as a practice run for use of force against the People wherever and whenever they arise for the purpose of protecting the state and the corporations that own it.

Law enforcement agencies from far and wide have been sending their personnel to North Dakota in "mutual aid" of their brothers and sisters in blue (and brown) who are engaged in "riot control" -- good god, the lies never stop -- against the tribes and their allies. They are getting on the job training in what to do and how to do it to suppress nonviolent uprisings. Out there on the cold and windy prairie beside the Great Missouri River, they confront the savage horde once again.

Protecting their white women, are they?

Imagining themselves getting revenge for Custer? Who knows. They're simply freaks. Mercenary freaks for the corpro-state against the People and against their own better nature.

I've heard tell that dozens of these freaks have woken up to the wrong they're doing and have turned in their badges saying, "No, we won't hurt these people any more." Good for them, but there are said to be thousands of other freaks, goons, and badge carriers on scene. More arrive all the time. On the other hand, some of the mutual aid paramilitaries have been withdrawn because the people of the states and cities they come from say "No! No more. We did not approve and we do not approve of what you are doing." Well. That's brave.

It's practice, though. These situations keep arising, and the People require beat downs if they don't obey. That's America as it has been for most of its history. It's hardwired.

And so now a cabal of White Supremacist and White Nationalist freaks is set to grab the levers of power concentrated in Washington DC, the national corprostate, and run it for their own profit, pleasure and amusement. Ah, the mighty-mighty! Some individual corpro-states of the nation are contemplating secession, much as Texas and some of the rest of the Old Confederacy did when That Nigra was put in the White House as president and not shoe shine boy. Which is about all a Nigra is good for in the White Supremacist conception of what's right and what's not.

"America" did not choose this fate, "America" did not elect these freaks. It's happening as a fluke, not  an inevitable consequence of Hillary's bad campaign or whatever.

It's happening because it can, not because it must.

And what of the resistance? The resistance is focused on Standing Rock because these are our Braves, standing up and in some ways standing in for all of us who confront the corpro-state.

They are the focus of world wide attention, world wide support, too, because the People of the world see the Standing Rock activists as standing up for them. And so it is. The actions at Standing Rock are not that large compared to many others. They're taking place on the open prairie in the middle of nowhere, but they are having an emotional and spiritual effect that resonates around the world.

In the now immortal words of Assata Shakur:

“It is our duty to fight for our freedom.
It is our duty to win.
We must love each other and support each other.
We have nothing to lose but our chains.”

That goes for everyone who stands up to the Power.

There's been a tendency to dismiss and denounce the protests that arise against injustice at home and abroad. At the same time, we are being assured by not-so-radical observers and thinkers that we have entered the Twilight period of neoLibCon rule, ie: the corprostate is shuddering and shall soon -- how soon? -- collapse. According to them, what we're facing is something like the end of the British Empire, perhaps c. 1913. We could see the signs long ago, but now the end is in sight.

Himself, the New Boss, is supposed to be the harbinger of the coming disintegration of neoLibCon authority and rule.

Well, maybe.

Personally, I don't see it. He is surrounding himself with some of the freakiest of neoLibCon freaks and they seem more than interested in pursuing their goals to the max, come what may, full speed ahead.

The Power is there to fulfill practically any dream the freaks have had for decades; the freakiest freaks are being assembled as we read and write and wonder, and there is really very little, maybe nothing, to stand in their way. They will be able to use the Power as they see fit; why shouldn't they use it to fulfill their mad dreams of glory?

No moral suasion works in the face of these madmen and freaks. They see no reason to consider the interests of those who are not loyal and do not obey. Their ideal is simply to crush disobedience and punish disloyalty. It's been done before, but it hasn't been done nearly enough since That Nigra got into the White House --- where he obviously doesn't belong, at least not as President.

I've wondered, of course, about Obama's apparent pledges of loyalty and offers of help and guidance for the New Boss. Oh dear, what fuckery is this? It's not a surprise, no, but it is nevertheless disconcerting. One can maintain the dignity and integrity of the Office without becoming complicit in the fuckery to come, but it  seems that Obama has some other idea in mind, I don't know what. He's got a bolt hole or two on tap, so it is not as if he would necessarily be at risk if he didn't pledge loyalty but remained above the fray as it were. But then he's a careful and calculated player. He's always aware of which side of his bread is buttered.

The Clintons on the other hand had better watch their backs. The long knives are out, and I wouldn't be surprised if they become the political sacrifices to the gods of chaos let loose by events.

They've already been scapegoated for everything under the sun, and there is no sign of their scapegoaters relenting. "Clintoooooons!!!!!!1111" Feh.

Freaks. All of them freaks. And we need to point that out, without let up.

Strength and Solidarity.

On The Apology For Past Racial Policing

I've been fuming about this for a while. It's not that the statement by the head of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (a new outfit for me) isn't welcome, it is that it frames the problem of abusive policing as historic, not current, and it essentially absolves police themselves of responsibility, blaming vague social and political forces for the policies and actions of departments and officers.

That argument can be made, but it is just that, an argument. It's not an apology, it's not a correction, it's not restitution, it's not reform.

Here's what the statement said:

There have been times when law enforcement officers, because of the laws enacted by federal, state, and local governments, have been the face of oppression for far too many of our fellow citizens. In the past, the laws adopted by our society have required police officers to perform many unpalatable tasks, such as ensuring legalized discrimination or even denying the basic rights of citizenship to many of our fellow Americans.

While this is no longer the case, this dark side of our shared history has created a multigenerational—almost inherited—mistrust between many communities of color and their law enforcement agencies.

Many officers who do not share this common heritage often struggle to comprehend the reasons behind this historic mistrust. As a result, they are often unable to bridge this gap and connect with some segments of their communities.

While we obviously cannot change the past, it is clear that we must change the future. We must move forward together to build a shared understanding. We must forge a path that allows us to move beyond our history and identify common solutions to better protect our communities.

For our part, the first step in this process is for law enforcement and the IACP to acknowledge and apologize for the actions of the past and the role that our profession has played in society’s historical mistreatment of communities of color.

At the same time, those who denounce the police must also acknowledge that today’s officers are not to blame for the injustices of the past. If either side in this debate fails to acknowledge these fundamental truths, we will be unlikely to move past them.

Overcoming this historic mistrust requires that we must move forward together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. All members of our society must realize that we have a mutual obligation to work together to ensure fairness, dignity, security, and justice.

It is my hope that, by working together, we can break this historic cycle of mistrust and build a better and safer future for us all.

The lead in to this statement asserted that thousands of police officers have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured in the line of duty "over the years," and this apparently is to make palatable the coming "apology" among the Brethren in Blue. If you want to play the Dead Game, it might be worthwhile to point out that "over the years" hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed by police and millions have been wounded. Families have been ripped to pieces and whole communities have been oppressed and destroyed by abusive and violent policing. The relatively few officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty, generally more in car wrecks, accidents, and heart attacks than by any other means, cannot begin to compare to the number of lives lost in civil society by the actions of police.

To cast this as historical and ignore the current situation simply beggars belief.

But that's where we are in this Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

That's where we are. And a number of commentators have pointed out that this statement is "better than nothing." "It's a start..."

I've pointed out that -- statistically -- we're in a less violent period of policing and social violence than at almost any other period of our history. It doesn't seem so in part because there is far more available documentation of police violence now than there has been in the past. Some of it is truly horrifying, and so much of it demonstrates that police too often shoot or otherwise engage in violence when objectively there is very little or no threat to them or anyone else, and their use of violence is simply not necessary.

They do it because it is expected of them and because they can.

They can do essentially anything in the line of duty and get away with it so long as they use the Magic Words, "fearing for my life and the safety of others".

That's what's wrong. Police are jacked up to fear literally everyone and every thing. Their lives are always in danger from some shadowy source; the safety of others is constantly at risk. Even when there is no objective threat. They fear that something might happen and react to the potential rather than the actual threat.

When force protection is the prime directive, as it seems to be, then harming and killing those who are perceived as threats becomes the means to implement the directive.

And it so happens that men and boys of color are perceived as definitional and existential threats to police officers, far more than white men or most women.

The perception does not match the reality, but that doesn't matter. According to the law and much police training, the officer's perception at the time is all that matters -- so long as it conforms with a mutable standard of "reasonableness." That standard is that another officer would perceive the situation and the necessity to use force (lethal or non lethal) in the same way. If all of them are trained to perceive black and brown men as existential threats of course they're going to see the situation and the need to use force the same way. Even though there may be no objective threat at all.

When their chief requires them to use force, including lethal force, whenever they perceive a threat -- which might be nothing more than disobedience -- it's no surprise that's what officers do. They follow commands -- for if they don't, they'll be disciplined or fired. Under those circumstances and rules of engagement, it's better for the officer to use force, even if the situation is dubious, than risk the wrath of their commanders for not using force.

It puts civilians in a bind, because under many circumstances, there is no way for them to comply to avoid the use of force against them. As we've seen, in some circumstances, black males purported  to be threats, not actual threats at all, have been shot and killed on sight, simply because someone said they were threatening. In other cases, black males who do not immediately obey confusing or conflicting commands are shot and killed. Black men "armed" with cell phones or packages or nothing at all are shot and killed and the officers who kill under such circumstances face little or no consequence. "Reaching" for anything -- including ID pr a cell phone -- is cause enough for summary execution.

We can go on and on and on listing the many ways a black or brown man can be legally murdered by police. It happens essentially every day.

Hundreds are killed every year -- God only knows how many are injured -- who are objectively no threat at all, except to the fevered and fearful perceptions of police officers who kill them.

Even most of those who are objective threats do not "need" killing. I've said and I will repeat that police killings can be cut by 90% or more -- which some cities have done (prominently, New York City) by changing the rules and the authorities under which police use force, including lethal force.

It's not rocket science. It can be done.

To apologize (sort of) for historic injustices is fine, but to do so without acknowledging the current problem of racialized and violent policing gets us nowhere. To assert that the situation isn't as bad as it looks, since so relatively few individuals are abused or killed by police -- relative to the number of police encounters overall, for example -- is beside the point when it is possible and necessary to further reduce abusive and violent policing to the point where it is essentially nonexistent.

Ideally, police should be modeling 'good behavior' not violent and abusive behavior. I would say that for the most part, 'good behavior' is what they try to show in most of their encounters with the public. Most officers try not to be overtly racist, abusive or violent most of the time. Most of their encounters are resolved peacefully-- or at least nonviolently.

The excreptions tend to involve young men of color far more often than white men or women of any color, or they involve disobedience, unsubstantiated reports by callers to 911, misunderstandings of police commands*, misperceptions of threat by police officers, inability to obey due to mental or physical problems and/or (ab)use of substances, or some combination of these and other factors.

[*Note: police should not be in the business of issuing "commands" to civilians. It is completely the wrong relationship between the People and those charged with serving and protecting said People. Officers follow the commands of their chiefs and supervisors, they should not be issuing commands to the public.]

The fact is that there is a current and ongoing problem of abusive and violent policing, a good deal of which grows out of the historic patterns and practices of police departments. They started in many instances as slave catchers and militias for the purpose of chastising Indians and other undesirables. That's kind of hard-wired into many police departments. Apologizing for history is fine, but it's not enough. Corrective action is necessary, and there's no indication that this association of Chiefs of Police recognize that.

That is not to say that there is no recognition anywhere within the police culture. In fact, recognition that correction is necessary is relatively widespread among police chiefs. And it is strenuously resisted among police officer unions -- whose members feel threatened every time they put on the uniform, and who, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, assert they are under assault every moment of every day.

Resolution of that contrast of perception may not be possible, though certainly many officers and chiefs are trying to find common ground.

The "national conversation" about race and abusive policing has been going on -- and on and on -- for years, and it seems always to be stuck in the same place, as the dead continue to pile up. There have been changes in some police departments that reduce the killing, but in others, there's no change, and the number of dead at police hands is still about 100 a month, year in and year out. To change that, requires a goal -- to cut the number killed by police in half year by year until the number is reduced by 90% or more.

It can be done.

But the goal has never been set let alone met in more than a few jurisdictions. It must become a national goal.

The chiefs have to set the goal for their departments.

The To-Do Over "Making a Murderer"

Well this was interesting.

I'm not usually in to murder shows on the television like "Dateline" and the others. I find them vapid, manipulative, and ultimately all the same. But apparently audiences lap them up because they love their murder mysteries, oh yes they do. I'm told that Nancy Grace still has a following, too. Now there's a believable character...

But over the weekend, I read about a series that was being presented on Netflix called "Making a Murderer," which was described as something one "had to see!" It was "OMG! What the actual fuck!"  And on and on. Oh my. A man in Wisconsin was wrongly convicted of a crime he didn't commit, spent 18 years in prison for it, was exonerated on DNA evidence, was released and campaigned for justice reform, sued the principals and the county which had pursued injustice against him, and just as he was about to settle the lawsuit, he was arrested for murder most foul: the assault, murder, dismemberment and burning of a woman who had come to his property to photograph a van he wanted listed in Auto Trader Magazine.

We don't have cable (yay!) but we do have Netflix, so... Sunday I started watching the ten-part series, and I have to say it was mesmerizing and memorable, truly a "must watch" E-ticket ride for anyone interested in the issue of justice reform in this country.

It was a textbook case of police and prosecutorial misconduct from the get-go, and how they were able to get away with it was shocking. Judge and jury both went along with the prosecutors even in the face of extraordinary doubt raised by the defense. That didn't matter for some reason. All that seemed to matter to the police, prosecutor, judge(s) and juries was putting away these two people (a man, Steven Avery, and his nephew, Brandon Dassey) for.ever.

In other words, even though Steven Avery was wrongly convicted of sexual assault the first time and spent 18 years in prison for it, he was never truly exonerated in the eyes of the police and prosecutors -- indeed not in the eyes of much of his community as well -- and his subsequent prosecution and conviction for the murder of Teresa Halbach was considered something of a trophy by the police, prosecutors, and judges... whether or not he did it.

This gets right to the heart of how the so-called "justice system" works, it seems to me. Truth does not matter, winning does. Police and prosecutors want numbers of victories, and courts are often happy to oblige -- regardless of fact or truth.

It's called "justice" because it's a process, it's the way things have been done for many a long year, and it's just too damn bad that sometimes the innocent are swept up in it... too.dam.bad.

In this case, Steven Avery and his nephew Brandon Dassey both went to trial for the murder of Teresa Halbach. Both were convicted, but the evidence against them was scant and/or bizarre to say the least. A conviction in both cases required an enormous amount of police and prosecutorial misconduct on the one hand, repeated instances of judicial "discretion" let's call it favoring the prosecution, and juries willing -- eager? -- to suspend their disbelief and set aside any reasonable doubt about the guilt of these two fellows to convict them.

There were strong indications that the police planted evidence; just a little bit to be sure -- a key, blood stains, and bits and pieces of other evidence -- but there were also strong indications that the accused had nothing to do with Teresa Halbach's murder, that someone else had done it and had essentially framed Avery for the crime -- and got away with it.

If so, that means a murderer is loose in that part of Wisconsin, just as a serial rapist was loose in that part of Wisconsin while Steven Avery was in prison for a crime he didn't commit. That rapist, by the way, committed two more rapes during the time Steven was in prison wrongly convicted.

Steven Avery's nephew Brandon Dassey made a series of obviously false confessions, sometimes coerced by the police, but in one case -- shockingly -- coerced by his own defense attorney's investigator, implicating himself and his uncle in the murder. He was obviously making shit up to satisfy his interrogators, and yet, somehow the "system" bought these confessions whole and treated them as if they were true and factual, when in fact they were anything but. Nevertheless, the prosecution relied on these false confessions for a good deal of their cases against Avery and Dassey. It didn't matter that the confessions were patently false. What mattered was the fact that there were confessions at all, on the premise that "innocent people don't confess to crimes they didn't commit," one of the most egregiously wrong notions in this whole sorry affair.

The truth is, I don't know who murdered Teresa Halbach but I'm pretty sure -- from what was presented in the documentary anyway -- that Steven Avery and Brandon Dassey didn't do it. They couldn't have. They certainly couldn't have done it the way Dassey described the murder in his repeated false confessions (that she was tied to the bed, sexually assaulted, she was strangled, her throat was cut and she was repeatedly shot -- for investigators found none of Teresa's blood anywhere on the premises of the Avery compound where both Avery and Dassey lived. Her DNA was only found on a bullet fragment discovered in a garage months after it had been repeatedly swept for evidence, strongly suggesting the bullet or the DNA had been planted. Or, even more likely, that Teresa's DNA was a test contaminant -- like that of the tester's -- and was not actually on the bullet fragment at all.

There was no uncompromised evidence that tied either Avery or Dassey to Halbach's murder. That alone should have raised a "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors, but for some reason it didn't-- at least not enough of a doubt to acquit either one.

Why not?

That gets us to how the system really works. Avery was targeted as the culprit almost from the outset, when Teresa was reported missing. She had last been seen on Avery's property where she went to photograph a van he wanted to list for sale in Auto Trader magazine. Her car and what was left of her burned corpse were found on his property, her ashes mostly in a burn pit not twenty feet from his mobile home.

But her ashes also turned up in a quarry at the other end of a 400 acre property, and in a barrel found elsewhere on the property. This indicated that her body was burned in the quarry (a quarter mile or more from the mobile home where she was allegedly murdered) and her ashes were then transported in the barrel to the burn pit beside Avery's mobile home where they were later discovered.

None of her blood at all was found anywhere on the property, but her blood was found in the cargo section of her car. It appeared that she was transported while bleeding from a head wound, but where or why? Her car was found in a corner of the Avery compound, inexpertly covered with branches and debris. It was found almost immediately by a civilian searcher who was given permission to explore the property (on which the Averys had hundreds if not thousands of derelict vehicles -- they worked as auto dismantlers) by one of Avery's brothers.

The prosecution ultimately theorized that Teresa was sexually assaulted in Steven Avery's bedroom, then she was taken to the garage where she was shot and killed, and then her body was put in the back of her SUV for transport the couple of hundred feet to the burn pit beside Avery's mobile home where her body was burned in a bonfire that night.

Except there was no blood evidence anywhere except in her car.

She could not have been killed in the garage without her blood being essentially everywhere inside, and there was none, not a drop.

As many observers have said, the actual and objective evidence does not lead to either Avery or Dassey as her murderer. But she was clearly murdered. So who did it?

That's a question the police and prosecutors never examined.

That alone should be seen as malfeasance.

 But it wasn't and isn't. Wisconsinites seem to believe that both Dassey and Avery "got what was coming to them" -- pretty much regardless of their actual guilt. It literally doesn't seem to matter in the minds of many of their neighbors whether they did it or not. They have convicted these two in their own minds because "nobody liked the Averys" and their extended family, and they were nothing but trouble anyway, so it's just as well that these two are in prison for the rest of their lives. Because they were no good. Neither of them.

They may be punished for a crime they didn't commit, but so what? There were other things they did that made it appropriate to put them away. Justice may be served sideways, but it's served just the same. These people were and are scum. They can rot in prison forever as far as their neighbors are concerned.

Some of those who investigated the case called them "evil incarnate" -- not because they did the crime, but because of their reputation and their lifestyle, which was not approved of by the community apparently. And if you go against community norms, it would seem, you are literally taking your life in your hands. Tolerance, apparently, did not extend to the Averys and their large number of relatives.

They were dirty. They were not necessarily honest. They were slow-witted, sub-par IQ. They drank and smoked cigarettes. They were accused of inappropriate sexual behavior (ie: masturbating in public). They didn't raise their children right, and they were always getting into minor trouble with the law. Nobody liked them.

Nobody liked them.

That was apparently the key right there. "Nobody liked them."

Thus they could be accused, tried and convicted with nary a nod to justice. It was nothing more than taking out the trash. White trash in this case, but trash nonetheless. Getting rid of "trouble."

This is actually what happens in courts all across the land, day in and day out. Law enforcement is focused on certain elements in the population which are considered 'undesirable' by the community or the powers that be. There is often a racial bias in this focus, to the extent that practically all the law enforcement focus is on people of color, particularly poor people of color, whose communities are under constant and unrelenting siege by the police. Accusations, arrests, trials and conviction go on all the time, many for the most minor offenses, and very often, perhaps most often, the victims are induced to confess or plead out to crimes they have not committed, on the premise that if they plead or confess, they will receive a lighter sentence than if they contest the accusation at trial.

90% or more of convictions (they say) are actually due to plea bargains or false confessions. It's really quite remarkable. And millions are in prison due to these factors.

Every day in every way, this is how the court system works. It's based on lies, falsehood, and bargains, not on truth, justice, and the American way.

For police and prosecutors, it's about numbers of convictions. The judges go along. They know and don't care that what is presented in court is frequently false and that millions are sentenced based on these false claims. It doesn't matter to them.

When people protest, they rarely get anywhere in part because the people in power like things this way, believing as they do that even if the "innocent" are shot or convicted, it serves as a means of suppressing the inherent criminality of the lower orders, so what's to worry?

That's why "Making a Murderer" is to me an important document in the struggle for dignity, justice, community and peace, because it shows just how far into realms of bizarre fantasy the "system" goes to get convictions, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the victims.

It's amazing, aggravating, and true.

What do we have to do to fix it?

Incidents in Albuquerque

Not sure where this is going to lead, but I have a feeling it's not going to end well.

There was a road rage incident a little while ago. A four year old girl was killed by a gun-wielding driver who believed he was disrespected by another driver on the interstate. They got into it, apparently, and the girl was shot. This incident made national news -- yet another example of the Wild-West, Albuquerque style.

 Not long afterwards, I think it was the next day, an APD officer who was engaged in a "routine traffic stop" was shot by the suspect and a week later he died of his wounds.

In both incidents suspects were quickly apprehended and now await trial for murder most foul.

Both the media and the police department have gone into full-meltdown mode over these incidents, the media practically demanding that "the gloves come off" and a return to the practices of the past be authorized. You know, shoot first and never face consequences. Those practices that got APD into a consent decree with the DoJ.

Shoot and shoot again and keep on shooting.

The local media has been in hysterics over the deaths of the little girl and the police officer. They've been whipping up hysteria among the public, too. It's shameful. Disgusting. And apparently out of control.

The police department and the police union, for the most part, has been relatively sane about it all -- at least compared to the media. And they seem to be doing their part to engage in public diplomacy. It's interesting to see the contrast. Yet the end point seems to be to get back to the way things used to be.

Kill, kill and kill some more.

The police department claims that violent crime in Albuquerque went up 14% in 2014, but whether it's true or not, who knows? Police have a tendency to lie in pursuit of their objectives, and statistics used by police are constantly being massaged to "prove" whatever police believe needs proving. The public has few resources with which to compare and contrast police perspectives on crime or anything else.

We have witnessed a steep decline in police killing of civilians in Albuquerque, a decline that really hasn't been highlighted by media or anyone else (partly because it is masked by killings by other law enforcement agencies) but I can easily imagine that it will be cited as a primary cause of the supposed increase in violent crime since (say) the consent decree was agreed to last fall.

There is some sign of a community peace movement, however, one that may be able to counter the violence by police and some members of the public.

I'm always an optimist, but sometimes I wonder if my optimism is really justified.

DIGNITY, JUSTICE, COMMUNITY, PEACE

The Pope In The USofA

I've been following a bit of the live coverage of the visit of Pope Francis to the United States -- live coverage as provided by the US Council of Bishops rather than what's been on commercial TeeVee.

The US Bishops, of course, have some issues with His Holiness, in part because he has shamed them.

There's nothing particularly radical about Francis's theology or message; instead, the bishops have been carrying on a radical crusade of their own to "purify" the Church of its taint of inclusion and spirituality and transform it into a reactionary and hostile social/political entity standing in opposition to any movement toward a better future for all.

Pope Francis has not only told them they are on the wrong path, he's used his authority to retire and/or replace particularly recalcitrant and bull-headed bishops in the US and all over the world. He is no slacker when it comes to enforcing his sway over the Church.

He has even gone so far as to suggest the bishops are obsessed...

Indeed, during the past few decades, the Church's obsessions, particularly with abortion, contraception, and control of women's bodies and other people's sex lives, have been idees fixe and often seem to be the only things that matter to the Church hierarchy. Under the circumstances, the Church has had a tendency to drive away members and has self-limited its presence in secular society.

The Church became a rejectionist force in the world. And Francis says, "No." Don't reject, withdraw, antagonize, denounce, or delimit. Go forth with joy. Proclaim the Gospel, do good and be holy.

For Heaven's sake. Who'd a thunk it?

With the bishop's negativity as a backdrop, Francis's presence and message is seen by some observers as a threat to the hegemony of radical rightist power that characterizes the United States and much of the English speaking world.

A threat because the Pope ("of the Holy See" as he was introduced to Congress yesterday) doesn't buy into the crap and the bullshit and the nonsense that have come to dominate the political and social dynamic of the United States. No way.

He sees things so much more openly and inclusively. And he has no fear at all.

Good heavens, when I saw him wading into crowds in Washington and New York, it was astonishing. American politicians and celebrities do not mingle with the common people. At all. Ever. They live and breathe a separate existence, as cut off from you and me as it is possible to get -- as cut off as any imperial potentate of yore.

And of course they live in holy terror of the rabble.

That may be because they know they are doing bad and bringing untold harm to the masses.

But that would imply a conscience, and I'm never sure the high and the mighty possess such a quality.

On the other hand, His Holiness simply does what he believes to be right, including mingling and presenting a simple and humble appearance, as if he were, perhaps, the servant of the servants of God. Oh. What a concept.

His motorcade, for example, marks the contrast between the humble Pope of the Holy See and the Titans of Security who accompany him. Pope Francis is driven hither and thither in a tiny Fiat 500 -- with the windows down -- whereas his security detail provided by the US Government travels in huge armor-plated and bomb and bullet-proof SUVs, the kind we've come to expect the higher ranks of pols and celebs to travel in as well.

They are so frightened, after all, of you and me.

I noticed the same phenomenon during the Queen's visit to Germany earlier this year. She was quite fearlessly riding around in a non-bullet-and-bomb-proof Daimler whereas Fraukanzler Merkel was surrounded with security forces while being transported in an armored limousine which probably nothing short of a nuke could penetrate.

So it is with the Pope. He's not afraid.

Just the fact that he fears not has the effect of shaming the Powers That Be.

I'll be eager to see the Pope at the prison tomorrow.

He has dared to say that hope must be part of any effort at punishment.

And he has repeatedly declared the necessity for Dignity, Justice, Community and Peace throughout his American journey.

His references to Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton in Congress yesterday must have stunned the assembly. How. Dare. He.

Indeed.

So Even George Wallace Had an Epiphany

Georgie Bar the Door, c. 1963

I've been pondering the late George Wallace in regards to the current Kim Davis Affair -- an affair that will likely be gone once we're past Labor Day. These late summer news stories are often transitory as morning mist.

At any rate, George Wallace may have been a tiny man (5'6" maybe, if that) but he was a huge character in the civil rights era, the man who stood in the schoolhouse door preventing those Negroes from entering the lily-white schools of Alabama c. 1963.

Oh, he was a huge character and demon indeed, George Wallace was.

He was always railing about those Negroes and all the crime and misery they caused for good upstanding white folks, and how their needs and demands were at the top of Washington's list of things to do, whereas the good white folks of Alabam and the rest of the South and the Nation were being left out to fend for themselves, and why don't those hippies get a haircut and a job, huh, huh, and so it went, on and on, the little banty-weight piss-ant once and future Alabama governor (how many times George?) railing constantly, at full shriek, against anything and everything that represented racial progress.

Ol' George was a good man to hate in those days. Well, if you were on the side of civil rights as I was.

On the other hand, a lot of Americans were on Ol' George's side, they stood with Wallace. Bless their hearts.

He represented their shattered dreams... or something. I never understood how someone else's civil rights ruined -- absolutely ruined  -- the future of Good White Folks in the South or anywhere else. It never made any sense to me at all, but those opposed to civil rights and integration (and there were many of them) were sure that giving those people the same rights they had and letting them live next door and use the same facilities and so forth would lead inevitably to the ruin of white people.

They were sure of it.


How was that supposed to work, anyway?

Ol' George went around the country railing against anything that might provide a modicum of justice and dignity for those people. It just wasn't right, he railed, that they should have the same rights and privileges their Betters had.

Does it sound familiar? It should sound familiar, for there are all kinds of politicians who rail these days against rights and privileges for those people -- whoever the designated Other of the moment may be.

Comes now this Kim Davis in Kentucky (is that where she is?) refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples she is, despite the plain text ruling of the Supreme Court, deeming it contrary to her God and so on and so forth. She sits in jail in contempt of court therefore, a martyr like MLK and Rosa Parks her lawyer claims for following her conscience and religious faith rather than the Law.

Oh my, oh my. Poor sweet Kim Davis. What a martyr indeed.

Yes well, she's a martyr like George Wallace was a martyr, only not nearly so appealing.

Ol' George never went to jail that I know of, but he was shot by a would-be assassin in 1972 while running his umpteenth campaign for president (at least it seemed that way), and he was paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his natural life. I would say that might be considered a form of punishment if not outright martyrdom...

Ol' George kept it up just the same, railing and railing as was his wont.

And then he stopped. He became a "Christian". He had been a Methodist, but everyone knows they're not saved are they? He became a "Christian" -- forgiven and saved he was -- and he came to an epiphany.

He wasn't a martyr, he was just a nasty little shit with a mean streak a mile wide who'd caused untold pain and harm to millions of people for no good reason at all.

He didn't mean to, but that's what he did.

So. He changed. He apologized to those he had harmed. He could not get down on his knees because of his injuries, but he let all kinds of people know that he knew now that he had been wrong to insult and denigrate them all those years, he'd been wrong to stand in the schoolhouse door, he'd been wrong to be such a nasty little shit for all those years when he could have been using his power to do good, and he vowed to do good with what remained of his power and life....

And according to those who knew him that's exactly what he did during his final term as Alabama's governor. There hasn't been anything like it since.

As for this Kim Davis creature, she came to her realization that she had to become a martyr for her God when she became a "Christian" like George Wallace did -- rather late in her life after several marriages, affairs, divorces, and children of different fathers.

She's been forgiven and saved like he was, but whereas late in his life  George Wallace used his salvation on behalf of the downtrodden and dis-included -- many of whom he had personally down-trod and dis-included -- she has convinced herself that she was ordered by her God to use her salvation to further dis-include and down-trod the Enemy, ie: same-sex couples wishing to be married in her county.

Bless her heart.

I've never been much of a fan of same sex marriage because of the religious/sacramental nature of the term marriage. Leave it to the churches, I've long said, some of which have been performing same sex marriages for decades, and leave the law out of that issue altogether. Let the law address only civil unions without regard to the genders of the couples uniting.

Well, I was out-shouted and the Supreme Court (which has not exactly covered itself with glory since the lawless rendering in Bush v Gore) has ruled that same sex marriage cannot be prevented by law.

Therefore the little missy in Kentucky (or wherever she is) isn't like Rosa Parks or MLK, she's like that nasty little shit who stood in the schoolhouse door in 1963 preventing those Negroes from entering.

Will she come to her own epiphany one day?

Funny how God works in such mysterious ways....

Millions and Millions Forced Into Poverty

I've been pondering this aspect of the economic collapse and the bogus recovery since they happened, way back in the 2000-oughts, almost ten years ago now, and I've noticed from the outset how the facts don't seem to register with very many observers.

The direct consequence of the economic collapse of 2006-2009 and the subsequent bogus recovery that we're still in is that millions upon millions of Americans were forced into poverty, a poverty which for most of them is permanent. They will never escape, and their progeny, born into poverty, will likely never be able to escape, either.

These millions upon millions of Americans were forced into permanent poverty by policy. It was not an act of God, nor was it an accident. It was deliberate, calculated, even calibrated year by year, as a means to enhance and maintain the well-being and wealth of certain individuals, families and institutions at the top of the economic pyramid -- and to maintain the power of the governments who serve them with such policies.

Strangely though, Americans have largely ignored this process of impoverishment by policy.

Consequently, they don't seem to see what's happened an is still happening domestically -- even when it affects them directly. When it happens to people overseas, as it has happened with a vengeance to Greeks among other "peripherals" of Europe, the widespread notion is that they deserve their fate because of their past profligacy and present obstinacy.

The absolute number of people in poverty in the United States has skyrocketed since the economic collapse, and nothing is done to lower it at all. Even if the employment picture is somewhat better than it was (arguable since so many millions of people have left the labor force and are no longer counted as unemployed) wages are so low and hours are so spotty that even many of the employed are in poverty -- and they cannot get out by working more.

The debt burden on millions upon millions of Americans increases, particularly student debt -- which is often literally criminal -- imposed by fraud and coercion.

Americans take on student debt as a means to "better themselves" through education, but in the end, millions have found there is nothing "better" to be had, there are few jobs for people with their education, and those that exist don't pay enough to pay off these odious debts.

This is again a matter of policy, not accident or divine will.

Poverty per se is not an intrinsically bad thing -- unless it leads to bad outcomes for individuals, families, and communities. In other words, one can live poor with dignity. But when being poor leads to injustice (as it does), destruction of lives and communities (as it does), and inability to secure a decent life (as it does), then living poor is a hazard at the least. Calls for lifting the brutal burdens of poverty are necessary.

On the other hand, economic growth per se can be and too often is a bad thing -- at least for the environment and for the legacy of the future.

Economic growth for its own sake is almost certain to be ruinous for the long-term well-being of the planet and its inhabitants though it may provide a comfortable cushion for the well-connected who seem to believe they'll be able to ride out any coming catastrophe.

What then is to be done?

If we allow as how perpetual economic growth is unsustainable and that forced impoverishment is deeply antithetical to the values we seek to enhance, then we need a creative solution to a fundamental dilemma.

We cannot have perpetual economic growth if we value the planet, yet forcing untold millions of people in the US and around the world into poverty is not a rational or reasonable answer. What should be done instead?

I  don't have an answer at this point. But the current situation is unsustainable. Something must be done, and it must be done soon.

What it will be, and whether it will be, is one of the questions for the ages....

Resistance Art -- The Art of Resistance (or "Why don't you put a feather on it?")

Yesterday, I spent a good deal of time at the Museum of Contemporary Native Art in Santa Fe, a project/program of the Institute of Native American Arts -- where Ms Ché is now a student.

The whole place has a fresh-new feel and the art on exhibit is much edgier than that of the recent past or even longer ago (I can't recall offhand when I first visited the museum, but it's been years and years). Candice Hopkins is the new curator, and I'm sure it is her vision more than any other that has guided the re-vision of the exhibits at MoCNA, and that vision is one of continual resistance by Native people and particularly Native artists against the impositions of stereotypes and expectations.

Consequently, there is much resistance art on view. I wish I could illustrate this post with images from the exhibitions, but as a rule, MoCNA does not post many pictures of what's on exhibit, indeed, sometimes there are none at all.

What is "resistance art?" I supposed it depends to a certain extent on one's own perceptions of resistance. In order to arrive at a realistic definition, we may ask: "What or whom is being resisted, by what or by whom, and to what object -- if there is one?"

Many artistic forms and expressions can fall into the resistance category, even when the artist is not consciously trying to create resistance art. Among the most commonly recognized forms of resistance art is the poster highlighting a particular issue, rebellion or campaign. One of my all time favorites is "Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge" (El Lissitsky, 1919), propaganda art produced to help inspire the struggle against the White Russians in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge (El Lissisky, USSR, 1919)

The poster, while intended as a populist statement regarding the civil war then under way in the nascent Soviet Union, is in fact constructivist fine art, one of the strongest examples of the genre. Very often, posters and other forms of resistance art are both populist statements and fine art simultaneously. There's no real dividing line between them. There is no way I know of to separate the fine artist from the populist rabble rouser and propagandist. When the cause is strong or just, the works emerge almost spontaneously from many sources, including the studios of fine artists.

In the case of the exhibits at the Museum of Contemporary Native Art, many of the pieces of resistance art are the works of honors students at IAIA or of alumnae of the Institute. Some of it is straightforward and in-your-face, some is subtly subversive. The point of much of it is the rejection of stereotypes of what "Indian art" is supposed to be as well as challenging expectations of who qualifies as an "Indian artist."  These seem to be constant themes within the fairly small Indian arts community, especially in Santa Fe and New Mexico in general where Indian art and artists have a very prominent position and role in the highly competitive art market.

On the other hand, much of the resistance art on exhibit at MoCNA deals with specific issues in the ongoing Native struggles for dignity and justice in the context of constant predation and expropriation by the dominant culture, whether it's war, poverty, abuse, abandonment, dispossession or what have you.

Indian artists fight stereotypes, and they also fight for what's right.

David Bradley, for example, has produced an enormous body of resistance (fine) art that mocks and disparages, indeed insults, the "Disneyfication" of Santa Fe in particular, the Southwest in general, as it molds and shapes everything to attract and please the tourists who flock to the region every spring and summer -- and the poseurs who settle in for the long term. Bradley currently has a major exhibit at the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture in Santa Fe. Resistance art that he did early on, collages of various "Indian" ideas and struggles, are on display at the MoCNA.

And example of one of his statements of resistance is his Land o' Fakes Museum Currency:

Virgil Ortiz has been creating subversive images of his re-visioning of the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 -- translated into contemporary iconography -- for years. His vision is encompassing. He uses every bit of his talent, skill, connections and imagination to create what is becoming an enormous body of resistance art that focuses almost entirely on the most successful Indian resistance action in North American history.

Why would he do this? Isn't it just "style," "fashion," or "entertainment?"

I say no, not at all. Virgil uses the elements of the high-style and fashion world he once served in the Donna Karan studio in order to highlight something that's often forgotten about Indian history -- the Pueblo Revolt -- and to send a clear message to his high and mighty clients that it can come again.

In effect, he becomes a translator, an interpreter of the Revolt, both for the benefit of young Indians who might not otherwise find the events of so long ago interesting or relevant, and for the education of a clientele that instinctively believes they are the Masters of the Universe.

Virgil left New York and the high-fashion industry he'd been eagerly accepted into in order to return to Cochiti Pueblo where he was from -- something that was in and of itself an act of resistance and rebellion -- where he develops his re-vision and the themes of revolt and rebellion based on what happened to chastise and drive the Spanish out of New Mexico in 1680. An aspect of that re-vision was the Venutian Soldiers concept of 2012, which was -- I think -- the first gallery exhibit we attended after moving to New Mexico in 2012.

Venutian Soldiers c. 2012, Virgil Ortiz

Now wait. Surely this is not resistance art, it's some kind of wild-ass fashion statement, right? Actually, it's both. The "soldiers" depicted are the soldiers of a Pueblo Revolt of 2180, futuristic images of what may be to come based on what went before.

Virgil now has a major exhibit at the Denver Art Museum. 

Through similar images -- in ceramics, leather and fabric, paint, video and film, and whatever other materials and means Virgil decides to use -- a picture emerges of his vision that ought to give some of his expensive clients pause. I'm not sure it does because I still see some of them parading around Santa Fe in the Virgil Ortiz creations, many of which are the figurative equivalent of daggers and arrows to the hearts of those who wear them. It's all highly subversive but in a way that -- perhaps -- his targets can't understand at all, any more than the Spanish were able to comprehend what Po'pay and the other Pueblo rebels were up to in advance of the Revolt itself. They thought they knew... but they were wrong...

At the IAIA Scholarship Dinner Virgil and Rose B(ean) Simpson, presented a collaborative performance piece that took these resistance concepts several steps further, but I'm convinced most of those who saw it had no idea what they were seeing. To them, perhaps, it was something charming, even cute. But to others, it was as strong a statement of resistance to the status quo as had ever been presented in that context.

At the Museum of Contemporary Native Art, Rose and Virgil have extended their collaborative efforts with an installation of even more elements of the re-visioning and translation of the Pueblo Revolt theme. There are manikins wearing costumes Virgil created for his characters and also, importantly, ceramic "masks" for each of eight named characters in the  story of the Revolt (c. 2180). I put masks in quotes because they are more like three-dimensional head-shots rather than face coverings, though they are called masks in the exhibit. To me they are quite disturbing -- which is, I think, what they are supposed to be -- because they do not depict humans. They are from another realm altogether, and I'm not at all sure they are benign.... they wouldn't be, would they, if they were representations of the forces of a future Revolt.

But then, most of what's in the Redness exhibit is disturbing. Deliberately so. Resistance art? Absolutely.

Carmen Selam is a young artist whose work I was able to purchase at last year's IAIA open house. The piece I bought was a print called "Indian Red":

"Indian Red", Carmen Selam, 2014

I was immediately attracted to it because it is a piece of resistance art that comments on the mis-appropriation of "Indian-ness" for commerce and (Anglo) 'beauty.' Carmen has written very well about it on her website:

Throughout my indigenous life, I have lived with elements of racism over the duration of my existence. The misappropriated usage of Native American imagery can be seen as a metaphorical modern day scalping. There was once a time when gathering pigment for the earth was a long and arduous task. This pigment, carefully selected was used to make paint that we used in ceremony and on the war field. We gathered the elements from the earth that my ancestors were buried. It was honorable to wear paint, eagle feathers, amongst other things. However, these days, it is not the same. The scapegoat for blunt racism is often disguised by the cloak of one word: honor. Often times we are dishonored in the name of honor by non-natives appropriating our sacred motifs and regalia as Halloween costumes, sports logos, and corporate emblems. My piece Indian Red is a reflection of the idea that the pigment and color of our skin is seen as a commodity by the red-lipped, twenty-something, non-native hipsters, who don the plastic war bonnet and faux war-paint.

Resistance art? Of course. What else could it be?

There are many other Native artists whose work is on exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Native Arts and elsewhere in galleries and museums around the country and particularly the Southwest, much of it resistance art -- but some of it not.

There's a joke that goes around in the Indian arts community: "Oh, yer stuff ain't sellin'? Why don't you put a feather on it? That's what they like to see, you know?"

Yep.

That's what they like to see. They don't -- usually -- want their Indian stuff to bite, if you know what I mean. But what I've been seeing more and more of, encouragingly, is Indian resistance art flourishing in galleries and museums, where some of the wealthy and powerful might see it. Whether they understand it or not is another question. But it really doesn't matter.

What matters is that artists are once again rebelling and resisting the pressure to conform to stereotypes and expectations. Artist rebellions typically presage popular rebellion, and I think we're getting closer every day.