Tuesday, May 6, 2014

The Travesty of the Cecily McMillan Trial



Well, who'd a thunk it?

Yesterday in the august Manhattan courtroom of Judge Ronald Zweibel a jury of six women duly convicted Cecily McMillan of assault in the second degree for her alleged unprovoked attack on Honest and Brave NYPD officer Grantley Bovell, an assault that left the Poor, Beleaguered Officer injured in one -- or perhaps the other -- eye, and mortified him severely.

The trial was one of those farces that routinely passes for "justice" in this country, in which testimony and evidence was not allowed for the defense, but no corroboration was necessary for the police officer's assertions. According to those present, his bald-faced lies and contradictions were accepted by the court as gospel.

Well, too often, this is how it goes in the fraudulent institution that claims to be the "finest justice system in the world." The subjects are railroaded and convicted of things they haven't done -- or are induced to plead guilty to things they haven't done -- every single day, as a matter of routine practice. It's not even the pretense of justice, it's a fraud up and down the line, and it is a fraud that condemns millions to jail and prison, sometimes for very lengthy terms, sometimes indeed to death, with little or no recourse. Once "in the system" there's almost no way out.

Cecily was badly injured in the take down and arrest on March 17, 2012. She suffered bruises and a cracked rib, and she had a series of panic attacks which caused her to hyperventilate and ultimately put her in seizure while she was trussed up with zip ties awaiting transport. She was not attended by medical personnel -- in fact, the police openly refused to allow her to be attended -- until many minutes after she began to have a seizure, and the prosecution claimed at trial (without evidence) that she was "faking".

"Faking."

That's the word for the whole dismal process she's been subjected to for the last two years. "Fake" in every way, from her arrest to the charges against her, to the farce of a trial which convicted her.

Cecily McMillan, like millions of others, was railroaded, charged and convicted of the crime of "assault" -- which in fact was what Brave and Valiant Officer Bovell did to her. He assaulted her, first by grabbing her, then by groping her breast, then by tackling her and pinning her to the ground, then by trussing her up and throwing her into a group of other detainees, then he and other officers further assaulted her by refusing to provide any sort of medical assistance when she complained of being unable to breathe and went into seizure.

"Violent bastards," indeed. It's an identity thing with these people.

Cecily McMillan was convicted of assault in the second degree on a police officer and was immediately remanded to Riker's Island without bail to await sentencing on May 19. She may well be sentenced by his phony honor Zweibel to the maximum of seven years for the insult and mortification -- and injury to one or the other eye -- she inflicted on Brave and Honest Officer Bovell that night in Zuccotti Park on St. Paddy's Day two years ago.

She doesn't deny she smacked him with her elbow, oh no. She never did deny that. What she said was she didn't know who he was, she didn't even see him as he came up behind her, and grabbed her from behind. He didn't identify himself. He was not in uniform. She started to leave the park on her own, she said, to get away from this person, when he grabbed right breast, hard, leaving a bruise, and she whacked him with her elbow.

At which point Brave and Valiant Officer Bovell tackled the bitch and sat on her until she was zip tied and under... control. Yeah, that's the ticket.

This is the scene as it was recorded by Cecily's friends that night:



Is it possible for a viewer of this video to make out what happened?

To an extent, perhaps.

It's possible to hear women speaking. "Ah, there's Cecily.... Is she getting beat up? She's getting beat up right now... Oh God... Yeah, they're [unintelligible]... Who is [escorting... or hurting] her? Cops and one guy not in a cop uniform, he's right be...[cut off]..."

But what can be seen is... ambiguous. I recall watching livestreaming of the Zuccotti Park re-occupation that night, and I recall the astonishment and outrage at what took place when Cecily was assaulted, manhandled and arrested, and the growing fury and outrage as she was neglected and refused medical attention as she had trouble breathing and went into seizure. I will never forget it.

What happened to Cecily happened so quickly, no one initially knew what was going on. It was almost unbelieveable, as up to that point, there had been very little interaction between police and the Occupiers, and the mass arrests hadn't begun. The spirit of the place was, until that moment, still pretty mellow.

But then, the woman was tackled by... someone. Nobody knew who or why, and it looked for all the world like she was being assaulted and beat up by a civilian stranger -- remember, Bovell was not in uniform -- only whoever it was tackling her and beating on her was being protected by cops... Ah. There you have it. Her attacker was plainclothes.

She was being arrested.

Here she is, trussed up, lying in the street, having a seizure, while a whole contingent of New York's Finest mill about, apparently enjoying the show, and the crowd of witnesses can barely contain their anger and dismay.



Typical, though, of the efforts of NYPD to display as much of their arbitrary cruelty to the multitudes as possible during the Occupy hey day. They did it all the time, as I documented in the cases of Daniel Murphy and "Romania" among others.

But of course, Cecily would be charged, would go to trial, and she would be convicted -- for what the officer had done.

Of course.

No surprise.

No justice.

It happens all the time, every day, to thousands who wind up "in the system" never to be free.

It's time it stops.


Another Police Killing in Albuquerque -- And the People Rise Up

Idyllic Nature, So Close to Texas, Yet So Far From God


Over the weekend, tragedy stalked the mean streets of Albuquerque once again.

Well, it was a quiet street in a relatively new suburban enclave on the West Side, Ventana Ranch. It's not the kind of place where police shootings typically occur in Albuquerque, though it's not unknown for residential areas to erupt in gunfire.

Armand Martin was shot to death by a police sniper after a lengthy stand off with the police SWAT team at his home Saturday evening. His wife had called 911 earlier in the day when she said her husband had threatened her with a gun and she didn't feel safe. She left the home and sought shelter elsewhere while the police dealt with her diagnosed mentally ill husband by all their usual "negotiating tactics" -- including smoke grenades, tear gas, flash bangs, and snipers.

Some neighbors were appalled and disgusted. Others, of course, applauded the efforts of police to keep them safe.

The late Armand Martin was a retired Air Force colonel who had apparently not seen combat, but who had been diagnosed with mental health issues and was -- supposedly -- being treated for them at the VA hospital in town, where he was also apparently employed as an administrator. To the extent the story has been pieced together, at any rate, he was apparently subject to periodic crises, including suicidal crises, though he wasn't reputed to be particularly violent when in crisis. What his treatment consisted of is not known at this point, though he is said to have been taking medication for depression.

The dead man is said to have barricaded himself in his home after his wife and children left for safety elsewhere. He called KOB, one of the local television stations, during the time he was under the guns of the police SWAT detail, about two hours before he was killed, and told them he had had a fight with his wife, that he'd closed all the curtains and had weapons. "He also claimed the police were going to shoot him," KOB's spokesperson said.

Well, he was right about that. The police inexplicably ordered KOB to stop talking to Martin. According to the La Jicarita news site:
A man identifying himself as Martin’s brother Tommy called KOB later saying “My brother has told me too many bad things about police shooting people down there. I don’t know, right now I’m scared for my brother to go outside.” In addition he told KOB that his brother had guns but he didn’t think his brother knew where to find ammunition.
Yes, well. Wouldn't that be the case, then?

We should understand that the some of the aspects of the Wild West still pertain to these parts, and many New Mexicans are gun-crazy. Citizens have guns in abundance, and they are sometimes equipped with side arms when they go to town; I think practically all of our neighbors are armed, and for it is claimed that no one lives in the country without "personal protection." They have guns in their homes, long guns, automatics, pistols, what have you. They keep guns in their vehicles. Of course, that means criminals are armed, too. And so are the police.

With all these guns in evidence, everywhere, it's probably a wonder that there are fewer shootings and shoot outs than there are. At least in the Wild West of yore, sheriffs knew that the plethora of guns themselves were a big part of the problem, and getting control of civilian weaponry was part of the process of "taming" the Wild West. I'm not sure that such "taming" ever happened here.

At any rate, Martin's brother wasn't sure that Martin had access to ammunition, which, if true, would make the guns he had at his home more symbolic -- and symptomatic -- weaponry than actual lethal weapons, no?

The police have made a lot of unsupported claims about the "shootout" with Martin on Saturday, including their belief that he fired at police before they shot him dead at the front entrance to his home.

There are no witnesses who will confirm that it is so. According to La Jicarita:
There were no eyewitnesses to confirm that Martin fired at APD. One eyewitness told the press he thought Martin was pointing the gun at himself. Police initially lied to neighbors, telling them that SWAT didn’t shoot Martin but rather took him into custody. 
Oh, right, about that dead man? Just a misunderstanding.

The police claim they will release lapel camera footage today to confirm their version of the facts. Everyone is waiting with bated breath.

The police claim they sent a crisis intervention team to negotiate with Martin before they shot him dead.

According to La Jicarita:
An APD spokesperson said APD used crisis intervention teams and negotiators, but according to neighbors and eyewitnesses, that negotiation included shouting over loudspeakers, firing flashbang grenades into windows, swarming armed military-equiped officers throughout the neighborhood for hours and placing a sniper on one neighbor’s roof.
Typical.

No one believes the police. They lie routinely. And when they engage in "shootouts" with suspects, they lie about those encounters as a matter of honor and pride, or so it seems. I cannot count the number of times they have claimed this or that "fact" about a shootout or a suspect who's been shot dead that later turns out to be... false.

La Jicarita further reported:

In its press statement, APD did not report that Martin exited the house only after a SWAT grenade attack. Neighbors reported that APD fired three flashbang grenades into the house just prior to 6:16 PM. One neighbor told a La Jicarita reporter: “They were all camped out there. That’s what we saw for hours on end. It was military-style. Oh, and the flashbangs that were going off. It was scary. We went up into my neighbor’s house and we saw the flashbangs, they blew out all the windows.”

Yes, so typical.

Since the release of the scathing DoJ report criticizing APD for unwarranted use of force, unconstitutional policing and manifest institutional and systemic failures, it appears that they have actually increased their rate of killing, almost as an act of defiance, to demonstrate their ultimate power or something.

So:

¡No F-ing Más!


Last night, after a series of strategy meetings, the people who have been protesting the use of lethal force by police had had enough and they took action. They went down to City Hall, assembled in the City Council chambers, and shut the City Council meeting down. They then created a "People's Council" which passed resolutions condemning the recent spate of officer involved shootings and calling for the arrest of the Police Chief and the removal of the Mayor.

The police chief and his body guards skittered away before the "people's arrest warrant" could be served on him, and the Mayor (of course) was not in attendance. He never attends. He doesn't believe it's his job. The Councilors expressed frustration,  not with the police but with the crowd who took over, and a statement was issued by the Chief's Office to the effect that such actions by the public are "not helpful."

What's "not helpful" is the constant and statistically increasing gunfire from police.  Putting a stop to it, apparently by whatever means necessary, is now the public objective. The public has no confidence that the police are capable of reforming themselves, whether they are under DoJ supervision or not.

The fact that the shootings continue unabated -- in fact, at an increasing rate since the shooting of James Boyd in the Sandia foothills on March 16 which precipitated the latest round of protest actions -- despite the DoJ's clear and unambiguous statements about the unjustified use of force by APD is seen as simply a defiant slap in the face to the public and the Department of Justice by an out of control, militarized, and deeply dysfunctional police department.

This has to stop. CEASE FIRE!

The people will not sit down, the people will not shut up, and the people will not tolerate the continued death and defiance by the APD.

The people have demonstrated that they can essentially shut down the city, pretty much whenever they want to. The Powers That Be continue to spin their wheels while people are dying in their midst, shot to death by the APD, which those same Powers appear to have no control over whatever.

Armand Martin, like so many others who've been killed by the APD, should not have died by police gunfire like he did. On the other hand, he probably shouldn't have had weapons at his disposal, he should have had accessible and effective treatment for his mental health issues, and if his wife and children felt threatened by his behavior, they should have had accessible alternatives to calling 911 for assistance, since the 911 protocols require sending SWAT teams and extensive police firepower any time callers report being threatened with a gun.

The fact is, there are too few alternatives available to citizens in crisis, there are too few alternatives available to police, and the civic power structure, such as it is, doesn't really give a shit. They'll keep on keeping on just as long as they can, but the signs the signs are they can't for very much longer.

Too many forces are marshaling against the status quo.

Too many have died, too much blood has been spilled, too many incidents have been swept away, too many lies, too many protests, too many distractions.

The people of Albuquerque have had enough.


(h/t LeMoyne at FDL)

Monday, May 5, 2014

Ukraine Stories of Mayhem and Martyrdom -- and the Predominance of Propaganda



The stories coming out of Odessa yesterday, about what had happened the day before, when mayhem ruled the streets, and dozens and dozens were killed in street fighting and burned alive at the Trade Union building were almost beyond comprehension. Not much of it is in English, and much of what is in English follows one or another party line, none of which are necessarily truthful but are meant to inflame passions even further, and sell a particular belief about it all.

I watched a good deal of the coverage on Vremya Odessa, via UStream, during the uproar and its aftermath. While the station appears to be "pro-Kiev", at least its reporters were on the ground, covering events extensively and live, as well as posting compilation videos of the mayhem in the streets and at the Trade Union building. As far as I can tell, though "pro-Kiev," most of Vremya Odessa's reporting is in Russian rather than Ukrainian, and something I read along the way suggested that Russian was the most common language spoken in Odessa. (Note: when I interviewed Ukrainian survivors of the Great Patriotic War in California some years ago, their language of choice was Russian, and the translator translated from Russian to English and vice versa, though the translator and the interviewee would occasionally converse with one another in Ukrainian.) I've described my familiarity with Russian as "spotty" at best. I can pick out words spoken or written but I can't follow a conversation or read complete sentences in Russian, and Ukrainian is practically an unknown territory for me.

I also followed the eyewitness reports in English from Howard Amos on Twitter and his summaries at the Guardian. For news on what's been happening in the Eastern Sector where Ukrainian military operations are apparently under way -- or not -- I've largely looked to Graham Phillips' eyewitness accounts on his Twitter and his video reports on YouTube and for RT. 

These are all eyewitness reports, mostly without analysis, and if they are in the Russian or Ukrainian language, I can only barely follow bits of dialogue. Initially, I thought the language barrier would be too difficult to overcome, but I'm finding it to be something of a benefit because I can concentrate more easily on what the visuals show rather than focus on what people are saying they show. I'm aware that the videos -- whether live or recorded -- only show a slice of the whole. I found out how the slice-nature of video can sometimes be a distortion during Occupy when I was often juggling several livestreams simultaneously. The camera can only show bits and pieces of the whole at any given time, and the bits it does show can be both illuminating and distorting. It's best to see and utilize a number of points of view -- which may mean that a full picture of events has to wait for several days or months as the compilations are available and assembled.

I scan other reports, but generally I don't rely on the veracity on much of anything that isn't based directly on eyewitness reporting. 

I've gone into this rather lengthy description of how I've been gathering information about what's going on in Ukraine in part because so much of the "news" about it in the West is false and almost entirely propaganda on behalf of the coup-regime in Kiev and its sponsors in Brussels, Berlin, London, and Washington, DC. The propagandists have no interest whatever in the people being squeezed by the great powers in their efforts to control Ukraine. They have no interest in the truth, either. Their sole interest is in marketing a version of their political and economic demands and desires that will convince a significant portion of the public to buy it.

Counter-propaganda is coming out of Russia and the Eastern Sectors of Ukraine, much of it just as false and based in marketing beliefs as the propaganda of the West.

The only reliable news I've found is the on-the-ground eyewitness stuff that is available -- preferably raw, live, and unedited -- but which still must be seen and evaluated skeptically. There are so many lies, so very little truth.

The video at the head of this post is an edited compilation of scenes on May 2, taken from above and in front of the Trade Union building in Odessa just prior to and during the attack on it by anti-Russian hooligans, an attack in which the encampment in front of the building was burned, and the building itself was firebombed by Molotov cocktails. Dozens were killed. I had seen some live video of the scene during and after the assault from the Vremya Odessa livestream, but of course that video was taken on the ground and later inside the building after the fires were put out, so an overall picture was hard to gain.

Western media for the most part has not been able or willing to report honestly or accurately on what happened there, in part because all reports from Ukraine must be fit into a pre-digested narrative that matches the propaganda of the various Western and Ukrainian capitals involved in the matter. That means that what happened must be made to fit a narrative of "pro-Russian" vs "pro-Ukrainian" actions. Whatever doesn't fit the narrative is eliminated. The "pro-Russian" actions must be characterized as The Bad, whereas the "pro-Ukrainian" actions must be reported as "sadly necessary responses" to The Bad.

The more I learn about what happened in Odessa -- and the reaction of Odessans to what happened -- the less it fits the current Western propaganda narratives, and it doesn't really fit the Russian propaganda narrative, either.

It was something out of nowhere that shocked and appalled Odessans, really seemed to shake them to their core. Nothing like this fit Odessans' social and cultural ideas about themselves.

How the fires in the building started is still a "controversial matter" according to the Western propaganda, that is when the fires aren't being blamed directly on "pro-Russian" protesters. From the video above, and from some of the video I saw on Vremya Odessa (their later compilations, not live) it was obvious that the building was being firebombed from outside by Molotov cocktails. This should not be a matter of controversy or dispute. It's obvious.

Not only were firebombs being lobbed at and into the building, people who were trying to escape the fires were also being firebombed by members of the mob outside.

What a horrible nightmare.

In the video above, a relatively small group of people is seen at the front entrance to the building, behind some makeshift barricades assembled on the front steps. They had apparently already abandoned their encampment in the square outside. A much larger group is seen running toward the building and the encampment. They are seen destroying and burning the encampment while those at the front entrance watch. Some time later, the people in the mob outside the building run away from the burning encampment, as if, perhaps, responding to gunfire. There were repeated reports of guns fired from the building at the mob outside resulting in several deaths and injuries. Since I saw apparently dead bodies lying in the street outside the building in the Vremya Odessa livestream, I thought the reports of gunfire from the building were reasonably creditable.

Not long after the mob runs away, though, they return. The "pro-Russian" protesters who had been on the front steps have apparently retreated inside, and only members of the mob are seen in front of the building and on the steps.

A fire is already burning inside the building on the third floor, and Molotov cocktails are being tossed by the mob at the front entrance to the building. One Molotov cocktail seems to be tossed from inside the building, and it appears to fall ineffectively on the front steps. This may actually have been one that was tossed at the building from the mob outside, but there's no way to tell from the video itself.

Shortly, the front entrance is aflame, and there is heavy flame coming from windows to the right. More Molotov cocktails are tossed at the building, and members of the mob are seen approaching the front of the building and motioning to their comrades to come along. Some people dressed in black, some of them armed with clubs or bats, are seen on the roof. Who these people on the roof actually are has been subject to some dispute, as access to the roof was said not to be available to those inside, which was said to be one reason why so many died.

More Molotov cocktails are seen being tossed at and into the building from the crowd outside, and the building is enveloped in smoke. Some time later, a column of police with shields is seen marching toward the buildings through the crowd in front. Prior to this point, there had been no sign of police at all, nor had fire brigades arrived.

But a firetruck eventually does arrive and begins to spray water on the front entrance while the crowd outside mills about. Eventually, the fires at the front entrance are put out, though flames can still be seen inside the building. A couple of people dressed in black can be seen on the roof.

That video ends without showing any attempts at escape from the burning building or any attempts at rescuing those inside.

Some of those who managed to escape were savagely beaten -- this was shown live on Vremya Odessa (which apparently does not archive its livestreams) -- others were attacked with more Molotov cocktails, and essentially everyone who got out alive was jailed.

Initial reports were that most of those who died inside died from smoke inhalation. That may be, but many of the videos and images of the dead inside show horribly burned corpses, sometimes in areas where there appeared to have been no fire. Vremya Odessa sent a reporter and cameraman inside after the fires were extinguished, and they showed and described much destruction, but there was only one dead body on a stair landing in their live video. It was apparently not burned. Where the many burned bodies were in relation to the video shot by Vremya Odessa is unknown, though some, apparently, were very close to the front entrance.

I'm unaware of any Western media or government that has condemned the actions of the mob at the Trade Union building in Odessa, though, of course they have issued their routine announcements "deploring" and expressing "sadness" that "anyone" died.

I've seen occasional efforts to blame the victims for their own fate, simply because they were where they were, and unfortunately "shit happens." They should have been somewhere else. There have been attempts to justify the mob's behavior by pointing out that they were being shot at by people inside or on top of the building. Yet who was shooting is not entirely clear. Howard Amos said he definitely heard gunshots fired from the building, and he saw dead bodies (I believe he said seven) in the street, but who was shooting is still unknown. There is video of a man in the crowd firing his gun at the building.

Molotov cocktails were being thrown at the building before the crowd runs away in the video above, and the encampment was being destroyed at the same time.

There were religious services and memorials for the dead throughout the day yesterday, and there really seemed to be a level of shock and horror among the people at what had happened, far more than there was anger, although there was plenty of anger. The police formed a cordon around the entrance of the building, but many people left floral tributes to the dead. I read that eventually the police dispersed and the people were allowed in the building, but I didn't see it.

Later yesterday evening, a mob of several thousand mostly young men formed in the center of town. They listened to speeches and were demagogued by Right Sektor toughs who tried to incite them to more violence. Many were armed with clubs, bats and chains. They marched through the city, singing and chanting, first to the police headquarters where they listened to speeches and confronted the newly appointed police chief, then to the Trade Union building where they were again harangued and incited to violence by Right Sektor thugs.

But surprisingly -- or perhaps not -- a delegation of young men from the mob linked arms and formed a cordon around the floral tributes to the dead, protecting them from the mob, and those who were trying to incite the mob to more violence were ultimately not successful.

Vremya Odessa stopped covering the action at about the time the mob was ready to disperse, so I didn't see what happened subsequently. Today, they're showing mostly movies and documentaries. I haven't seen any live coverage.

But I have looked at some of the videos that have been posted of the events of May 2 in Odessa, and I have read some of the recently posted descriptions of what people witnessed.

No matter one's point of view or political perspective, what happened in Odessa was horrible. Whether it was instigated from outside or was spontaneous hardly matters at this point. There have been persistent reports that Right Sektor thugs were bused in from Kiev to essentially raise havoc.  While that may be true -- or it may not be -- the mob and its behavior were the product of local animus, fired up, no doubt, by the propaganda out of Kiev, and perhaps instigated by Right Sektor demagoguery, but by no means was it entirely a matter of outside influence.

Mindless mobs can be terrible things, and once incited, they cannot be easily controlled. It was clear enough from the live video I saw were truly shocked and horrified at what they were witnessing and what they were a part of. Many of those in the mob outside the Trade Union building took it upon themselves to improvise means of getting people out of the building, and others attempted to rescue the injured who fell from the windows. At the same time, members of the mob continued throwing Molotov cocktails at the building and some of them beat the injured on the ground. There are reports that people who had barely escaped the burning building with their lives were subsequently beaten or stabbed to death by members of the mob; and it appears that everyone who escaped the building and the mob alive was subsequently jailed.

But yesterday a crowd assembled at the jail and demanded the release of those who were jailed after escaping the Trade Union building alive. This action -- unlike the action at the Trade Union the day and night before -- was almost universally characterized by Western media as a "mob" action. Those who demanded freedom for their comrades who had escaped the inferno have been labeled a "mob" while those who firebombed the Trade Union building were gently described as "pro-Ukraine" demonstrators.

This level of propaganda is almost unprecedented in the West. Even during the World Wars and the Cold War, such manipulation of language and facts and reality by Western governments and media acting in concert with one another was not this duplicitous and overtly false. The recent example that comes closest to the current level of Western propaganda being spewed by governments and media alike was that surrounding the invasion of Iraq.

And like that situation, the propaganda from the other side -- in this case Russia -- is almost truthful by contrast to the tissue of lies coming out of Western governments and media. The Iraqis found out, of course, that their truth could not save them. The question now is whether the Russians and their allies in Ukraine will find out the same.

What I've noticed about so many of the so-called "pro-Russian" factions in Ukraine -- and it was certainly true of those who sought shelter at the Odessa Trade Union building as well -- is that they tend to be older, whereas the "pro-Maidan" activists, especially the armed marchers who take over the streets at night, sometimes in torchlight parades, tend to be younger, often much younger.

This indicates to me that there is a significant -- and deliberately engineered -- generational divide at work in Ukraine, one that was cynically developed through the efforts of those hundreds of NGOs, most funded by the US and EU, who have been tirelessly working to "educate" the young people of Ukraine to "love Europe" and loathe Russia.

It's paying off.

Ukrainians will not soon forget the searing scenes of mayhem and martyrdom in Odessa. The question is how they will be remembered.

The Euromaidan television operation (funded by NGOs, funded by US and EU interests) consciously tried to emulate revolutionary visuals from the Soviet past. They produced some stunning images during the revolt in Kiev. Those images will stay with the participants, witnesses and viewers for a long time to come. Nothing like that took place in Odessa during the recent unpleasantness, and all of the imagery I've seen so far is ugly, disturbing, and alienating. I don't see Russia or the "pro-Russia" factions in Ukraine producing any kind of martyrdom-slash-revolutionary visuals from these recent events, not yet anyway.

Part of that, I think, is because the Russians aren't the Revolutionaries here; they represent the status quo, the status quo ante, of course, but still, not a forward impulse. Under the circumstances, and given the extraordinary level of unity on the side of Revolt and Revolution, and given the surprising level of flexibility being shown by the rebels, I'm not at all sure that the status quo can be restored or maintained.

My sense of these events is that Ukraine will never be allowed to be the same again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: A couple of videos have come my way which expand on the one posted above. The first is a 24 minute video of action around the Trade Union building from a time shortly after the encampment was set ablaze until shortly after a number of badly injured and/or burned men are pulled away from the back of the building after a huge and intense fire burns above the back entrance. How that fire started isn't shown in the video, and its intensity is quite different than that of most of the other fires that burned in the building that day. Only the fires at the front entrance seemed to match the intensity of fire that is seen in this video. Also seen is a man with an automatic pistol firing into the building from the mob. There are many other surprising or disgusting elements in this video, including some mention of "Pravyi Sektor" and, if you know what to look for, some fleeting glimpses of men in camo get ups who quite likely are the Pravyi Sektor members to which the videographer refers. The video is titled (in Russian) "These are my people?" and subtitled, "They are happy when burned people jump out of windows." Be warned, this is not a steadi-cam video, and the videographer tends to point the camera at the ground or wave it somewhat randomly. As difficult as some of the visuals are to watch, the camera work is sometimes even more difficult.




The following video -- which I'll link to but not embed -- was taken inside the building after the fires were put out. There are many burned bodies -- and if you would rather not see such graphic video of burned bodies, please don't watch. One of the links in the earlier text shows some stills from this video. As far as I can tell, the majority of the bodies are found on stair landings where the most intense fires were burning at the back of the building, and from where the injured in the previous video appear to have jumped. As I say, I don't know what caused this fire or how it started, but as I pointed out to a correspondent, many years ago I was engulfed in a gasoline fire, much like one that would be caused by a Molotov cocktail, and I survived pretty badly singed but otherwise unscathed. The fire burned itself out fairly quickly, and despite a great deal of smoke and flame, never got all that hot.

Whatever caused the fire which burned these people, I doubt it was a Molotov cocktail.


Sunday, May 4, 2014

"War Horse" at Popejoy Hall, May 3, 2014

They're just puppets, you know
Though spectacularly theatrical, indeed magically so, there's a simplicity and honesty -- as well as a sense of fantasy -- about "War Horse" that makes it as compelling as a children's fable. Naturally so for the work is based on Michael Morpurgo's 1982 children's novel of the same name, adapted for the stage by Nick Stafford and South Africa's Handspring Puppet Company. It was developed and first produced for the stage by the National Theatre of Great Britain, and it soars, lingers and penetrates the soul,  rather like theater once did routinely and always has the power to do.

The war horse in question is named Joey, but there are others which appear in the course of the play, including the magnificent black named Topthorn who becomes Joey's equine companion during the seemingly random and appalling battles the horses and men sent to be sacrificed in World War I find themselves in.

Millions of horses went to their deaths -- for nothing, really -- on the battlefields of the first world war, just as millions of men and women and children were sacrificed in the bloody awful carnage that wracked Europe a century ago (and which may return with a vengeance any minute now, thanks to the madness of the new aristocracy that has arisen there and elsewhere around the globe.)

Joey is one of the horses who was sent "over there." He was a hunter colt, half draft and half Thoroughbred, purchased by a drunken and cruel Devonshire farmer for 39 guineas, raised and loved by his son, Albert, and sold to the Army for 100 pounds. Joey is sent to the front to be the mount of Lieutenant/Captain James Nicholls, a Devonshire man who had also bid on Joey when he was first put up for sale as a colt. Nicholls promises Albert he will always care for and look after Joey, but instead, Nicholls is killed in his first charge into the German lines, and Joey eventually winds up captured by the Germans.

Albert is so distraught when he learns that Captain Nicholls has been killed that he joins up -- though he is only 16. His whole point of joining the Army is to find Joey, which eventually he does near the end of the War, though both horse and boy/man are scarred and weary, and Joey is near death.

The plot is basic enough, and the story is told in a relatively simple and straightforward manner in dialog and song and compelling visuals, including the puppet-horses and the elegant, sometimes horrifying, pencil drawings by designer Rae Smith -- projected and animated on a screen above the stage, a screen which resembles a piece of paper torn from the sketchbook Nicholls bequeaths to Albert after his death.

The puppet-horses, the main ones operated by three puppeteers each, puppeteers who make no pretense of hiding or being "not there" but who are actually a part of the characters of the horses they animate, are astonishing, magnificent, breathtaking, and they are very often able to evoke the deepest emotions of the audience. Tears were flowing throughout.

Some of those who saw the play with us were cynical about the "emotional manipulation" of the piece and especially the way the horses were constantly used to tug at one's heart-strings. But that, to me, was the point of it. Yes, the playmakers knew how to manipulate one's emotions, and they did so expertly through puppets that seemed veritably alive, something I had never witnessed before (puppets have always been something of a turn-off to me). But then, I'd never seen such lifelike-lifesize horse puppets before, either. This was something truly new and spectacular in my long experience in the theater, and truth to tell, I ate it up and reveled in it, indeed, I think it fair to say I "wallowed."

During the first act, I was sitting behind a very large man whose enormous head blocked between a third and a half of the stage from my view, and I was very annoyed at this. I tried to peer around his great noggin, but because of the way the play was staged, I often could not see more than a tiny bit of the action or nor from time to time could I see the actors at all as they spoke or sang. There were people sitting behind me complaining that I  was blocking their view, too. This was obviously due to a flaw in the design of the Popejoy, as the rake of the house closer to the stage (we were in the 4th, 5th and 6th rows) is insufficient to allow a clear view if there is someone sitting tall in front of you. To fix the situation, I moved to an empty seat in the row in front of my ticketed seat for the second act. Success! Everyone could see!

And it was a wonderful wallow from that point on.

I wouldn't say "War Horse" is an anti-war play in that it isn't a polemic. It's a story. A children's story at root. But the awful things that happen, in the worthless, tragic and almost unbelievable carnage of World War I, and the truth of the monstrous stupidity and cruelty of the powers that be who made that war is not overlooked by the playmakers. It is central to the story itself.

Thus, it's impossible to see "War Horse" and come away with an appreciation for war or those who lead their fellow-men (and horses) into such bloodletting and destruction.

On the other hand, "War Horse" does not wave a "Peace Now!" banner. It simply says, "This is what happened to one young man and one horse during a terrible time in human history..." The theme, of course, is the love between Joey and Albert -- a love that "conquers all" as it done in story and in drama since time immemorial.

Because this was a touring show, and they've been on tour for quite a while, the cast, though not the least bit tired or bored seeming, were more workmanlike than might have been the case in earlier productions. The puppeteers were extraordinary throughout, though, including those who operated Goose (as comic relief), the buzzards which fed on the carnage, the other horses besides the main characters, and the black birds which fluttered across the projections in a couple of scenes.

Though the actors were mic-ed and their voices amplified, the vocal levels were correct, and amplification was not even noticeable after the first few minutes. The overall sound, music and lighting designs were sometimes over the top, something unobjectionable given the context and the play itself, but I was puzzled by the fact that the lighting and stage design made every scene appear to take place at night. Every scene. I don't know that that was the intent, but there may have been no way to avoid it given the way the play was staged.

The cast used simple props to represent paddocks and such which I found perfectly appropriate. The costumes were simple, period-correct, and for the most part realistic, in contrast to the theatricality and absence of literal realism in the rest of the production.

Because we saw this production at a time when grave and very dangerous warrior rhetoric is gathering in Ukraine and the east of Europe once again, and the potential for stumbling and falling into yet another stupid, bloody, destructive European war is greater than it has been for more than a decade, the resonance of "War Horse" was amplified significantly -- though I doubt the Powers That Be are capable of recognizing any such thing.

They weren't capable then, either.


Saturday, May 3, 2014

What Happened in Odessa


The Aftermath, Odessa, May 3, 2014 (from Howard Amos's Twitter stream)

I'm still in a state of shock over what I witnessed on the Vremya Odessa livestream yesterday. I watched it periodically throughout the day, and it's running in another tab on my laptop right now. Today there appears to be shock and great sadness in the streets over what happened yesterday, I couldn't make out enough of what was being said to be sure.

I don't understand Ukrainian at all and I can only pick out a few words of Russian from the text and dialog that I see on the screen, but it was clear enough yesterday what was going on from the visuals.

There was an anti-Kiev-putsch rally going on near the center of town (Odessa is quite a large city); marchers claiming to be "pro-Ukraine" confronted the rally and became aggressive. There were repeated confrontations between rock-throwers on both sides. The anti-Kiev group attempted to find safety, but there was none to be found in the streets. They barricaded themselves on a side street near the center of town where they were relentlessly assaulted with stones and in a few cases with Molotov cocktails. The anti-Kiev group also threw stones and other objects at those who were throwing stones at them. It was not possible to tell for sure, but it appeared that at least one Molotov cocktail was thrown from the anti-Kiev group towards the pro-Kiev group, but it landed far short of any effective goal, and it burned purposely on a berm. The rock-throwing between groups went on for quite some time. Some people had guns and were firing into (it looked like) both groups, but the scenes of gunfire were too brief to really know who was firing at what.

Eventually, riot police formed a line between the sides, appearing to protect the anti-Kiev side. They continued to be hit with stones and other objects, but it looked like the anti-Kiev side was dispersing while their attackers were emboldened.

Meanwhile, a group of anti-Kiev-putsch activists had formed a small encampment in the square outside the trade union building (initially referred to as the administration building.) The encampment was assaulted by hundreds of young toughs armed with bats, chains, Molotov cocktails and possibly guns. The encampment was set on fire, and the anti-Kiev activists sought shelter in the trade union building.

The building was set on fire -- how, is not entirely clear. There were strong fires burning in the front entrance and in several of the wings. Much smoke and flame. Trapped people were on ledges apparently on every floor. Some jumped and were killed. Others jumped and survived though seriously injured. Others were overcome by smoke inside. The riot police tried to carry away as many of those who could escape the burning building as possible, and even some in the crowd of angry pro-Kiev rioters tried to help the injured. People were throwing things from the windows toward the crowds outside. There were people on the roof, and it was said they were firing guns into the crowd below. There were reports of bodies lying dead all around the building. Later, two or three bodies were shown lying apparently dead in the streets.

I saw Molotov cocktails being thrown from the pro-Kiev rioters and hit the building, but this was after the fires were already burning inside the building.

I saw some people emerge from the building and be assaulted and beaten by members of the crowd; a pile of injured was forming in front of the building. More and more were being added. Blood was everywhere, broken, burned, smoke-covered bodies were piled on others. Some no doubt were dead. It was shocking and horrible to watch. Police stood around as more and more people were brought out, beaten, and thrown on the pile. Eventually some were removed to waiting ambulances and police vans. Some were assaulted, and one was viciously kicked by a man in camo fatigues as he sat by one of the police vans.

Eventually police surrounded the vans that held many of the injured and prevented the crowd from further assaults on them. The crowd could be heard chanting and singing in triumph. The fires were put out, and the camera entered the building. The lights were on inside, and there was one body on a stair landing. It didn't looked burned, but smoke inhalation was said to have been the primary killer of those inside. 

Today there are religious services and other memorials going on outside the building while the police block the entrance. I've seen older distraught women interviewed, but I didn't understand what they were saying. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people gathered outside the trade union building, many obviously moved by what happened there.

There have been a number of people in the studio and people calling in attempting to explain what happened and report what they saw.

While it appears that Vremya Odessa is pro-Kiev, they seem to be trying to report what happened honestly.

I've heard almost no mention of Pravyi Sektor involved in the events yesterday, but there has been some mention of "hooligans" and football enthusiasts among those attacking the anti-Kiev demonstrators.

Howard Amos was on scene and tweeting throughout, and he wrote reports of the mayhem and carnage for the Guardian. These were among the only eyewitness stories appearing in English during the day and night yesterday.

I haven't seen much of anything else in English that I would believe about what happened in Odessa yesterday.

There were military assaults on Slavyansk and Kramatorsk yesterday, too, which, according to the junta in Kiev, resulted in dozens of dead in both cities. Truth is hard to come by, however, as propaganda rules.


Friday, May 2, 2014

Horrible and Stupid

While the focus was on the Ukrainian Junta Military advancing -- or not -- on Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, it appears the real action was in Odessa, where street fighting between pro- and anti-Kiev activists became intense and bloody, leaving perhaps 40 or more dead, dozens or hundreds injured.

The fighting went on all day and climaxed with an assault by pro-Kiev activists on the Trades Union building, where -- apparently -- 30 or more died from gunshots, injuries and smoke inhalation when the building was firebombed with Molotov cocktails.

I watched a good deal of it on the UStream. It was awful. Some are suggesting that what happened in Odessa today will be the pretext for a Russian invasion. Maybe, maybe not.

But what happened will not be soon forgotten.

Howard Amos was live tweeting throughout the mayhem and has written his impressions for the Guardian:

Ukraine clashes: dozens reported dead after Odessa building fire

Police say people choked to death on smoke or were killed jumping out of window after assault on trade union building
Fire in trade union building in Odessa
People wait to be rescued from the trade union building in Odessa, after it was set alight during chaotic clashes. Photograph: Reuters

More than 30 people were reported to have been killed in violent and chaotic clashes in the southern Ukrainian city of Odessa on Friday as pro-Ukrainian activists stormed a building defended by protesters opposed to the current government in Kiev and in favour of closer ties with Russia.
Odessa's large Soviet-era trade union building was set alight as pro-Ukrainian activists mounted an assault as dusk fell. Police said at least 31 people choked to death on smoke or were killed when jumping out of windows after the trade union building was set on fire.
Bodies lay in pools of blood outside the main entrance as explosions from improvised grenades and Molotov cocktails filled the air. Black smoke from the building and a burning pro-Russian protest camp wreathed the nearby square.
Pro-Russian fighters mounted a last-ditch defence of the burning building, tossing masonry and Molotov cocktails from the roof on to the crowd below.
Medics at the scene said that the pro-Russian fighters were also shooting from the roof. At least five bodies with bullet wounds lay on the ground covered by Ukrainian flags as fire engines and ambulances arrived at the scene.
Some people fell from the burning building as they hung on to windowsills in an attempt to avoid the fire that had taken hold inside. Pro-Ukrainian protesters made desperate efforts to reach people with ropes and improvised scaffolding.
More.

Not getting better out there...

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Policing the Policing Crisis in Albuquerque

[On the way to the meeting yesterday, I passed a wreck in the middle of an intersection. A motorcycle lay mangled in the road, ambulances were assembled, and there were at least half a dozen police engaged with traffic control and assisting the injured. It was a common enough scene in Albuquerque -- as the "best drivers" tend to congregate here -- but it was in stark contrast to the generally negative view so many people have of the APD. Just wanted to make that note...]

The Department of Justice released a scathing report on the unconstitutional policing practices of the Albuquerque Police Department on April 10, and ever since there have been numerous community meetings and actions to attempt to address those findings and rein in a police department that has become a militarized gang -- or at least has been perceived as one by large parts of the Albuquerque community.

Perhaps the most poignant moment of last night's meeting came at the end, when the 6 year old nephew of Kendall Carroll -- shot to death by a State Police sniper, but fired on by APD -- got up before the stragglers in the audience and said very simply: "Why did they shoot my uncle?"

His mother, Kendall Carroll's sister, testified earlier that her she and her son were traumatized by what had happened that afternoon, that they would never get over it, and her son was terrified of police, and he shouldn't be, no one should be. She said, "They shot the wrong brother, and they don't care. It's nothing to them." She wore a hoodie with the bold statement on the back, "Fuck the APD." Her brother was shot and killed by NM State Police sniper Shane Todd, who would later be deployed not far from my own home out in the country where he shot and killed Ernest Attebery who was alleged to have exchanged gunfire with police, but who it was later determined had not fired on police. I understand better now why even the sheriff of the county, who believed the situation was under control, was shocked that the State Police sniper had killed the suspect. Just as Kendall Carroll's family is still in shock that the same sniper killed "the wrong brother" in Albuquerque in March of 2013.

Half the country is asking "What in the world is going on out there?"

Good question.

There is no simple answer. Attempts have been made for decades to get control of the slaughter by local police, but all have so far failed. Those who seek simple answers say it is all about race, and it isn't. There is a racial component in that the poor, the homeless, and the underserved mentally ill fall victim to policing practices that lead to their deaths, and in Albuquerque, like most other cities, the poor, the homeless and the underserved mentally ill are disproportionately from minority communities. But racism and racial profiling are not the sole motivation -- nor, in my view, are they even the major motivation -- for the bloody record of the APD and other NM police forces.

No, there's something else going on.

Some of those who testified last night pointed to what it may be.

For one thing, the mayor does not attend these meetings, nor does he attend City Council meetings. Two members of the council did attend last night, at least for a while, but the mayor's priorities do not include -- and apparently have never included -- dealing with the public or even hearing the public on matters of police abuse and murder as detailed by the hundreds who have attended these and other meetings and who have marched and protested the continued use of deadly force by APD.

"He doesn't care."

Mayor Richard Berry has long defended the APD's policies and use of deadly force, and he did so right up to the shocking execution of James Boyd in the Sandia foothills. That incident, in which a mentally disturbed individual was shot six times in the back as he was surrendering, was then shot three more times with beanbags as he lay bleeding out on the ground, and then was attacked repeatedly by a police dog before he died, seemed to momentarily alert Berry to the fact that there might actually be something wrong with APD's policies and practices.

He called the Boyd shooting a "game changer."

Protests mounted, but the shooting and killing went on, and finally, the DoJ report was issued, condemning the APD for its pattern of actions which clearly violated the Constitution and which required immediate remedy.

But the shooting and killing still goes on.

Nothing seems to stop it, and the mayor doesn't honestly seem to care at all. Nor does the police chief.

If they did, the shooting and the killing might have been significantly reduced or stopped altogether long ago.

But instead, it continues, as if nothing has changed, no DoJ report had been issued condemning the actions of the APD, no protests had taken place, no world wide revulsion at what has been going on in Albuquerque for years had arisen.

Nothing seems to have penetrated the shells of denial and disinterest of Albuquerque's powers that be.

Even when one of their own children is killed by police, they don't seem to care. Not enough, at any rate, to penetrate their denial and demand change.

During the meeting yesterday, I was sitting next to a woman whose grandson had been shot and killed by police in Los Lunas a few days before; in 1988 her nephew had been shot and killed by Albuquerque police. Both, she said, had suffered from PTSD -- a common enough complaint among those gathered to hear one another's testimony -- and neither deserved to be killed.

She struck me as a level-headed, heavy-hearted grandmother as so many of the speakers last night did. Even the younger speakers were so very heavy of heart for having lost a loved one or having been subjected to police abuse and misconduct, whether simply being intimidated by officers' rage and threats, or being bludgeoned or gassed or injured and trussed up while medical care was denied.

One man spoke eloquently of his son, a military veteran and victim of PTSD, who had been shot in the arm by a drive-by assailant -- an assailant known to both the police and the victim. When assistance was called for, medical aid was denied to the shooting victim by the police. Even family members who tried to render aid were forbidden to do so and one was arrested for trying.

The assailant was identified but never charged. The man wondered if his son had been targeted for death by the police.

And so it was with so many. They were sad, they were angry, they were frightened, they were determined.

Even if they hadn't lost a loved one to police violence, they knew, they knew. They felt the pain, they felt the loss of those who did.

One of the organizers of the protests and a major factor in the entire endeavor to bring the APD to account, DinahVargas, explained how she had become radicalized toward police violence. She said she'd only known what she saw on the teevee, and every time the police shot someone, she noticed that there was an almost immediate campaign of vilification and demonization by the police and the media regarding whoever had been shot this time. They were always "druggies with long criminal records and tattoos," and she said she thought, "Wait, I have tattoos..." And she went to a protest and she got to know some of the people who'd been shot or abused by the police or whose loved ones had been killed, and she realized they were mostly just ordinary people who'd been caught up in madness, and she knew it was wrong, it couldn't be right. These were her friends and neighbors, her own family, her grandparents, herself. They weren't demons, they were people. They were people who'd been horribly abused and some had been killed by members of a police department which never, ever found any of the killings unjustified.

Ever.

But it's more than just the police. It's an entire governing system and a system of authority in which accountability for actions is only valid downward. A police review commission was established, and when they tried to do some independent investigations to find out basic information about police abuse in Albuquerque, they were thwarted at every turn by the City Attorney and the District Attorney who told them quite simply that they didn't have any authority but to agree with the police's own investigations.

The Mayor, the City Administrator and the Police Chief are notorious for stonewalling, lying, sidestepping, and avoiding anything to do with police accountability.

The power structure of Albuquerque clearly likes things just the way they are and will resist any effort to change. 


The DoJ held these meetings in order to assemble public input to use in a consent decree by which the City and the APD would agree to certain specific reforms and a timetable for their accomplishment.

Many of those at the meeting have long insisted that the only way to accomplish real and lasting reform is to put APD under direct DoJ supervision, and to replace all the current brass -- and to jail those officers who have used egregious deadly force.

V. B. Price has suggested the only way forward may be to abolish APD and start over (a suggestion I tend to think is correct, but one that is unlikely to get anywhere.)

Too many people have been hurt too badly for too long for the situation to become stable as is. There is a movement afoot to recall the mayor and the district attorney and to fire the Independent Review Officer of the Police Oversight Commission. The commission itself has essentially disbanded as it's seen its efforts consistently interfered with by the Mayor's Office and the City Attorney.

Yet the killing goes on -- and on and on.

The killing goes on because the powers that be want it that way. Their minds must be changed for an effective change to occur in the Albuquerque Police Department.

Until that happens, we're going to be subject to a continuation of the Wild West mentality, where anything goes -- until a stop is put to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some resources:

 http://fnsnews.nmsu.edu/

October 22 Coaliton Photos

Life in Albuquerque: Another Police Shooting, Another Community Meeting, Another Candlelight Vigil

From 2012 -- Rally Against Police Violence  (These people are still vital to the movement.)

Dispatches from the DoJ Meetings Part 2 (Brief description of the meeting I attended)

V. B. Price: Unconstitutional



DoJ and the Policing Crisis in Albuquerque

I attended the DoJ's third community meeting regarding the policing crisis in Albuquerque last night, and I will have more to say about it as soon as I can get something coherent written.

It was an opportunity for me to listen and learn and to get to know some of the people who have been part of the movement to take back the city from its rogue police department and the powers that be which have enabled it.

The testimony that I heard from some of the participants who had lost loved ones to police bullets was wrenching to say the least. The distrust and sense of betrayal that people felt was palpable.

At this point, it's really hard to say whether Albuquerque's power structure can accommodate the interests of the people of the city. In other, similar, situations -- such as Oakland or Seattle -- it's not at all clear that the PTB ever relented or that the police have ever changed their behavior.

But it was clear last night that the people of Albuquerque are not going to let this go.


Tuesday, April 29, 2014

The New Normal: This Is The Way The World Works... Now

The Ukrainian Thing seems to have stalled for the moment, as the mighty troops sent to smoke out the terrorists holding those public buildings in the Eastern Sector have an annoying tendency to run away or get caught by the refusniks. It would be funny if this were some fictional place in Mittel Europe pre-WWII, and the Marx Brothers made a movie about it.

Oh wait.

But it's the real thing. Insofar as these things are ever "real" -- in the sense that ordinary people and/or the high and the mighty can ever know fully what is really going on and the consequences thereof... it's real enough. People are being shot and killed and kidnapped and manhandled and otherwise being put through the wringer -- one that looks very much like gangland behavior under chaotic, ruthless, and lawless conditions. Everybody has their stick, their bat, their AK-47, their new camo uniform, their balaklava...

At least there are some productive uses for all the old tires in Ukrainia. Wouldn't want them to go to waste.

Meanwhile, the posturing by the principals goes on and on and on and on, in a kind of dance or minuet, something we haven't seen in quite this way since the run up to the tragedies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because the principals are behaving now very much the way they did then -- though they say that they have taken military adventuring off the table and they are clearly trying to fight an old-fashioned proxy war through their surrogates on the ground in Ukrainia -- people everywhere are nervous as heck. No doubt the survivalists are stockpiling even more goods for the ultimate End of Times they sincerely believe is so soon to come.

This is all dangerous as heck, given the fact that the Superpowers are involved, the nuclear armed states, the Global Terror States of times gone by, when only they, the USA and the Soviet Union, had nukes and were brandishing and rattling them at one another...

So it is once again... except... for something. Something has changed.

Oh, that's right. One of the Superpowers, the other one, the Soviet Union, no longer exists. And its successor, the Russian Federation ("Russia") is a pale shadow of its former incarnation. A picked apart pale shadow of what it once was at that, ringed with hostile and in some cases competitive independent states aligned with, often hosting the military of, the vaunted "West" -- led by the USofA. So... what's this all about?

I've pointed out several times now what I think is going on, really going on, and though I haven't gotten much into why (the Global Great Game interests me less than its consequences to the ordinary people on the ground), I have little doubt that what's happening is the result of a Game-play that went wrong. It's "real" in that real people are being made to suffer for the forced and unforced errors of their Betters (as always, no?) and it's "real" in that the capture by the EU of the EU's Eastern Partnership nations (Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia) is a fundamental policy objective.

Regardless of what happened in Kiev, in other words, the EU, NATO and the US would have been pursuing policy goals to capture ever more territory and peoples from the orbit of the Russian Federation. It's apparently hard-wired into the EU's self-conception as technically assisted by the US.

Russia, for its part, has not been able to resist, and really hasn't resisted until now. Even now, the Russian resistance is more guerrilla-esque than military. What happened in Vilnius last November -- and its consequences in Kiev -- seems to have taken the Kremlin by as much surprise as it did in Brussels, Berlin, London and Washington.

Yanukovych was apparently expected by all parties to sign the Integration Agreement he was presented with at the Vilnius Conference of the EU's Eastern Partnership on November 29, 2013, and he refused. They say that he saw the actual terms of the agreement for the first time at that meeting, on the last day of the meeting, and he balked. Those terms -- which I seem to have misplaced the link to for the moment -- were devastating to the Ukrainian people, forcing them ever further into poverty, and they basically turned over the very fragile sovereignty of Ukraine to unelected technocrats and strategic wonks at the IMF, the European Central Bank, and NATO. Under the terms Yanukovych was presented, Ukraine would effectively become a colonial possession of the EU and NATO.

He was expected by all concerned -- including the Kremlin, apparently -- to sign away what limited patrimony Ukraine had in order to receive an economic package from the EU/IMF that would primarily benefit Ukraine's Russian creditors. Shockingly, he said no.

Nyet.

Oh.

Almost immediately protests and demonstrations formed in the Maidan Square in Kiev, somewhat patterned on the Color Revolution/Occupy model (with some interesting and important differences), and Yanukovych's government was subjected to typical subversion and destabilization tactics that have long been employed by "Color Revolutionists" in Eastern Europe and around the world. Occupy never used those tactics, which may be a clue to why Occupy never overthrew any government. It wasn't trying to. That wasn't its purpose. But overthrow and replacement of governments was very much a part of the main objective of Color Revolutions, including the "Orange Revolution" that had occurred in Kiev in the winter of 2004-2005.

Yanukovych had messed with his masters in Brussels, Berlin, London, Washington -- and Moscow, apparently -- and he had to go, one way or another.

And so it would be. The Maidan Model included a level of violence that had not been seen in these Color Revolutions previously, a truly shocking level of violence culminating in shadowy and unknown snipers firing on the crowds assembled at the square. Prior to that still mysterious event, however, the police had been routinely firebombed with Molotov cocktails, and armed and violent gangs of fascists and Nazis (yeah, the real thing) had patrolled the perimeters and enforced "discipline" on the crowd and they periodically stormed and took over government buildings in the center of Kiev and in other towns in Western Ukraine.

Much of what is being done in the East now is based quite closely on the Maidan Model, albeit with the absence of the large crowds of demonstrators that were typical of the Maidan protests. The difference has to do, I'm sure, with the fact that the crowds in Kiev were fired on by those snipers... the same could easily happen to large crowds elsewhere. It has happened in other cases.

Snipering the crowds of protestors was typical of the 2013 post-coup Cairo Model of dispersing demonstrators; they were shot at, and many were killed or wounded, by snipers strategically emplaced around the pro-Morsi demonstrations. So it would be in Kiev as well. This tactic tends to limit the number of demonstrators who will turn out... it also has an effect on who and what demonstrators will support.

The coup-regime in Kiev, as it's called, has agreed to the terms that the EU/IMF/NATO et al tried to impose on the Yanukovych government, with the proviso, apparently, that the funding not go to Russian creditors, only to EU creditors. Interesting.

When Yanukovych balked in Vilnius, Russia -- specifically Putin -- was blamed, though it's not at all clear that Putin engineered the last-minute refusal by Yanukovych to sign on the dotted line. Russia had offered a different deal to Ukraine, but its terms were only slightly less onerous and exploitative. The issue seemed to be one of a tug-of-war between the EU and RF for Ukraine's future. The people were not to be consulted. They were simply to be led. In whichever direction the leadership and elites (in this part of the world, read: "Oligarchs") wanted to go.

Apparently, Yanukovych wanted to blaze his own path, and thought he could do it best under Russian aegis.

Well, that didn't work out.

In other words, Yanukovych's refusal triggered a cascade of unanticipated events that no only led to his overthrow and ouster and the installation of an EU/NATO approved coup-regime in Kiev, but to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and the stalemate now in place on Ukraine's eastern borders, which stalemate could lead to some kind of nuclear exchange between the EU/US/NATO -- out of sheer incompetence if not strategy.

I say these were not anticipated events, in part because most of it looks to be ad hoc, even the Maidan protests that were clearly rather carefully organized and remarkably well presented via professional public relations efforts. The preparations for the Maidan protests had clearly been made in advance and were carried out as efficiently as possible, but there were so many uncoordinated aspects of it that didn't fit the pre-conceived and arranged pattern of these sorts of things. The enormous stage and the demagoguery  that was conducted from it seemed to me to be one of those ad hoc rather than pre-planned arrangements. Even the snipering that climaxed the demonstrations seemed to be ad hoc rather than pre-planned. The use of Nazis and fascists as shock troops may well have come about spontaneously.

In other words, while the demonstrations and assemblies seemed pretty well planned in advance (if, for example, the Yanukovych government refused some aspect of the EU integration agreements) the fact that he refused the whole thing was the surprise, and the response became much more spontaneous, vigorous -- and violent -- than was anticipated.

I've pointed out that the ground was laid long before the uprising by the hundreds of "educational" and "democracy" NGOs that had been operating in Ukraine for decades before the Maidan protests. Many of them were dedicated to EU "integration" -- and that has been the focus of the Kiev coup-regime ever since they seized power in February.

The coup-regime was allowed to seize power, however. They didn't have the means or authority to seize it on their own. Yanukovych's flight from Kiev seems to have been arranged by the Kremlin, a flight which enabled the almost immediate installation of a pre-selected group of financiers, technocrats and Nazi-bullies to rule. But it couldn't have happened if Yanukovych hadn't fled. That he did so under a Russian wing indicates to me that the Kremlin was OK with his overthrow, and indeed may have been behind it. (He was, after all, a bumbler at best.)

What the Kremlin is not OK with is the EU/NATO/US take over of Ukraine without recognition of Russian national interest. The fact that the Kiev coup-regime and its backers deny there is a legitimate Russian interest in Ukraine is the key flashpoint which can -- especially through the incompetence of the elites involved -- lead directly to severely unpleasant consequences, such as an unfortunate nuclear exchange.

The partition and dismemberment of the Russian Federation is one of those long term projects of the ruling class in the West that won't soon be accomplished and won't soon go away. Russia is to be eliminated as a major global influence and power according to long-standing neo-conservative principles. Once that's accomplished, then China.

These are insane principles, but they're now the New Normal.

It's the way the world works.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Southwest Allure at the New Mexico Museum of Art

George Wesley Bellows (American, 1882-1925), Santuario de Chimayo, 1917, oil on canvas, 19 1/8 x 23 1/4 inches, Collection of Judy and Lee Dirks, Santa Fe, New Mexico



The New Mexico Museum of Art has a wonderful collection of works by members of the Santa Fe Art Colony, as would make sense, given the fact that the current museum (opened in 1917) was intentionally created for the purpose of exhibiting works by locally and regionally based artists and encouraging an active art and cultural life in Santa Fe.

The current exhibit of paintings called "Southwestern Allure: The Art of the Santa Fe Art Colony", however, features works that were assembled by Dr. Valerie Ann Leeds for the Boca Museum of Art in Boca Raton, Florida, and were most recently exhibited by the Mennello Museum of American Art near Orlando, Florida.

For me, this is a fascinating journey. Though I'm now living in New Mexico, Florida was one of my working stops during extensive travels in the Show Business, and my memories of Florida, from the steam-bath heat of the place that hit me like a sledgehammer when deplaning in Tampa to the glorious sunsets over the Gulf of Mexico, to the wild times among the back country rednecks who never let you forget that Florida is in the South (oh, golly) are some of the strongest I still have.

That a Florida museum would be responsible for assembling an extraordinary exhibit of Santa Fe Art Colony works is not as strange as it may seem, though it did strike me as odd when the New Mexico Museum of Art first sent an announcement of the upcoming exhibit of Santa Fe Art Colony works to replace the appallingly embarrassing "50 Works for 50 States." The Museum more or less permanently exhibits a rather sparse sample of their extensive collection of New Mexico artists' works, but I've been told that they have far more works in storage that are rarely if ever exhibited, and over the years, they've sold off much of what they once had in order to purchase other works by non-Southwest artists and expand their collections into more commonplace and typical realms.

A big part of what brought me to New Mexico and keeps me here are the artists and the full immersion in the arts that is almost everywhere you turn in the state... except, interestingly, in the Empty Quarter where we live. Oh, there are artists, plenty of them, in the region and round about, but there is very little sign of it on the surface, unlike the case in Santa Fe and Taos and some of the other places in New Mexico where art is conducted and practiced on an industrial scale.

As I've written before, the industrial scale arts in New Mexico originated with an energetic little Californian named Carlos Vierra, who, after a sojourn in New York as an illustrator, became ill with tuberculosis and relocated to New Mexico for the cure. Unfortunately, he got worse where he first landed at a curative camp along the Pecos, and he wound up transferring to St. Vincent's Hospital in Santa Fe, where shortly, almost miraculously, he was pronounced well.

He bought a photography studio on the Santa Fe Plaza in 1904 (for I believe it was $200) and he commenced to make a living as a photographer and painter of Southwest scenes -- which earned him the title of "The First Artist in Santa Fe." I've pointed out that this is absurd on its face, as Santa Fe had been full of artists and artisans long before Carlos Vierra was born, for centuries before Carlos Vierra was born. So his title was changed to "the first resident artist," and that doesn't work, either. So his title was changed again to "the first easel artist," and that might work, except that I'm sure some of the pre-existing santeros must have occasionally employed easels. So his most hilarious title became "the first Anglo artist" in Santa Fe, which simply boggles the mind, as he was the son of Portuguese immigrants, and was ethnically and culturally as Portuguese as he was Americano. Anglo? Not hardly. Portuguese-American? Sure. (But as everyone knows, in New Mexico, everyone who is not Spanish or Indian is automatically categorized as "Anglo.")

Vierra was instrumental in establishing Santa Fe as a vibrant art capital, there's no doubt about that, and perhaps that's why his title as the "first" -- something -- is considered so important. For prior to his advent in Santa Fe, "art" -- in the Anglo and commercial sense -- was pretty much confined to the Taos Art Colony which had been established 80 miles up the road in 1898 by Ernest Blumenschein's and Bert Phillips' fortuitous Broken Wagon Wheel and the artists they were able to attract to the area from Back East.

We're talking about studio art, easel art, paintings in a recognized style, for exhibit in recognized galleries and museums, and for sale to important collectors.  "Colonial" art in a sense, but not in the sense that New Mexicans had been using the term with regard to the Spanish colonization. Colonial art produced in colonies of artists brought together under a particular (and often almost monastic) "rule" that described and delimited stylistic and other parameters that all members of the colony were expected to adhere to.

That's what we're talking about when we're talking about the pre-industrial artistic life in New Mexico, when the idea of New Mexico as an arts and cultural capital was being explored by artists from New York, Europe, and in a few cases, California and elsewhere.

The Southwestern Allure exhibit was breathtaking, from the first to the last. Many of the paintings on view were ones I'd never seen before, such as the one below by Carlos Vierra:

Carlos Vierra (American, 1876-1937), Northern New Mexico in Winter, 1922, oil on canvas, 28 x 38 inches, Collection of Gerald and Kathleen Peters, Santa Fe, New Mexico
I'd seen some of his other paintings, specifically of Pueblo Mission churches as well as the murals he painted in the Museum's St. Francis Auditorium, but never anything like this. Part of what's so striking about it is how dark it is... So much of what I've seen of Vierra's other works is almost oversaturated with light to the point of being washed out.

The light in New Mexico is one of the chief allures for artists -- I've gasped myself at some of the light in these parts, even that which comes through the dining room window from time to time. While the light is alluring, it can be devilishly hard to capture in paint, as many, many artists discovered for themselves.

This watercolor by Edward Hopper, for example, painted in 1925, shows some of the difficulty painters encounter with the light:

Edward Hopper (American, 1882-1967), Ranch House, Santa Fe, 1925, watercolor over pencil on paper, 13 3/4 x 19 3/4 inches, Williams College Museum of Art, Bequest of Lawrence H. Bloedel, Class of 1923, 77.9.6
While Hopper certainly captured the sense of the light in Santa Fe just before or after noon, the light plays tricks on the eye, no matter where you are or what time of day you're experiencing it.

Marsden Hartley did this pastel on paper in 1918 in an effort to capture the scale of the landscape as well as the light, and it is the first work that greets you as you enter the exhibit area:

Marsden Hartley (American, 1877-1943), Arroyo Hondo, 1918, pastel on paper, 18 x 28 inches, Collection of Gerald and Kathleen Peters, Santa Fe, New Mexico

It's like a bang in the face that makes me smile -- because despite its exaggeration, it's true. It depicts the feeling you get from the scale and the light, how insignificant you are in the vast eternal scheme of things, and yet how protected you feel in the embrace of the mountains.

Stuart Davis's Pajarito Plateau has long been one of my favorites of the era, for its sense of humor is almost unique given the seriousness with which so many members of the Santa Fe Art Colony approached their tasks:

Stuart Davis (American, 1894-1964), Pajarito Plateau, 1923, oil on canvas, 22 x 36 inches, Collection of Gerald and Kathleen Peters, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Gerald Cassidy's smiling Pueblo Indian (in a Plains Indian headdress of course) also makes me laugh, as so many of Cassidy's works do, but this one, I had never seen before, so it held a special appeal for me:

Gerald Cassidy (American, 1879-1934), Master of Ceremonies, 1925, oil on canvas, 18 x 18 1/8 inches, Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum, Canyon, Texas, Mrs. H.S. Griffin Collection
Note the brilliance of the colors and especially the turquoise sky. While we often have the bluest blue skies I think I've ever seen, the sky only turns turquoise in contrast to some other, orange-y color nearby. I've seen it, for example, in the courtyard/patio of the Museum itself as the cubical building masses are limed orange/brown by the setting sun. In fact, I can sit in that courtyard all day long and just watch the different colors appear in the sky and the building, or go upstairs and watch the clouds turn from puffy white to gold to pink, and finally fade away in the charcoal gray of darkness. It's magical.

While there is still a very strong genre of Southwestern art being done today, these paintings, mostly from the teens and 20s of the last century, when the idea of painting the Southwest was still relatively new, are some of the most evocative I've seen. They seem unique today.

This is perhaps my favorite period of New Mexico art, and I'm still learning everything I can about it and about the artists who created these works.