Cops and history

I was doing some tree inventory project in East Boston about a month ago-where tree inventory consists of classifying and recording trees on Boston streets using a GPS. Anyway, I got to talking to a woman about the Police having been cleared of any wrong doing in the killing of the Emerson college student after the Red Sox had beat the Yankees in last year's playoffs.

She gave me the standard line that it wasn't the cops fault, seeing as they were just doing their job, under high stress, they were being threatened, yada yada, and they couldn't be blamed for having killed an innocent bystander with a paint ball pellet shot into her eye socket.

The question that comes to my mind is why does she stick up for the cop? Why, for that matter, do most people-most white people-stick up for the cops? She was definitely not at the scene of the murder, and most likely she had never been in a situation where cops were firing on her. So where does this rationalization come from? Is she simply parroting the media's explanation of such events? Perhaps she has family member or a friend of a friend in the police department. Maybe every white person knows someone who is a cop, and thus applies their estimation of their friends' morality and behavior to the entire police system. Maybe our media (and culture in general) has tried to show police as decent and good at heart, not aggressive and mean and prone to violent behavior. But my aunt married a cop, and he kept her in a state of fear telling her that no one would convict him (a cop) if something happened to her. So I choose to believe that the second behavior is not only possible but probable.

Think about it: you're in a job of punishment, and control. Everyone you come in contact with besides your fellow cops are pretty much violators (in your estimation). Not only does this occupation attract those types who already have a proclivity towards control and meteing out punishment, but the demands of the job drive people toward these inclinations: domination and violence.

And also racism. Today, 2.3 million people are behind bars (most incarcerated country in the world) with a disproportionate number of people of color. This is just one instance of the racism inherent in the legal system, racial profiling is another. Chronic (no pun) inconsistencies in drug laws is another. The value of a black life versus the value of a white life in death penalty cases is another. So how can a policeman who works in this racist environment everyday not come to hold racist beliefs (if he didn't to begin with)? I'm not saying that it is a surety that a given police officer will eventually become racist. I'm saying that the system is institutionally racist. And that a cop has to continually recognize and combat racist tendencies that the penal system promotes in order to not become racist oneself-how many cops do you think do this? If you think the days of racism are over, that the all-white juries convicting black suspects in kangaroo courts are things of the past, I refer you to Faulkner's comment, "The past isn't dead. In fact, it isn't even past."

Back to Boston, present-day. We have a dead white woman, shot accidentally (and apparently legally) by a white man. Why am I discussing racism then? I think white people tend to identify more with cops than with the victims of cop violence for myriad of reasons; one of the most pervasive ideas we use to justify such atrocities is that cops protect us-the people, from them-the victimizers. But what happens when this notion breaksdown? What happens when the cops become victimizers? I guess for some the cops can never become victimizers. Accidents happen becomes the rationale. And maybe for this instance it was an accident. What would have been the response of the public if the crowd that night had been black or latino?

And what would have happened if the cops had never shown up that night? A couple of cars been turned over? A car set on fire perhaps? Well, if society (and the city officials) aren't ready to question what is at the root of such behavior, then I suppose the only option is to put down said behavior using deadly force.

And all throughout history those actors enforcing whatever code in whatever country always thought they were doing right. What separates the soldiers of then with the police (and soldiers for that matter) of today?

Okay enough questions.

Politics (of the subaltern Other)

I think there's a correlation between one's outlook on humanity and their political stripe. This even extends to the so-called anarchists who tend to position themselves outside the political realm. The correlation I see is this: one's position on the political spectrum varies with the way one views how human the next person is relative to herself/himself.

I've come up with this conclusion after hearing people tell me again and again, "No, I don't need government, I know I'm not supposed to kill people. It's other people who need government who tell them what to do, who need laws and punishments for their crimes. Not me"

No one I've talked to needs government. It's always the other person. And after reading a couple books on the period of Spain before the civil war (and watching a great movie called "Libertarias") I've gotten a sense of how the facists saw the "other". Specifically, how they saw the peasants; namely as animals, beasts who needed to be exterminated.

And as you go from fascist to republican to democrat to socialist, and ultimately to anarchist, the pattern seems to be that the next person, the "other" is closer and closer to you as to her/his humanity is concerned. The fascists say, "Government is for the "other" who needs to be put on a leash, and do my bidding." The republicans say, "I don't need government (I am the government) but of course the rabble needs to be governed for their own protection." The democrats say, "I don't need to be governed, but there are a lot of bad people out there..." The socialists say, "We need a government that speaks and does for the people, because the people really can't get there themselves". The anarchists say, "I don't need government, and neither does my brother who I've never met, but we're both human".

So however much you believe the next person needs to be controlled, because of her/his inherent badness, that's a good indicator of your place on the political scale. Of justice.

UN celebrates UN day--this is not an Onion headline

So the UN turns 60 today. Happy Birthday UN! I can't really reflect too much on what the UN has done, cause well I'm american, thus was never meant to understand the UN that well. I'm supposed to understand that somehow communists or terrorist sympathizers are in control of the UN, and that the UN hates america and we pay all this money to poor countries and they still hate us.

And I don't remember Boutros-Boutros Gali, whatsoever. He was the Secretary General of the UN before Kofi Annan; he "left" office in 1996 (I was 17 at the time, in high school learning about government) but I couldn't tell you anything about the person. But here is something he wrote in his memoirs about his time as Secretariat:

It would be some time before I fully realized that the United States sees little need for diplomacy; power is enough. Only the weak rely on diplomacy. [...]But the Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy Nor does the United States. Diplomacy is perceived by an imperial power as a waste of time and prestige and sign of weakness.' (1999)

To me, this illustrates of two things: 1) Memoirs are useful resources. Those political figures no longer in power can be a bit more (and sometimes a lot more) candid about their feelings and experiences, and we get a glimpse into how things really operate. 2) It took BBG 'some time' to realize the US' imperial ambitions. So even with someone in that high of a position (however much power you believe the secretary general has, it's still a high profile gig) they don't realize how much power politics comes into play.

But why? He couldn't have believed that the US is an honest broker, really striving for world peace, did he? Well, regardless, the US got rid of him, and put in Kofi, a little bit more pliable shall we say to US interests.

Later in 1996, the US removed Boutros-Ghali from office. Fourteen votes were cast in favour of a full second term; the United States cast its veto. Despite the resistance of France, the US was eventually able to have its own candidate Kofi Annan nominated. Boutros-Ghali's last accomplishment as Secretary-General was An Agenda for Democratization. It can be read also as a reaction to what he perceived as the imerialist behaviour of the US. More than half of this text was dedicated to 'decomocraitzation at the international level'. As he explained in his memoirs, 'the fact that a single vote-that of the United States-could dictate the outcome at the United Nations threatened hopes for increasing democratization on the international scene.'

Today, the fashion in the media is to talk about reform of the UN: Oil for Food Scandals, general corruptions and inefficiencies, and most recently, the alleged rewriting of the report about the investigation into the death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

But this is the Red-Herring: this is the old, "Look over there at what they're doing, and not what we're doing." The power, as Mr. Boutrous-Gali found out, lies with the US, and not the UN. Of course there are problems with the UN, but it's counterproductive to keep looking at the UN when the US is preventing peace from breaking out all over the globe.

On the NPR I heard some UN official summarizing (one can never talk for more than 30 sec on NPR) the accomplishments of the UN. He said the UN had passed a resolution in the 1970's that called zionism a rasict ideology, and I thought, "alright, hooray for the UN, and hooray for him saying that on NPR". But he wasn't finished, because the accomplishment was actually scratching that resolution...I wonder how that happened.

But check this out, here is a link to sign up to daily UN briefs, keep you updated (if you're not already) on the world outside the US http://www.smartbrief.com/un_wire/index.jsp

The letter Z was banned in Greece

I just saw the movie "Z", a historical drama made in 1969 about real events that happened in Greece in 1963.

Essentially, it's about how the State commits then covers up it's crimes ("crimes" in this sense meaning actually breaking the law, as opposed to the immorality of the law itself). The Greek state back in '63 killed the leader of the opposition party (had him killed would be another way to say the same thing) and proceeded to eliminate any witnesses that wouldn't give the State's version of events: that the death was an 'accident'. If you check it out, listen to the State officials and their minions talk about the "healthy society" and the "infection" represented by the leftists, pacifists, atheists...etc. Of course I don't know if they truly talked with these facist sentiments, but the question is, can we find any of that language being used today? Because when you here those ideas-biological infection of society, obediance to God, preservation of Western Civilization-you know fascism can't be far behind.

So at the end, when the State couldn't cover up its crimes, it merely created a dictatorship, purged the law, made the guilty innocent, and the victims into the guilty. And banned anything that would give people ideas. Like books. And apparently the letter Z in Greek means "he is alive"-in this context, the opposition leader who had been killed. Of course, in a dictatorship you want to erase memory to the extent possible. And hence Z was also banned.

Funny, I don't remember being taught this stuff in school. But surely our democracy is strong enough to prevent dictatorship.

Bechtel, Bechtel Everywhere

On wednesday I saw a film about water privatization, called "Thirst". It was about how communitites in California, in Bolivia, in India are resisting privatization of their water supply-that is, the handing over the control of water to Multinational Corporations, like Coca-Cola, Bechtel, Pepsi, Nestle.

In Bolivia, where the government privatized the water without asking the people, the people actually rose up and drove out Bectel, the giant firm responsible for Boston's Big Dig. Why didn't the people want the great services that privatized water could offer-the reliable service, the clean water quality? Simply because the residents couldn't afford it after Bechtel raised rates 300%. So it was a matter of rise up or die of thirst.

Boston recently conducted a blind taste test with the Mayor, the owner of Sam Adams brewery and a couple of professional wine and beer taste testers to see who could tell the difference between municipal water (do you know where your water comes from in Boston?) and Aquafina, Dasani, Poland Spring. The participants couldn't tell the difference between bottled water and tap water, quality wise. Tests show there is no significant water quality difference between bottled and municipal. Why do we buy bottled water that is 1000 times the price of municipal water?

The only conclusion I can think of is we've been duped into it. Corporations spend a lot on advertising to convince us not only to pay 1000 times more for what is free (and necessary to life), but also to normalize that habit; to convince us that it is right for us to pay for that water, and that really, we're not owed water as a matter of being human beings. After all, food isn't free, why should water be? And shit, why shouldn't you have to pay for clean air too?

This is another part in the process of chipping away at the idea of a social good, of privatizing and commodifying everything on the earth.

Mass Global Action is a good resource to use to educate about water privatization. Public Citizen has a report on the history of water privatizations that have taken place.

And there will be another showing of Thirst at the Somerville Library November 3rd at 7pm.

The End Times

This is only the third day of my blog experience, but I'm already having to consider if this is it, the end of days. Yet another earthquake happened, this time in Japan. That makes 3 earthquakes, one volcano eruption, 12 hurricanes, 9 severe storms, 1 lanslide, and 1 major tsunami all in less than a half a year. And those are just the ones that made news....

So we've got to consider that something is sending us a message: whether you're God-fearing, God-loving, IntelligentDesign-oriented, or simply you believe that the earth is attempting to reject a virus-namely, civilization, something has got to be going on.

Alright, but maybe this is just good-old home-grown climate change occuring in part and strengthening because of civilization's gross misunderstanding of nature. This is unfortunately not going to get better in the near term. Catastrophes like these will indeed get more common, and so our ability to adapt will come into question. For us in the US we'll feel the consequences least (though we'll have been responsibile for most of the problem). Of course, Katrina was in a way a reminder that we're no nation is immune, but I'm afraid it still left many with the feeling that they weren't vulnerable. How many of the white, middle-class in the US could identify with our poor countrymen of color drowning in the Ninth District?

But the climate change will touch us, whether directly, or indirectly with the refugees who have no where else to go. And when it happens that martial law is declared, when the artic melts and it will, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology can't construct the levees high enough to keep away the rising tide, when the offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands are inundated and the precarious precipice that the global economy rests on falls into the ocean, what is going to be our response? Are we going to be vigilantes or are we going to start asking hard questions. The questions that you think after you leave a really good movie, or finish a really good book. Those are the ones we need to share with other people.

Here's to the human race!
Always have hope.

Immortal Technique concert was postponed

So today I went to two talks on Katrina, one highly technical, academic talk on the structural failures of this or that levee. The second was at a bookstore given by two folk who had gone down to New Orleans with a van full of food to help out.

In a very short summary, the first talk gave one the feeling that technology was the key to understanding the catastrophe. I don't want to say too much about the first talk except to ask two questions: 1) Is technology going to save us from the next catastrophe? Just look at the flood about to happen in Tauton, MA; a flood that technology is helpless in stopping. 2) Did the technology that we installed way back when contribute to or diminish the current catastrophe?

Now the second talk I liked much better. It was given by two people who went to New Orleans a week after Katrina hit. One speaker was an EMT giving first aid to people in need, the other speaker was merely preparing food for people, and they had a very positive effect on people who had been (are still being) abandoned by FEMA.

As for the stories the media was floating about gangs roving the streets-don't believe them. Those are just stereotypes meant to enforce this notion of people of color as savages (savages on DRUGS!) and it gives the green light to the Cracker Patrols/vigilantes/militias to roam around with their guns and shoot whatever/whomever they want. Those lies we're real big, and they didn't really need proof, did they? People just took for granted the blacks looking for a fix. I fell for it. But that it fit so nicely with our prejudicial notions should tip us-white mainstream society-off to the fact that they are stereotypes, and most likely lies. Say there did exist non-white gangs in New Orleans. Do we know the number of said gangs? Or do we just assume that there are swarms?

But in contrast to the mayhem that you always hear on the news (you really have to hear the worst about human nature in the media, if they are going to get your attention) the speakers talked about how happy people were to get some help and how people were working together to get through a catastrophe. So think about this, when society needs government the most-during a catastrophe, say-government is not there. In the absence of government or some coercive control, you don't have the worst of human nature, you see the best in human nature. People helping others not to make money, but because people naturally have compassion. And you don't have people killing other people except for police killing people and white vigilantes. It's getting late...

So I'll end with this, this country is steeped in racism; and unless we talk about this, unless white people start talking with black people as humans and start discussing race in this society, this shit is never going to go away. It will only get worse. If you want to see the hate, racism, and violent white supremacy in this society, just look at Craigslist. And this is not a phenomenon on TV or separate from us, the "mainstream liberals." Everyone has got to confront their own racism.

The Beginning

Judith Miller is either a CIA mole working at the New York Times, or so in love with I. Lewis Libby that she'd go to prison for him. Or both. Or she's insane.

Discuss.