http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html
Jeffrey Smith
July 23, 2009
You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!
The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.
Here's the back story.
When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.
But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.
Dangerous Food Safety Lies
When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.
This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.
GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.
In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.
In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation
In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."
The Fox Guarding the Chickens
If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.
This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?
The Milk Man Cometh
While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.
The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.
Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.
Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.
Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.
Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?
As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.
Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.
President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!
Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.
Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus
Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.
Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.
To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.
Follow Jeffrey Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyMSmith
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Wireless power system shown off
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8165928.stm
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Wireless power system shown off
By Jonathan Fildes
Technology reporter, BBC News, Oxford
Electric tech could make plugs obsolete
A system that can deliver power to devices without the need for wires has been shown off at a hi-tech conference.
The technique exploits simple physics and can be used to charge a range of electronic devices over many metres.
Eric Giler, chief executive of US firm Witricity, showed mobile phones and televisions charging wirelessly at the TED Global conference in Oxford.
He said the system could replace the miles of expensive power cables and billions of disposable batteries.
"There is something like 40 billion disposable batteries built every year for power that, generally speaking, is used within a few inches or feet of where there is very inexpensive power," he said.
Trillions of dollars, he said, had also been invested building an infrastructure of wires "to get power from where it is created to where it is used."
"We love this stuff [electricity] so much," he said.
Mr Giler showed off a Google G1 phone and an Apple iPhone that could be charged using the system.
Witricity, he said, had managed to pack all the necessary components into the body of the G1 phone, but Apple had made that process slightly harder.
"They don't make it easy at Apple to get inside their phones so we put a little sleeve on the back," he said.
He also showed off a commercially available television using the system.
"Imagine you get one of these things and you want to hang it on the wall," he said. "Think about it, you don't want those ugly cords hanging down."
Good vibrations
The system is based on work by physicist Marin Soljacic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
It exploits "resonance", whereby energy transfer is markedly more efficient when a certain frequency is applied.
When two objects have the same resonant frequency, they exchange energy strongly without having an effect on other, surrounding objects.
For example, it is resonance that can cause a wine glass to explode when a singer hits exactly the right tone.
But instead of using acoustic resonance, Witricity's approach exploits the resonance of low frequency electromagnetic waves.
The system uses two coils - one plugged into the mains and the other embedded or attached to the gadget.
Each coil is carefully engineered with the same resonant frequency. When the main coil is connected to an electricity supply, the magnetic field it produces is resonant with that of with the second coil, allowing "tails" of energy to flow between them.
As each "cycle" of energy arrives at the second coil, a voltage begins to build up that can be used to charge the gadget.
Mr Giler said the main coil could be embedded in the "ceiling, in the floor, or underneath your desktop".
Devices using the system would automatically begin to charge as soon as they were within range, he said.
"You'd never have to worry about plugging these things in again."
Safety concerns
Mr Giler was keen to stress the safety of the equipment during the demonstration.
"There's nothing going on - I'm OK," he said walking around a television running on wireless power.
The system is able to operate safely because the energy is largely transferred through magnetic fields.
"Humans and the vast majority of objects around us are non-magnetic in nature," Professor Soljacic, one of the inventors of the system, told BBC News during a visit to Witricity earlier this year.
It is able to do this by exploiting an effect that occurs in a region known as the "far field", the region seen at a distance of more than one wavelength from the device.
In this field, a transmitter would emit mixture of magnetic and potentially dangerous electric fields.
But, crucially, at a distance of less than one wavelength - the "near field" - it is almost entirely magnetic.
Hence, Witricity uses low frequency electromagnetic waves, whose waves are about 30m (100ft) long. Shorter wavelengths would not work.
'Ridiculous technology'
Witricity is not the first jump on the concept of wireless electricity.
For example, the nineteenth century American inventor Thomas Edison and physicist and engineer Nikola Tesla explored the concept.
"In the very early days of electricity before the electric grid was deployed [they] were very interested in developing a scheme to transmit electricity wirelessly over long distances," explained Professor Soljacic.
"They couldn't imagine dragging this vast infrastructure of metallic wires across every continent."
Tesla even went so far as to build a 29m-high aerial known as Wardenclyffe Tower in New York.
"It ran into some financial troubles and that work was never completed," said Professor Soljacic.
Today, chip-giant Intel has seized on a similar idea to Witricity's, whilst other companies work on highly directional mechanisms of energy transfer, such as lasers.
However, unlike Witricity's work, lasers require an uninterrupted line of sight, and are therefore not good for powering objects around the home.
In contrast, Mr Giler said Witricity's approach could be used for a range of applications from laptops and phones to implanted medical devices and electric cars.
"Imagine driving in the garage and the car charges itself," he said.
He even said he had had interest from a company who proposed to use the system for an "electrically-heated dog bowl".
"You go from the sublime to the ridiculous," he said.
Ted Global is a conference dedicated to "ideas worth spreading". It runs from the 21 to 24 July in Oxford, UK.
HOW WIRELESS POWER WORKS
1. Magnetic coil (Antenna A) is housed in a box and can be set in wall or ceiling.
2. Antenna A, powered by mains, resonates at a specific frequency.
3. Electromagnetic waves transmitted through the air.
4. Second magnetic coil (Antenna B) fitted in laptop/TV etc resonates at same frequency as first coil and absorbs energy.
5. Energy charges the device.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Wireless power system shown off
By Jonathan Fildes
Technology reporter, BBC News, Oxford
Electric tech could make plugs obsolete
A system that can deliver power to devices without the need for wires has been shown off at a hi-tech conference.
The technique exploits simple physics and can be used to charge a range of electronic devices over many metres.
Eric Giler, chief executive of US firm Witricity, showed mobile phones and televisions charging wirelessly at the TED Global conference in Oxford.
He said the system could replace the miles of expensive power cables and billions of disposable batteries.
"There is something like 40 billion disposable batteries built every year for power that, generally speaking, is used within a few inches or feet of where there is very inexpensive power," he said.
Trillions of dollars, he said, had also been invested building an infrastructure of wires "to get power from where it is created to where it is used."
"We love this stuff [electricity] so much," he said.
Mr Giler showed off a Google G1 phone and an Apple iPhone that could be charged using the system.
Witricity, he said, had managed to pack all the necessary components into the body of the G1 phone, but Apple had made that process slightly harder.
"They don't make it easy at Apple to get inside their phones so we put a little sleeve on the back," he said.
He also showed off a commercially available television using the system.
"Imagine you get one of these things and you want to hang it on the wall," he said. "Think about it, you don't want those ugly cords hanging down."
Good vibrations
The system is based on work by physicist Marin Soljacic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
It exploits "resonance", whereby energy transfer is markedly more efficient when a certain frequency is applied.
When two objects have the same resonant frequency, they exchange energy strongly without having an effect on other, surrounding objects.
For example, it is resonance that can cause a wine glass to explode when a singer hits exactly the right tone.
But instead of using acoustic resonance, Witricity's approach exploits the resonance of low frequency electromagnetic waves.
The system uses two coils - one plugged into the mains and the other embedded or attached to the gadget.
Each coil is carefully engineered with the same resonant frequency. When the main coil is connected to an electricity supply, the magnetic field it produces is resonant with that of with the second coil, allowing "tails" of energy to flow between them.
As each "cycle" of energy arrives at the second coil, a voltage begins to build up that can be used to charge the gadget.
Mr Giler said the main coil could be embedded in the "ceiling, in the floor, or underneath your desktop".
Devices using the system would automatically begin to charge as soon as they were within range, he said.
"You'd never have to worry about plugging these things in again."
Safety concerns
Mr Giler was keen to stress the safety of the equipment during the demonstration.
"There's nothing going on - I'm OK," he said walking around a television running on wireless power.
The system is able to operate safely because the energy is largely transferred through magnetic fields.
"Humans and the vast majority of objects around us are non-magnetic in nature," Professor Soljacic, one of the inventors of the system, told BBC News during a visit to Witricity earlier this year.
It is able to do this by exploiting an effect that occurs in a region known as the "far field", the region seen at a distance of more than one wavelength from the device.
In this field, a transmitter would emit mixture of magnetic and potentially dangerous electric fields.
But, crucially, at a distance of less than one wavelength - the "near field" - it is almost entirely magnetic.
Hence, Witricity uses low frequency electromagnetic waves, whose waves are about 30m (100ft) long. Shorter wavelengths would not work.
'Ridiculous technology'
Witricity is not the first jump on the concept of wireless electricity.
For example, the nineteenth century American inventor Thomas Edison and physicist and engineer Nikola Tesla explored the concept.
"In the very early days of electricity before the electric grid was deployed [they] were very interested in developing a scheme to transmit electricity wirelessly over long distances," explained Professor Soljacic.
"They couldn't imagine dragging this vast infrastructure of metallic wires across every continent."
Tesla even went so far as to build a 29m-high aerial known as Wardenclyffe Tower in New York.
"It ran into some financial troubles and that work was never completed," said Professor Soljacic.
Today, chip-giant Intel has seized on a similar idea to Witricity's, whilst other companies work on highly directional mechanisms of energy transfer, such as lasers.
However, unlike Witricity's work, lasers require an uninterrupted line of sight, and are therefore not good for powering objects around the home.
In contrast, Mr Giler said Witricity's approach could be used for a range of applications from laptops and phones to implanted medical devices and electric cars.
"Imagine driving in the garage and the car charges itself," he said.
He even said he had had interest from a company who proposed to use the system for an "electrically-heated dog bowl".
"You go from the sublime to the ridiculous," he said.
Ted Global is a conference dedicated to "ideas worth spreading". It runs from the 21 to 24 July in Oxford, UK.
HOW WIRELESS POWER WORKS
1. Magnetic coil (Antenna A) is housed in a box and can be set in wall or ceiling.
2. Antenna A, powered by mains, resonates at a specific frequency.
3. Electromagnetic waves transmitted through the air.
4. Second magnetic coil (Antenna B) fitted in laptop/TV etc resonates at same frequency as first coil and absorbs energy.
5. Energy charges the device.
White Men Can't Judge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-boykin/white-men-cant-judge_b_244358.html
Keith Boykin is a CNBC contributor and editor of The Daily Voice.
July 24, 2009
White Men Can't Judge
The most disturbing aspect of the news coverage about Henry Louis Gates' arrest has been the running commentary by white men about appropriate decorum for black men.
Of course, it was no surprise that blowhards like Rush Limbaugh would jump in to defend the white police officer and impugn Professor Gates. Nor that the conservative radio talk show host would turn his attack to President Obama after the president labeled the Cambridge Police Department behavior "stupid."
Limbaugh's an easy case. More troubling is the commentary from Sergeant James Crowley himself, an "expert" on racial profiling who still doesn't understand why a black man would be upset to be accused of breaking into his own house.
"From the time he opened the door it seemed that [Gates] was very upset, very put off that I was there in the first place," Sergeant Crowley told Boston sports radio station WEEI this week. "Not just what he said, but the tone in which he said it, just seemed very peculiar -- even more so now that I know how educated he is."
So educated people can't get upset?
I'm a Harvard graduate, and I reacted angrily just a few days ago when a New York City police officer stopped me Sunday inside a Manhattan subway station and accused me of jumping the turnstiles, which I clearly had not done. I made a scene, much like Professor Gates probably did, because I felt I was being unfairly singled out.
After I proved that I had entered the station legally, an unknown black woman standing nearby came to my defense. "Do you know who he is? He worked in the White House," she said, much to my surprise.
In fact, it's the "educated" and "successful" black men who are most likely to become indignant in racial profiling situations. Many younger black men I know suffer through random police stops on a regular basis and have grown accustomed to the procedure. But older, middle-class and upper-income blacks are often shocked when the police come for them, too. Yet in the eyes of the police, a black Harvard professor is just another potential suspect.
The officer in the Gates case wrote in his police report that the professor exhibited "loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place." Actually, the professor was in a private place until the officer -- who admitted in the report that Gates "appeared to be a resident" -- asked him to step outside. But even in public, why can't a black man be loud when he's angry about real or perceived police harassment?
And why wouldn't an expert in racial profiling understand the long history of police abuse of African American men and consider that in evaluating Gates' response to the situation? After everything black men have been through in this country, from slavery to segregation to racial denialism, it's a wonder that well-educated black men like Gates and Obama are usually so controlled.
That's what CNN anchor Lou Dobbs seemed to miss Thursday night on his show when he asked CNN contributor Roland Martin to calm down in responding to the ridiculous charges about Barack Obama's citizenship. "You're yelling and you're getting awful excited about something that doesn't require this level of remarks," Dobbs scolded Martin.
Dobbs had just finished expressing his doubts about Professor Gates in a segment with CNN's Soledad O'Brien when he expressed sympathy with those who questioned the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. So let me get this straight. We're supposed to believe a lone white police officer in Massachusetts but not believe the entire state of Hawaii about Obama's birth?
Yes, in our society, white men are considered believable and those pesky people of color (Hawaiians or African Americans) are not. That's why all the evening news anchors on every news network (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC) are white, and nearly all of those are men. And that's why a 42-year-old cop is more credible than a distinguished 58-year-old Harvard professor.
No matter how much progress we've made, black men still don't have the right to get upset and indignant, even in their own homes. Crotchety old white guys like Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs can foam at the mouth on radio and television all day about immigrants and blacks, but a black male public figure can't complain too loudly. That would be ungrateful and undignified.
And it doesn't matter what your status if you're a black man. A black TV personality can't get upset with a white guy on CNN. A black White House veteran can't get upset with the NYPD on the subway. A black Harvard professor can't get upset with the Cambridge Police in his house. And apparently a black president can't get upset in his house either.
She won't say it, but Judge Sonia Sotomayor was right when she spoke about a wise Latina judge often reaching a better decision than a wise white man. Many white men still can't judge these situations fairly because they don't understand what it means to be black in America.
Whether you're a pundit, a professor or the president, if you're a black man you better know your place.
Follow Keith Boykin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keithboykin
Keith Boykin is a CNBC contributor and editor of The Daily Voice.
July 24, 2009
White Men Can't Judge
The most disturbing aspect of the news coverage about Henry Louis Gates' arrest has been the running commentary by white men about appropriate decorum for black men.
Of course, it was no surprise that blowhards like Rush Limbaugh would jump in to defend the white police officer and impugn Professor Gates. Nor that the conservative radio talk show host would turn his attack to President Obama after the president labeled the Cambridge Police Department behavior "stupid."
Limbaugh's an easy case. More troubling is the commentary from Sergeant James Crowley himself, an "expert" on racial profiling who still doesn't understand why a black man would be upset to be accused of breaking into his own house.
"From the time he opened the door it seemed that [Gates] was very upset, very put off that I was there in the first place," Sergeant Crowley told Boston sports radio station WEEI this week. "Not just what he said, but the tone in which he said it, just seemed very peculiar -- even more so now that I know how educated he is."
So educated people can't get upset?
I'm a Harvard graduate, and I reacted angrily just a few days ago when a New York City police officer stopped me Sunday inside a Manhattan subway station and accused me of jumping the turnstiles, which I clearly had not done. I made a scene, much like Professor Gates probably did, because I felt I was being unfairly singled out.
After I proved that I had entered the station legally, an unknown black woman standing nearby came to my defense. "Do you know who he is? He worked in the White House," she said, much to my surprise.
In fact, it's the "educated" and "successful" black men who are most likely to become indignant in racial profiling situations. Many younger black men I know suffer through random police stops on a regular basis and have grown accustomed to the procedure. But older, middle-class and upper-income blacks are often shocked when the police come for them, too. Yet in the eyes of the police, a black Harvard professor is just another potential suspect.
The officer in the Gates case wrote in his police report that the professor exhibited "loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place." Actually, the professor was in a private place until the officer -- who admitted in the report that Gates "appeared to be a resident" -- asked him to step outside. But even in public, why can't a black man be loud when he's angry about real or perceived police harassment?
And why wouldn't an expert in racial profiling understand the long history of police abuse of African American men and consider that in evaluating Gates' response to the situation? After everything black men have been through in this country, from slavery to segregation to racial denialism, it's a wonder that well-educated black men like Gates and Obama are usually so controlled.
That's what CNN anchor Lou Dobbs seemed to miss Thursday night on his show when he asked CNN contributor Roland Martin to calm down in responding to the ridiculous charges about Barack Obama's citizenship. "You're yelling and you're getting awful excited about something that doesn't require this level of remarks," Dobbs scolded Martin.
Dobbs had just finished expressing his doubts about Professor Gates in a segment with CNN's Soledad O'Brien when he expressed sympathy with those who questioned the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. So let me get this straight. We're supposed to believe a lone white police officer in Massachusetts but not believe the entire state of Hawaii about Obama's birth?
Yes, in our society, white men are considered believable and those pesky people of color (Hawaiians or African Americans) are not. That's why all the evening news anchors on every news network (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC) are white, and nearly all of those are men. And that's why a 42-year-old cop is more credible than a distinguished 58-year-old Harvard professor.
No matter how much progress we've made, black men still don't have the right to get upset and indignant, even in their own homes. Crotchety old white guys like Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs can foam at the mouth on radio and television all day about immigrants and blacks, but a black male public figure can't complain too loudly. That would be ungrateful and undignified.
And it doesn't matter what your status if you're a black man. A black TV personality can't get upset with a white guy on CNN. A black White House veteran can't get upset with the NYPD on the subway. A black Harvard professor can't get upset with the Cambridge Police in his house. And apparently a black president can't get upset in his house either.
She won't say it, but Judge Sonia Sotomayor was right when she spoke about a wise Latina judge often reaching a better decision than a wise white man. Many white men still can't judge these situations fairly because they don't understand what it means to be black in America.
Whether you're a pundit, a professor or the president, if you're a black man you better know your place.
Follow Keith Boykin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keithboykin
Statement on the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
http://www.theroot.com/views/lawyers-statement-arrest-henry-louis-gates-jr
Lawyer's Statement on the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Charles Ogletree gives Gates' side of the story in controversial arrest of The Root's editor-in-chief.
July 20, 2009
This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.
Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.
Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
Lawyer's Statement on the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Charles Ogletree gives Gates' side of the story in controversial arrest of The Root's editor-in-chief.
July 20, 2009
This brief statement is being submitted on behalf of my client, friend, and colleague, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. This is a statement concerning the arrest of Professor Gates. On July 16, 2009, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 58, the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor of Harvard University, was headed from Logan airport to his home [in] Cambridge after spending a week in China, where he was filming his new PBS documentary entitled “Faces of America.” Professor Gates was driven to his home by a driver for a local car company. Professor Gates attempted to enter his front door, but the door was damaged. Professor Gates then entered his rear door with his key, turned off his alarm, and again attempted to open the front door. With the help of his driver they were able to force the front door open, and then the driver carried Professor Gates’ luggage into his home.
Professor Gates immediately called the Harvard Real Estate office to report the damage to his door and requested that it be repaired immediately. As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.
Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.
Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.
James Crowley Lied in his Police Report
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/25/757783/-James-Crowley-Lied-in-his-Police-Report
James Crowley Lied in his Police Report
by BigBlue
Sat Jul 25, 2009
I have read all the back and forth about the controversy with Skip Gates and James Crowley, the Harvard Prof and the cop who arrested him. The media loves it, because it gives them an opportunity to go on and on about race, and all the stuff that goes with it. But the fact is, this isn't (primarily) about race. It's about the power cops have in situations like this, and the abuse of authority that occurs. And, in this case, the evidence that the cop, James Crowley, lied in his police report. Why do I say that, you ask? Well, read on...
Keep in mind that most media accounts take the police report as the truth, without a grain of salt. Consider these passages from the police report (which have been taken as fact by the media):
Gates opened the door and exclaimed "Why, because I am a black man in America?
While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer.
Gates continued to yell at me.
My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information...
Gates continued to yell at me...
The gentleman shouted "You don't know who your [sic] messing with!"
Notice the many references to Gates yelling, shouting, exclaiming, etc. This is important, because the yelling is the basis of the arrest, which was for "loud and tumultuous behavior". Gates's own account has none of the yelling, and we are left with one guy's word against the other. In this situation, many believe the cop by default.
However, look at the following from Gates's account:
HLG: The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That’s a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor’s report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn’t have yelled. I can’t yell even today, I’m not fully cured.
See also Charles Ogletree (his lawyer) on MSNBC, saying the same thing.
Now, if this is the case, Gates has a doctor's report, as well as many witnesses who would have heard him over the course of the last few days, having difficulty speaking, much less yelling. So it isn't something he is likely to just make up. This is especially true after talking to his lawyer, who would not have signed on to using this storyline, if it were not true, considering how easily it would be refuted if it were false. So I'm convinced that this is the case, that he couldn't have yelled. This makes the police report false.
And while the media considers there to be a difference between a statement containing "falsehoods", and the person giving that statement having "lied", I have no such qualms with the "L" word, so I'll say it again: the police officer lied in his report.
You may want to see more evidence that the things in the report are wrong, but keep in mind that the yelling key to the officer's story. It's the only thing that could justify an arrest (for "loud and tumultuous" behavior) in this situation. And though this is only one piece of evidence, I think the police report being wrong is the more likely situation, than Gates and his legal team stupidly clinging to a easily-refutable story about bronchitis.
Some people may dislike the claim of a police officer lying, but consider the following:
-Everyone in the justice system will believe a cop over a normal civilian, if there is no other evidence.
-Often confrontations between cops and civilians have no record, and the only evidence is the account of the two people involved.
-In a line of work such as being a police officer, any mistake likely has legal implications. It is probably easy to find yourself in violation of the law, if you are a cop and the situations you face every day are in a legal grey area.
-The police have a habit of arresting people for being jerks, for what is apparently called "contempt of cop"; the charges are often for something like "disorderly conduct", and quickly dropped, once the person has learned his or her lesson.
Forget that this guy is a cop for a moment, and remember that he is human. As a cop, he has a tough job; his mistakes carry big consequences, but he can most likely escape them by lying about what happened, and nobody will ever doubt him. Is it a huge surprise what happens?
I am not saying we should crucify the guy, but we should use this as a catalyst to call for changes in how our police works. We have the right to expect more from our police, and we also should offer more to people working in the often thankless job.
And we should stop hearing about what a terrible person Skip Gates is, how he verbally abused this cop, how he felt entitled due to being a Harvard prof, and how he got what he had coming to him. Because what we are hearing in the media, which is based on the police report, is not what happened.
James Crowley Lied in his Police Report
by BigBlue
Sat Jul 25, 2009
I have read all the back and forth about the controversy with Skip Gates and James Crowley, the Harvard Prof and the cop who arrested him. The media loves it, because it gives them an opportunity to go on and on about race, and all the stuff that goes with it. But the fact is, this isn't (primarily) about race. It's about the power cops have in situations like this, and the abuse of authority that occurs. And, in this case, the evidence that the cop, James Crowley, lied in his police report. Why do I say that, you ask? Well, read on...
Keep in mind that most media accounts take the police report as the truth, without a grain of salt. Consider these passages from the police report (which have been taken as fact by the media):
Gates opened the door and exclaimed "Why, because I am a black man in America?
While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer.
Gates continued to yell at me.
My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information...
Gates continued to yell at me...
The gentleman shouted "You don't know who your [sic] messing with!"
Notice the many references to Gates yelling, shouting, exclaiming, etc. This is important, because the yelling is the basis of the arrest, which was for "loud and tumultuous behavior". Gates's own account has none of the yelling, and we are left with one guy's word against the other. In this situation, many believe the cop by default.
However, look at the following from Gates's account:
HLG: The police report says I was engaged in loud and tumultuous behavior. That’s a joke. Because I have a severe bronchial infection which I contracted in China and for which I was treated and have a doctor’s report from the Peninsula hotel in Beijing. So I couldn’t have yelled. I can’t yell even today, I’m not fully cured.
See also Charles Ogletree (his lawyer) on MSNBC, saying the same thing.
Now, if this is the case, Gates has a doctor's report, as well as many witnesses who would have heard him over the course of the last few days, having difficulty speaking, much less yelling. So it isn't something he is likely to just make up. This is especially true after talking to his lawyer, who would not have signed on to using this storyline, if it were not true, considering how easily it would be refuted if it were false. So I'm convinced that this is the case, that he couldn't have yelled. This makes the police report false.
And while the media considers there to be a difference between a statement containing "falsehoods", and the person giving that statement having "lied", I have no such qualms with the "L" word, so I'll say it again: the police officer lied in his report.
You may want to see more evidence that the things in the report are wrong, but keep in mind that the yelling key to the officer's story. It's the only thing that could justify an arrest (for "loud and tumultuous" behavior) in this situation. And though this is only one piece of evidence, I think the police report being wrong is the more likely situation, than Gates and his legal team stupidly clinging to a easily-refutable story about bronchitis.
Some people may dislike the claim of a police officer lying, but consider the following:
-Everyone in the justice system will believe a cop over a normal civilian, if there is no other evidence.
-Often confrontations between cops and civilians have no record, and the only evidence is the account of the two people involved.
-In a line of work such as being a police officer, any mistake likely has legal implications. It is probably easy to find yourself in violation of the law, if you are a cop and the situations you face every day are in a legal grey area.
-The police have a habit of arresting people for being jerks, for what is apparently called "contempt of cop"; the charges are often for something like "disorderly conduct", and quickly dropped, once the person has learned his or her lesson.
Forget that this guy is a cop for a moment, and remember that he is human. As a cop, he has a tough job; his mistakes carry big consequences, but he can most likely escape them by lying about what happened, and nobody will ever doubt him. Is it a huge surprise what happens?
I am not saying we should crucify the guy, but we should use this as a catalyst to call for changes in how our police works. We have the right to expect more from our police, and we also should offer more to people working in the often thankless job.
And we should stop hearing about what a terrible person Skip Gates is, how he verbally abused this cop, how he felt entitled due to being a Harvard prof, and how he got what he had coming to him. Because what we are hearing in the media, which is based on the police report, is not what happened.
How Cambridge police stared down a president
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0725/p02s01-usgn.html
How Cambridge police stared down a president
The police union's combative press conference Friday was an example of how the profession closes ranks in times of trouble.
By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the July 25, 2009 edition
Mere hours after the police union of Cambridge, Mass., brazenly demanded an apology from the president of the United States, it – in essence – got it.
While President Obama's unscheduled appearance at a routine White House press conference was not an explicit apology, Mr. Obama acknowledged that he now regretted his choice of words in a Wednesday night press conference. He had said that Sgt. James Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. on his own front porch.
With his comments Friday – including his promise to bring Crowley and Professor Gates to the White House for an informal get-together – Obama went some way toward removing the damage his earlier comment made. Many police officers and experts said the comment had driven a wedge into what had been a collegial relationship between the White House and police.
But the union's hard line – successfully staring down a president – is a window into the so-called Thin Blue Line – the "Band of Brothers" mentality that draws police departments closer in times of crisis.
It is a product of the nature of policing, with officers relying on each other, in some cases, to protect their own lives. But, to some experts, the attitude also highlights a "bunker mentality" that can stymie community relations and even hinder fair investigations.
"When an individual police officer is attacked and his motives impugned, the force will close ranks. It doesn't matter if it's a man of the cloth, an elderly grandmother, or the president of the United States, the union is going to respond," says Norm Stamper, the former police chief of Seattle.
In a combative news conference Friday, the president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, Dennis O'Connor, said suggestions that race played a role in Crowley's actions were unwarranted and need correction.
"Whatever may be the history, we deeply resent the implications and reject any suggestion that in this case or any other case that they've allowed a person's race to direct their activities. However, we hope they will reflect upon their past comments and apologize to the men and women of the Cambridge Police Department," said Mr. O'Connor.
In his surprise appearance later Friday, Obama did not back down from his opinion that Crowley's decision to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct was an "overreaction." But he added that he unintentionally contributed to "ratcheting up" the situation. "In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically, and I could've calibrated those words differently," he said.
Police officers agree. "One of the things that was so impressive to me about the president's statement is that he said bluntly what was on his mind and in his heart [as the first black president]," says Mr. Stamper. "What did trouble me, though, was the use of the term 'stupid.' "
In the end, that word acted to motivate and unify one of the most tightly knit professions in the country.
The entire dust-up exemplifies "that everybody behind the badge is on the same team and everybody else is on the other team," says Radley Balko, a commentator at Reason Magazine who has written widely on the growing "militarization" of American police. "It's a classic bunker mentality."
But Obama took strides toward easing tensions Friday. "The president has gone a long way of undoing the harm that was done by the original comment," says Jim Pasco, director of the Fraternal Order of Police's legislative division in Washington.
How Cambridge police stared down a president
The police union's combative press conference Friday was an example of how the profession closes ranks in times of trouble.
By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the July 25, 2009 edition
Mere hours after the police union of Cambridge, Mass., brazenly demanded an apology from the president of the United States, it – in essence – got it.
While President Obama's unscheduled appearance at a routine White House press conference was not an explicit apology, Mr. Obama acknowledged that he now regretted his choice of words in a Wednesday night press conference. He had said that Sgt. James Crowley "acted stupidly" for arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. on his own front porch.
With his comments Friday – including his promise to bring Crowley and Professor Gates to the White House for an informal get-together – Obama went some way toward removing the damage his earlier comment made. Many police officers and experts said the comment had driven a wedge into what had been a collegial relationship between the White House and police.
But the union's hard line – successfully staring down a president – is a window into the so-called Thin Blue Line – the "Band of Brothers" mentality that draws police departments closer in times of crisis.
It is a product of the nature of policing, with officers relying on each other, in some cases, to protect their own lives. But, to some experts, the attitude also highlights a "bunker mentality" that can stymie community relations and even hinder fair investigations.
"When an individual police officer is attacked and his motives impugned, the force will close ranks. It doesn't matter if it's a man of the cloth, an elderly grandmother, or the president of the United States, the union is going to respond," says Norm Stamper, the former police chief of Seattle.
In a combative news conference Friday, the president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association, Dennis O'Connor, said suggestions that race played a role in Crowley's actions were unwarranted and need correction.
"Whatever may be the history, we deeply resent the implications and reject any suggestion that in this case or any other case that they've allowed a person's race to direct their activities. However, we hope they will reflect upon their past comments and apologize to the men and women of the Cambridge Police Department," said Mr. O'Connor.
In his surprise appearance later Friday, Obama did not back down from his opinion that Crowley's decision to arrest Gates for disorderly conduct was an "overreaction." But he added that he unintentionally contributed to "ratcheting up" the situation. "In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically, and I could've calibrated those words differently," he said.
Police officers agree. "One of the things that was so impressive to me about the president's statement is that he said bluntly what was on his mind and in his heart [as the first black president]," says Mr. Stamper. "What did trouble me, though, was the use of the term 'stupid.' "
In the end, that word acted to motivate and unify one of the most tightly knit professions in the country.
The entire dust-up exemplifies "that everybody behind the badge is on the same team and everybody else is on the other team," says Radley Balko, a commentator at Reason Magazine who has written widely on the growing "militarization" of American police. "It's a classic bunker mentality."
But Obama took strides toward easing tensions Friday. "The president has gone a long way of undoing the harm that was done by the original comment," says Jim Pasco, director of the Fraternal Order of Police's legislative division in Washington.
Boston Cops Believe Your Home is Their Castle
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=621202
Boston Cops Believe Your Home is Their Castle
2009/07/27
By Christopher Hansen,
Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home Thursday, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for being discourteous to police officers that falsely accused him of breaking into his own home.
Professor Gates before the arrest.
Professor Gates following the arrest.
Police told this reporter that, “This uppity Black dude” had obviously broken into this nice house in a white neighborhood and replaced all the pictures of the family that actually lived there, with pictures of black people, in an attempt to fool officers.
When officers discovered that Professor Gates actually owned the home they were so surprised that they arrested Gates anyway for not using a proper tone and showing them the respect they believed they deserved because they are obvious heroes that protect the rights of Americans every day.
“Remember,” said one officer that wanted to remain anonymous, “Officers have to risk their lives dealing with obnoxious Harvard professors and other undesirables that may or may not be in their own kitchens everyday. We must be able to come into their kitchens without being invited and without a warrant to check their government issued IDs, ensure their are no outstanding arrest warrants or unpaid taxes or late library fees and most importantly that there are no white women in the house. Then if all of that checks out and these obvious anti-American Arab pro-terrorist Obama supporters treat us with proper respect then we can let them go without arresting them. But that was not the case here as this guy had the nerve to complain about his treatment.”
The Cambridge Police Chief said he would look into it but since Professor Gates had obviously raised his voice to the officers and because his officers said Gates did indeed raise his voice to them he felt that Gates would probably do a bit of time and that it would be well deserved.
The Cambridge Police Chief told this reporter, “Police must be treated like the heroes they are. Americans that do not remember this may be beaten without due process and they had better just get used to it. We must ensure that our number one priority is that officers must come home safe every night and without their egos being bruised while on duty. Police, after all, are the only people we are required to protect and serve.”
Naturally this article was written tongue in cheek… or was it?
As a victim of police trampling the Constitution, law and procedure in my own front yard after we called them, nothing I have written here is in the least improbable.
So call the police at your own risk and EXPECT them to lie.
Read more from Christopher Hansen at Independent American News.
Boston Cops Believe Your Home is Their Castle
2009/07/27
By Christopher Hansen,
Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home Thursday, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for being discourteous to police officers that falsely accused him of breaking into his own home.
Professor Gates before the arrest.
Professor Gates following the arrest.Police told this reporter that, “This uppity Black dude” had obviously broken into this nice house in a white neighborhood and replaced all the pictures of the family that actually lived there, with pictures of black people, in an attempt to fool officers.
When officers discovered that Professor Gates actually owned the home they were so surprised that they arrested Gates anyway for not using a proper tone and showing them the respect they believed they deserved because they are obvious heroes that protect the rights of Americans every day.
“Remember,” said one officer that wanted to remain anonymous, “Officers have to risk their lives dealing with obnoxious Harvard professors and other undesirables that may or may not be in their own kitchens everyday. We must be able to come into their kitchens without being invited and without a warrant to check their government issued IDs, ensure their are no outstanding arrest warrants or unpaid taxes or late library fees and most importantly that there are no white women in the house. Then if all of that checks out and these obvious anti-American Arab pro-terrorist Obama supporters treat us with proper respect then we can let them go without arresting them. But that was not the case here as this guy had the nerve to complain about his treatment.”
The Cambridge Police Chief said he would look into it but since Professor Gates had obviously raised his voice to the officers and because his officers said Gates did indeed raise his voice to them he felt that Gates would probably do a bit of time and that it would be well deserved.
The Cambridge Police Chief told this reporter, “Police must be treated like the heroes they are. Americans that do not remember this may be beaten without due process and they had better just get used to it. We must ensure that our number one priority is that officers must come home safe every night and without their egos being bruised while on duty. Police, after all, are the only people we are required to protect and serve.”
Naturally this article was written tongue in cheek… or was it?
As a victim of police trampling the Constitution, law and procedure in my own front yard after we called them, nothing I have written here is in the least improbable.
So call the police at your own risk and EXPECT them to lie.
Read more from Christopher Hansen at Independent American News.
Racial profiling or 'tempest in a teapot'?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0722/p02s01-usju.html
Gates arrest: racial profiling or 'tempest in a teapot'?
The city of Cambridge, Mass., has dropped its charges against a Harvard professor who alleges he was arrested for breaking into his own house only because he is black.
By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the July 21, 2009 edition
Prosecutors in Cambridge, Mass., on Tuesday dropped disorderly conduct charges against Henry Louis Gates, a prominent professor at Harvard University and author of multiple books about the black experience in America.
But Mr. Gates' arrest on the front porch of his own home last week became a moment of national reflection, with Gates insisting that the incident was evidence of the persistence of racial profiling – even in one of America's most liberal cities.
Gates has told The Washington Post that he now intends to do a documentary on racial profiling – an idea that had "never crossed his mind" before now. The "criminal justice system is rotten," he said.
Gates was returning from filming a TV project called "Faces of America" in China last Thursday. According to the police report, police received a call that two men black were trying to break into Gates's house. In fact, the two men were Gates and his driver, who were trying to open the front door, which was jammed.
Both sides have suggested that the other was argumentative. The police report says Gates eventually became verbally abusive, accusing the officer of suspecting him simply because he was black. He was arrested soon after and placed in jail for four hours.
Cambridge police officials claim that the incident was an unfortunate escalation of wills. "I think what went wrong is that you had two human beings that were reacting ... and cooler heads did not prevail," said Cambridge police spokeswoman Kelly Downes. "It wasn't Professor Gates's best moment, and it was not the Cambridge Police Department's best moment."
Law enforcement analysts are inclined to agree, suggesting that the incident may have been only a "tempest in a teapot."
"The best motto for a police officer is that sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me," says George Kirkham, a former police officer and now a professor of criminology at Florida State University. "People wind up venting, and you have to let them vent."
Moreover, police officers should be particularly aware of historical injustices suffered by African Americans, he adds: "Blacks have had experiences with bullhorns and dogs in the South, and those wounds go deep – they're more sensitive and we need to realize that."
Commentators have taken both sides. Garrard McClendon, a black Chicago talk show host, called Gates's cries of racism "weak." But David Bernstein of the legal blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, writes: "Yelling at a cop isn't a crime."
Twenty-three states, including Massachusetts, have enacted legislation banning racial profiling. But such practices – stopping suspects on the basis of what they look like – are still prevalent, some say. A recent study showed that 89 percent of traffic stops in New York City involved non-whites.
"We are a country founded on Jeffersonian ideals, and people don't like government in their lives," says Professor Kirkham. "[Police] need to be aware of that."
Jack Kirby
From the Comiclopedia...
Jack Kirby(Jacob Kurtzberg)
(28/8/1917 - 6/2/1994, USA)
Jack Kirby was one of the grandmasters in American comic book art, commonly nicknamed as The King. Born as Jacob Kurtzberg in New York City, he started his career in 1935 as an inbetweener on 'Popeye' and 'Betty Boop' cartoons for Max Fleischer's animation studio. He moved to the Lincoln Newspaper Syndicate in 1936, where he produced short-lived newspaper strips like 'Black Buccaneer', 'Detective Riley', Cyclone Burke', 'Abdul Jones' and 'Socko the Seadog,' which he signed with Jack Curtiss. In 1939, he briefly joined the famous Eisner-Iger comic shop. During this period, he contributed to Jumbo Comics, and drew features like 'The Lone Rider', 'Blue Bolt' and 'Blue Beetle' for companies like Novelty and Fox, using a variety of pseudonyms including Curt Davis, Fred Sande, Ted Grey, Jack Cortez and Charles Nicholas.
(Other sources say Lou Fine is Jack Cortez.)
With 'Captain America', created with his partner Joe Simon for Timely in 1941, Kirby developed his artistic style, and garnered the most fame. The character instantly became an American icon. Kirby drew him as a superhuman and soon Captain America became the country's morale-boosting anti-Nazi hero. Jack Kirby and Joe Simon collaborated until 1956, working for several publishers, like National and Harvey Comics, where they created all kinds of new titles which became the prototypes for all the 'kid gang' comic books to follow. They drew the initial episode of 'Captain Marvel Adventures' for Fawcett in 1941, and set up titles like Boy Commandos, Newsboy Legion and Boy's Ranch.After the War, Kirby and Simon launched 'Young Romance', the first romance title, and explored the fields of crime, horror, wester and humor comics in titles like 'Fighting American', 'Police Trap', 'Bullseye' and 'In Love', mostly through Crestwood or their own comic book company Mainline. By 1956, Kirby slowly parted with Simon, cooperating only on 'The Fly' and 'Private Strong' for Archie Comics. During this time, he also produced a lot of work of National/DC and drew some issues of Classics Illustrated for Gilberton. After working with inker Wallace Wood on 'Skymasters' and on 'Challengers of the Unknown' for DC, he returned to Timely, now called Marvel, where he heralded in a new era of superhero comics with writer/editor Stan Lee.
Together with Lee, he launched the landmark 'Fantastic Four' in 1961, shortly afterwards followed by 'Thor' in 1962 and a new rendition of 'Captain America' in 1964. Kirby defined Marvel's house style and set up a great many of the company's present-day key characters. Other well-known titles he graphically initiated are 'The Incredible Hulk' (1962), 'The X-Men' (1963), and 'The Silver Surfer' (1966).
Kirby, Lee and Marvel rose to the top of the industry and many claim they completely revamped the comic book world. After a disagreement with Lee, Kirby left Marvel in 1970 to return to DC as a writer/editor/artist, where he created nearly a dozen titles, but none were as successful as his Marvel work. Among his creations for DC are 'The Fourth World' and its subtitles 'New Gods', 'Mister Miracle' and 'The Forever People, as well as 'Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen', 'OMAC', 'Kamandi' and 'The Demon'. He also joined Joe Simon once again in a new version of 'The Sandman'.
However, by the mid-1970s, he did new work for Marvel again, including 'The Eternals', '2001: A Space Odyssey' and the 'Black Panther', featuring the first black superhero. In 1979-80, he did an adaptation of the Walt Disney movie 'The Black Hole' for the syndicated 'Walt Disney's Treasury of Classic Tales' series. He also ventured into animation, doing designs on among others 'Turbo Teen' and 'Thundarr the Barbarian'. In the 1980s Kirby drew 'Captain Victory and the Galactic Rangers' and 'Silver Star' for Pacific Comics, 'Destroyer Duck' for Eclipse Comics and 'Super Powers' for DC.
In his 50-year career, Jack Kirby produced many of the field's most successful concepts and has been responsible for more comic book sales than any other artist, writer or editor.
Lena Horne - Stormy Weather (1943)
Thanks to Allen Greenfield...
Lena Horne - Stormy Weather (1943)
YouTube clip of the week...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCG3kJtQBKo
Lena Horne - Stormy Weather (1943)
YouTube clip of the week...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCG3kJtQBKo
The Tucker That Time Forgot
Thanks to Susie Bright...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/automobiles/collectibles/26tucker.htmlCollecting
The Tucker That Time Forgot
Ian Mullarney for The New York Times
This story can have many different endings. Some of the plucky startups, like Ferrari and Honda, endure, and their cars become the stuff of legend. Many more — Bricklin and DeLorean, for example — drop out of sight before gaining a commercial foothold.
Among the failures is one of the most fascinating chapters of American automotive history, the story of Preston Tucker and his attempt to break into a market dominated by Detroit’s Big Three in the years after World War II.
Though the Tucker had long been out of the public eye, interest in the against-the-grain entrepreneur who built it was resurrected by a 1988 film directed by Francis Ford Coppola. “Tucker: The Man and His Dream” depicted Tucker’s enterprise crushed by the combined power of the federal government and the business interests aligned against him.
Now the famously controversial marque is about to get another turn in the spotlight, with the completion of a Tucker convertible in Wisconsin that some enthusiasts have said was a secret prototype for a planned new model.
While much of the Tucker saga is steeped in myth and intrigue, a great deal is known about the 1948 models Tucker actually produced: one hand-built prototype, known as the Tin Goose, and 35 of the sleek Tucker 48 sedans, best remembered for their distinctive third headlight in the center of the front end that was designed to swivel with the steering.
During the 1950s, 16 more of the cars were assembled from leftover parts. These later vehicles, built using factory designs and specifications, are widely accepted as the genuine article, barely less sought-after than any of the originals. All told, 46 of the Tucker four-door sedans are believed to remain.
Surviving Tuckers are worth amounts approaching, and in some cases, exceeding $1 million.
Over the years, there had been whispers here and there, a few mentions in books and articles, about a mysterious convertible that Tucker and his crew had started working on in the days before he was forced to shut down operations in 1949.
But that’s all they were, just tantalizing hints. Few people knowledgeable about Tucker’s history took the stories seriously.
The widespread doubt added to the surprise that Justin Cole, a classic car restorer in Madison, Wis., felt at a car show last September when a collector mentioned to him a pending deal involving a Tucker convertible.
In this complex swap, the collector, Allan Reinert of Burlington, Wis., was to transfer the convertible Tucker to another collector in return for cars and cash. A 1957 Corvette that Mr. Cole was trying to sell was part of the transaction. The man who wanted the Tucker would be sending Mr. Cole a check for the Corvette, which Mr. Cole would then deliver to Mr. Reinert as partial payment for the Tucker convertible.
“I had never heard of a convertible Tucker,” Mr. Cole said, “so I asked him to tell me more about it, and the more he went into the details, the more he caught my attention — things like the correct Franklin engine and Cord transmission, and a frame made of the thickest steel of any Tucker in existence.
“I wanted to believe what he was telling me, but it was very hard to believe. So I went out to Allen’s place and looked into his garage. I saw what I needed to see.”
Significantly, there were only two doors, not the four that all the other Tuckers had, and the doors were longer than those of Tucker sedans. Moreover, Mr. Cole said, the frame had been fabricated of much thicker steel than other frames, and it was reinforced with tubular steel welded inside the box assembly. Many of the parts were stamped with the number 57.
When a check for the Corvette still hadn’t arrived after several days, Mr. Reinert decided to sell the convertible to Mr. Cole instead of to his earlier customer. He said he had wanted $750,000 for the frame and two trailer loads of parts, but agreed to sell it for a total of $475,000, which included the value of the ’57 Corvette, a ’54 Corvette and a 2003 Ford Thunderbird. Mr. Cole estimated the combined values of those three cars at around $240,000.
Since then, Mr. Cole and his crew have put about 1,500 hours into restoration of the car, working with the parts that came from Mr. Reinert. A few sheet-metal panels at the rear of the body, including the decklid and a filler panel, had to be fabricated.
Mr. Cole said he anticipated finishing the car in August and showing the car on Sept. 13 at the Fairfield County Concours d’Élégance in Westport, Conn.
The closer his shop, Benchmark Classics, gets to completing the restoration, the louder the chorus of doubters becomes, with some of the most vocal objections being raised on the forum of the Tucker Automobile Club of America’s Web site, tuckerclub.org. Many participants in that forum say they believe that Preston Tucker never intended to produce a convertible and that Mr. Cole is engaging in an elaborate hoax.
Both Mr. Cole and Mr. Reinert say they are surprised at the vehemence of the objections. They say they have eye-witness accounts, some in the form of affidavits that have been posted on a Web site created for the convertible project at tuckerconvertible.com, from people who had seen the drawings, reinforced frame, factory number stampings — and the car being prepared as a convertible — long before Mr. Reinert acquired it.
One such person, John Walczak, a 60-year-old retired banker from Woodstock, Ill., said he had seen the uncompleted car as a convertible in a Milwaukee machine shop in 1971 or 1972. Also, he said, he saw full-scale engineering drawings — bearing the stamp of the Tucker Corporation — of the car as a convertible.
Jerry Renner, now the owner of a motorcycle shop in Arbor Vitae, Wis., said that Mr. Reinert had brought the frame and body parts for restoration help in the late 1980s. Mr. Renner added that while the project was in his shop, he had been visited by two former Tucker employees who recognized it as an experimental convertible begun in the Tucker factory months before it closed.
Mr. Cole said that his car was no different in authenticity from any of the 16 Tuckers built from leftover parts after the factory closed, and that it should be seen as the legitimately final chapter in the strange story of Preston Tucker’s attempt to create a competing automobile brand in the United States.
“In a way, I am a little like Preston Tucker himself,” Mr. Cole said. “It seems like everyone is against me, but I will not back down. I will finish this project.”
An earlier version of this article misstated the condition of the Tucker's frame when Justin Cole bought it. The frame had been restored and was not rusted.
A version of this article appeared in print on July 26, 2009, on page AU1 of the New York edition.
Michelangelo's David in the USA
Thanks to Joan D'Arc of Paranoia magazine...
After a two year loan to the United States Michelangelo's David is being returned to Italy...
After a two year loan to the United States Michelangelo's David is being returned to Italy...
The Double Down Saloon
For more on The Double Down Saloon:
Known the world over as the Happiest Place on Earth, the Double Down Saloon has been bringing a much needed sophistication to Las Vegas since 1992. Interplanetary abstract. Urban decay. The Anti-Vegas. Double Down is indeed a clubhouse for the lunatic fringe.
DRINK * SMOKE * GAMBLEWE NEVER CLOSE
Live music. Pool. Pinball. Asteroids. Hot chicks. Bums, punks, hipsters, bohemians, rockabilly greasers and regular joes. Touring bands and Hollywood types kicking back away from the tourists. Always expect the unexpected.
HOME OF THE FABLED
ASS JUICE
BIRTHPLACE OF THE
BACON MARTINI
Vivid chaotic and psychedelic murals covering every inch of walls and ceiling provide the backdrop, while disturbing videos come at you from all directions. Videos so insane they once made Timothy Leary turn blue (shortly before he actually turned blue).
Want to know more? Don't bust our balls. All you need to know is that we're at 4640 Paradise Road, one block south of the Hard Rock Hotel.
E-Mail the Double Down at:
doubledownsaloon@gmail.com
bobFisk
bobFisk
Robert Sterling, Konformist.com
Last weekend, I went to the Las Vegas Double Down Saloon to see Johnny Hootrock with The Jigglewatts. They were, of course, awesome. But the big surprise was one of the opening acts, local Vegas band bobFisk. Sonically, they were similar to Soundgarden from my ear, and the epic style of their songs reminded me of Tool. (Two good acts to be compared to in my book, though to their credit bobFisk is their own thing.) When I told this to guitarist-singer Brett Michael Houchin, he was flattered but admitted he was more of a Stevie Ray Vaughn kind of guy. In retrospect, I can hear it. Whatever the case, Houchin blows smoke on guitar, Jeremy Brenton lays down a pounding beat on drums, and bassist-singer J. Pat Warren is an enigmaticly charismatic presence. Since April, I've been saying 2009 appears to be the year pop music rearranges the chairs for the first time in a decade, and that the rise of Lady Gaga and electropop would mean that rock music and rap would have to respond if there is any desire for relevance. While it's a long way to the top if you wanna rock 'n' roll, at least bobFisk proves that there are many unknown but hungry bands who are ready to respond. If the stars are aligned right, maybe bobFisk can be the biggest Vegas rock band since The Killers...
Website: http://bobfiskband.com/
MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bobfknfisk
Louis Wain, Pussy Lover
Robalini's Note: Here's an article from 2000 about Louis Wain I wrote for Disinfo...
Louis Wain, Pussy LoverRobert Sterling
He may not have cut off his ear like Van Gogh, but there are few artists who are linked to insanity quite like English artist Louis Wain.
Born August 5th, 1860, Wain is best known for his obsession with painting cats. A widower by the age of 26, he had already become well known for his artistic output, and in 1890, he was named President of the National Cat Club. By the turn of the 20th century, his was a household name.Unfortunately, the cat fancy passed, and his good fortune fell with it. Louis’ eldest sister died in 1917, and some believe the eccentric painter began to crack. Others point to the wild eyes of the cats in his many paintings, and suggest the break from reality was quite earlier. Maybe not: he began accusing his sisters of robbing him, a charge that may have been legitimate. (His real problem may have been a lack of funds.) While mired in poverty, he was certified insane in 1924, a diagnosed schizophrenic.
Despite this, Wain continued painting. By 1930, his work had a decidedly hallucinogenic quality that some believe reflected his insanity. His work was rediscovered, and a fund was started to assist him. H.G. Wells and the Prime Minister became fans of his art. He died in 1939.
Wain has since become popular among two groups: cat lovers (naturally) and investigators of psychology, who saw in his work the snapshots of a man who had a break with reality. That’s a shame, because his work (both the early years and the supposed years of insanity) shouldn’t be treated as a mere freak-show curiosity.
Of late, interest in Wain has dwindled, but if we can help resurrect appreciation of this most unfortunate genius, so much the better. Come on -let’s help create a bandwagon!
Louis Wain: The Man Who Drew Cats
http://www.dangerousminds.net/index.php/site/comments/louis_wain_the_man_who_drew_cats/
Louis Wain: The Man Who Drew CatsRichard Metzger
07.26.2009
Tags:Nick Cave
HG Wells
Louis Wain
Often held up as THE classic example of a schizophrenic artist, in recent decades there has come to be greater respect for the talents of Victorian-era illustrator of anthropomorphic cats, Louis Wain.
Wain’s famous felines were born of his efforts to amuse his wife as she was dying of breast cancer. Wain would draw their cat, Peter, with eyeglasses, pretending to read. This style was developed over the years and eventually Wain’s cats began to walk upright and wear contemporary clothes. They engaged in activities like smoking, fishing, playing musical instruments and having tea parties. It’s important to remember that at this time, cats were not widely kept as household pets, mostly they were kept around to eradicate vermin.Wildly popular in Victorian England, for several years Wain’s drawings and postcards were all the rage, but eventually his popularity began to… well, wane. After being taken advantage of in several investment “opportunities,” Wain’s mental health deteriorated and he was interred at a mental hospital in the poverty ward. News of his circumstances were publicized by H.G. Wells, who organized the funds to move Wain into a nicer hospital with a colony of cats, along with Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald who personally intervened on Wain’s behalf.
In the final years of his life, Wain’s cats became more abstract and less whimsical. His once playful cats began to resemble fearsome, almost kaleidoscopic, Hindu deities. Many psychological textbooks feature drawings from various stages in the artist’s career to show the progression of Wain’s schizophrenia.
Beginning in the late 60s, Wain’s work came into fashion again and has become sought after by collectors. In 2009 Nick Cave, a Wain enthusiast since the late 70s, organized the first showing of Wain’s work outside of England when he exhibited his work as part of the All Tomorrow’s Parties concert series in Australia. Artist Tracy Emin and musician David Tibet are also prominent collectors of Wain’s work. The Chris Beetle Gallery will present a Louis Wain show in Yorkshire, England from August 4th to September 13, 2009
Catland: The Art of Louis Wain
http://www.lilitu.com/catland/
Louis Wain bio
http://lambiek.net/artists/w/wain_louis.htm
More than 2,000 people seek work in housekeeping
A good article about the effects of the economy in Las Vegas, plus Mr. Pierre is a friend of mine and a regular at my workplace...http://www.lvrj.com/business/48846067.html
Jun. 23, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
More than 2,000 people seek work in housekeeping at Hard Rock Hotel fair
By ARNOLD M. KNIGHTLY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Troy Pierre planned his outfit and arrived early for the Hard Rock Hotel's job fair. The preparation helped him land a job at the resort.
Hours before the Hard Rock Hotel's two-day housekeeper job fair was scheduled to open Monday morning, Troy Pierre was putting the finishing touches on the outfit he would wear.
Pierre knew he was overqualified for housekeeping; he has a master's degree from the University of New Orleans and management experience at a fuel distribution center in Iraq.
But with state unemployment at more than 11 percent, he knew he had to try.
"Yes, I have education," Pierre said. "But my father was a blue-collar worker and my mother was a school teacher. Bottom line, you do the best that you can with whatever you have."
Pierre moved to Las Vegas 22 months ago with his wife thinking it would be easy to find a job with his résumé.
"But the economy happened," said Pierre, whose wife works at a resort on the Strip. "The majority of jobs I walk into, they think I'm looking to take their jobs and I'm not. I'm looking to make a living and move forward."
By 6 a.m., the unemployed, 47-year-old married man, sharply dressed in a gray pinstripe three-piece suit and maroon tie with crisply shined shoes, had made his way from the weekly motel around the corner to the hotel-casino to take his place at the front of the line.
The fair was not scheduled to start for another four hours.
"My goal was to be recognized," he said. "In this economy, anything I can utilize to get through the door to shine, I'm going to do it."
Pierre's effort did not go unnoticed.
Vice President of Human Resources Carrie Messina was immediately impressed when she met Pierre. She guaranteed him a job before the job fair opened. If not in housekeeping, somewhere.
Not bad for Pierre, who joined more than 2,000 people -- twice as many as the hotel-casino expected to show up -- applying for one of the 200 housekeeping jobs at the property.
The housekeepers will start work in two weeks. The property is holding another job fair today from 3 to 7 p.m.
The Hard Rock, which is undergoing a $750 million expansion that is scheduled to be completed in November, is planning on future job fairs to fill another 600 positions, including front-desk clerks, bartenders and casino dealers, although Messina said if enough qualified applicants are found at Monday's and today's events, those won't be necessary.
"Maybe you'll be a fit for something else," she said. "Maybe you came down to the housekeeping job fair but you're not really a housekeeper but you're a bartender looking for anything. If we find enough people today, we won't have any more job fairs. We'll call these people. We're not going to have people come down today and tell them to come back in October."
Pierre, who worked at hotels to pay his way through college, was surprised to find himself alone in line until 7:30 a.m.
By 9:30 a.m., a half-hour before the event was scheduled to start, the line had swollen to a few hundred people stretching through the casino.
The Hard Rock's job fair is one of the few recent good signs in the local job market -- Nevada reported 11.3 percent unemployment in May.
Messina believes the Hard Rock Hotel's reputation as a good employer helped attract a lot of people to Monday's fair, though.
"The Hard Rock did not lay off a single employee last year," she said. "We have a good reputation and that also draws people here."
The early turnout for the fair surprised Hard Rock Hotel officials.
Hard Rock Hotel President and Chief Operating Officer Randy Kwasniewski said business has been good, partly because of the resort's opening of the new Joint in April.
Construction on the expansion is ahead of schedule, with the 490-room hotel tower opening the third week of July, a couple of months early.
The second 375-room hotel tower, three new restaurants, a spa, new casino space and other amenities will open by the end of November, Kwasniewski said.
"We're still proceeding along," Kwasniewski said. "Our business has been healthy, knock on wood."
Contact reporter Arnold M. Knightly at aknightly@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893.
Forget Shorter Showers
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/08
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 by Orion Magazine
Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change
by Derrick Jensen
Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.
Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.
Or let’s talk energy. Kirkpatrick Sale summarized it well: “For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.”
Or let’s talk waste. In 2005, per-capita municipal waste production (basically everything that’s put out at the curb) in the U.S. was about 1,660 pounds. Let’s say you’re a die-hard simple-living activist, and you reduce this to zero. You recycle everything. You bring cloth bags shopping. You fix your toaster. Your toes poke out of old tennis shoes. You’re not done yet, though. Since municipal waste includes not just residential waste, but also waste from government offices and businesses, you march to those offices, waste reduction pamphlets in hand, and convince them to cut down on their waste enough to eliminate your share of it. Uh, I’ve got some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.
I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.
So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that we’re in a double bind. A double bind is where you’re given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point, it should be pretty easy to recognize that every action involving the industrial economy is destructive (and we shouldn’t pretend that solar photovoltaics, for example, exempt us from this: they still require mining and transportation infrastructures at every point in the production processes; the same can be said for every other so-called green technology). So if we choose option one—if we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.
Besides being ineffective at causing the sorts of changes necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet, there are at least four other problems with perceiving simple living as a political act (as opposed to living simply because that’s what you want to do). The first is that it’s predicated on the flawed notion that humans inevitably harm their landbase. Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. We can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we can remove dams, we can disrupt a political system tilted toward the rich as well as an extractive economic system, we can destroy the industrial economy that is destroying the real, physical world.
The second problem—and this is another big one—is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. Kirkpatrick Sale again: “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”
The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.
The fourth problem is that the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is suicide. If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we are unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.
The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.
Derrick Jensen is an activist and the author of many books, most recently What We Leave Behind and Songs of the Dead.
To see Richard Metzger's interview with Derrick Jensen, go to DangerousMinds.net
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 by Orion Magazine
Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change
by Derrick Jensen
Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
Part of the problem is that we’ve been victims of a campaign of systematic misdirection. Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance. An Inconvenient Truth helped raise consciousness about global warming. But did you notice that all of the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption—changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much—and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet? Even if every person in the United States did everything the movie suggested, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by only 22 percent. Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide.
Or let’s talk water. We so often hear that the world is running out of water. People are dying from lack of water. Rivers are dewatered from lack of water. Because of this we need to take shorter showers. See the disconnect? Because I take showers, I’m responsible for drawing down aquifers? Well, no. More than 90 percent of the water used by humans is used by agriculture and industry. The remaining 10 percent is split between municipalities and actual living breathing individual humans. Collectively, municipal golf courses use as much water as municipal human beings. People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.
Or let’s talk energy. Kirkpatrick Sale summarized it well: “For the past 15 years the story has been the same every year: individual consumption—residential, by private car, and so on—is never more than about a quarter of all consumption; the vast majority is commercial, industrial, corporate, by agribusiness and government [he forgot military]. So, even if we all took up cycling and wood stoves it would have a negligible impact on energy use, global warming and atmospheric pollution.”
Or let’s talk waste. In 2005, per-capita municipal waste production (basically everything that’s put out at the curb) in the U.S. was about 1,660 pounds. Let’s say you’re a die-hard simple-living activist, and you reduce this to zero. You recycle everything. You bring cloth bags shopping. You fix your toaster. Your toes poke out of old tennis shoes. You’re not done yet, though. Since municipal waste includes not just residential waste, but also waste from government offices and businesses, you march to those offices, waste reduction pamphlets in hand, and convince them to cut down on their waste enough to eliminate your share of it. Uh, I’ve got some bad news. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States.
I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.
So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that we’re in a double bind. A double bind is where you’re given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point, it should be pretty easy to recognize that every action involving the industrial economy is destructive (and we shouldn’t pretend that solar photovoltaics, for example, exempt us from this: they still require mining and transportation infrastructures at every point in the production processes; the same can be said for every other so-called green technology). So if we choose option one—if we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.
Besides being ineffective at causing the sorts of changes necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet, there are at least four other problems with perceiving simple living as a political act (as opposed to living simply because that’s what you want to do). The first is that it’s predicated on the flawed notion that humans inevitably harm their landbase. Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. We can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we can remove dams, we can disrupt a political system tilted toward the rich as well as an extractive economic system, we can destroy the industrial economy that is destroying the real, physical world.
The second problem—and this is another big one—is that it incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself. Kirkpatrick Sale again: “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”
The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.
The fourth problem is that the endpoint of the logic behind simple living as a political act is suicide. If every act within an industrial economy is destructive, and if we want to stop this destruction, and if we are unwilling (or unable) to question (much less destroy) the intellectual, moral, economic, and physical infrastructures that cause every act within an industrial economy to be destructive, then we can easily come to believe that we will cause the least destruction possible if we are dead.
The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.
Derrick Jensen is an activist and the author of many books, most recently What We Leave Behind and Songs of the Dead.
To see Richard Metzger's interview with Derrick Jensen, go to DangerousMinds.net
Henderson humbled by Hall
Robalini's Note: Why Rickey Henderson still rules...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/26/SPG418VCMC.DTLHenderson humbled by Hall
John Shea, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, July 27, 2009
Cooperstown, N.Y. -- Rickey Henderson, humbled.
The significance of baseball's ultimate honor overwhelmed baseball's ultimate runner Sunday. It doesn't matter if a man led the league in swagger. Put him in the Hall of Fame, have him give a speech in front of 50 legends and he turns into an unassuming rookie.
Henderson's speech - by most accounts, he nailed it - showed a side not seen on the base paths or in the batter's box. He was clear, concise and not at all cocky. He even provided a suspenseful ending to his 13-minute, 50-second delivery, clearly the highlight on a muggy, drizzly day at the Clark Sports Center.
He mentioned Muhammad Ali, his hero, and reminded everyone that Ali called himself "the greatest. That is something I always wanted to be. And now that the (Baseball Writers') Association (of America) has voted me into the baseball Hall of Fame, my journey as a player is complete. I am now in the class of the greatest players of all time, and at this moment ..."
Uh oh.
Was Rickey going to do it again?
Any fan of the steals king knows he called himself "the greatest of all time" after breaking Lou Brock's career record in 1991, and it appeared a repeat performance was coming now that he was being enshrined.
But it was typically unpredictable Rickey.
Finishing his closing line, he said, "... and at this moment, I am ... very ... very ... humbled."
There you have it. The conversion from brash ballplayer to appreciative ambassador was complete as Henderson joined Jim Rice and Joe Gordon (posthumously), whose plaques were added to the walls of the museum, making it 289 Hall of Famers in all.
In an interview after his speech, Henderson was asked about the ending and said his three children helped with it.
"I just wanted to clarify this is what I meant," he said, recalling his '91 speech. "I didn't want to mean greatest player of all time, but the greatest stealer of all time."
It was Rickey's way of expressing humility.
"I'm proud to tears," said good friend and former teammate Dave Stewart, who sat in the front row near Rickey's family. Stewart won 20 games four straight years and was the top starter in a dynamic A's era, but he called Henderson's induction "my proudest moment in the game. I feel like my brother's just gone in."
Of the speech, Stewart said, "His personality came out. That's the person Rickey is. People called him a bad teammate or selfish player. There's no more misunderstood player than Rickey. He is a great individual, great player. Funny. Great to be around. Keeps you laughing. That all came out in his speech. He was absolutely outstanding."
Taking a cue from Earl Robinson, a speech teacher at Oakland's Laney College, Henderson was prepared and deliberate, mixing in history and humor, including a story about Reggie Jackson refusing to give him an autograph as a kid at the Coliseum. Not a single third-person reference, but it still was genuine.
He spoke of two early inspirations who helped guide him to baseball: Hank Thomasson, a youth coach who "tricked" him into playing by offering a glazed doughnut and hot chocolate, and Mrs. Tommie Wilkerson, an Oakland Tech High counselor who "bribed" him with a quarter for each on-field accomplishment.
"After my first 10 games, I had 30 hits, 25 runs and 33 stolen bases," Henderson said. "Not bad money for a kid in high school."
He gave thanks to his mother, Bobbie, and wife, Pamela, but was disappointed he mistakenly skipped the names of his three daughters. He named his boyhood idols (Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron and, yes, Jackson), the scout who signed him (Jim Guinn), a minor-league mentor (Tom Trebelhorn), his first owner (Charlie Finley) and favorite manager (Billy Martin).
So what's next?
Henderson will be at the Coliseum on Saturday to have his number (24) retired and will be honored later in San Diego. He said after his speech he wants to coach in the majors to teach young players his secrets, and Stewart said he'd be a great fit with the A's or Yankees.
He has a personal-service contract with the A's and will assist in spring training. As for a full-time on-field job? General manager Billy Beane, who was at the induction with owner Lew Wolff and A's President Mike Crowley, called Henderson the "greatest Oakland A and greatest leadoff hitter of all time" and seemed open to a coaching role.
"Whatever he puts his mind to. We talked a little about it," Beane said. "He has a lot to offer. If it's something he's committed to, it's certainly something worth discussing."
During the speech, a fan yelled, "Play, Rickey, play."
But those days are over, aren't they? Henderson's future is working with the next generation.
"Follow your dream. Believe in your dream because dreams do come true," he said. "When you think of me, I'd like you to remember that kid from the inner city who played with all his heart and never took the game for granted. Thanks everyone here for making my dream come true today."
E-mail John Shea at jshea@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Federal Reserve is ‘a Ponzi scheme, an inside job’
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/25/spitzer-federal-reserve-is-a-ponzi-scheme-an-inside-job/
Spitzer: Federal Reserve is ‘a Ponzi scheme, an inside job’
Daniel Tencer
July 25, 2009
The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.
In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.
Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”
Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.
“The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.
“The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.
“You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.
“The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”
Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.
At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.
Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.
Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.
Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.
Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.
Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.
“Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.”
Spitzer: Federal Reserve is ‘a Ponzi scheme, an inside job’
Daniel Tencer
July 25, 2009
The Federal Reserve — the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US’s money supply — is a “Ponzi scheme” that created “bubble after bubble” in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York.
In a wide-ranging discussion of the bank bailouts on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan described the process by which the Federal Reserve exchanged $13.9 trillion of bad bank debt for cash that it gave to the struggling banks.
Spitzer — who built a reputation as “the Sheriff of Wall Street” for his zealous prosecutions of corporate crime as New York’s attorney-general and then resigned as the state’s governor over revelations he had paid for prostitutes — seemed to agree with Ratigan that the bank bailout amounts to “America’s greatest theft and cover-up ever.”
Advocating in favor of a House bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Spitzer said: “The Federal Reserve has benefited for decades from the notion that it is quasi-autonomous, it’s supposed to be independent. Let me tell you a dirty secret: The Fed has done an absolutely disastrous job since [former Fed Chairman] Paul Volcker left.
“The reality is the Fed has blown it. Time and time again, they blew it. Bubble after bubble, they failed to understand what they were doing to the economy.
“The most poignant example for me is the AIG bailout, where they gave tens of billions of dollars that went right through — conduit payments — to the investment banks that are now solvent. We [taxpayers] didn’t get stock in those banks, they didn’t ask what was going on — this begs and cries out for hard, tough examination.
“You look at the governing structure of the New York [Federal Reserve], it was run by the very banks that got the money. This is a Ponzi scheme, an inside job. It is outrageous, it is time for Congress to say enough of this. And to give them more power now is crazy.
“The Fed needs to be examined carefully.”
Spitzer resigned as governor of New York in March, 2008, after news reports stated he had paid for a $1,000-an-hour New York City call girl.
At the time, Spitzer had been raising the alarm about sub-prime mortgages. In the wake of the economic meltdown triggered last fall by sub-prime loans, some observers have suggested that Spitzer may have been targeted by law enforcement because of his high-profile opposition to Wall Street financial policies.
Investigative reporter Greg Palast wrote that federal agents’ revealing of Spitzer’s identity as a call-girl customer was no coincidence.
Palast wrote that the principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is often used to keep the names of high-profile persons out of the media when they are tangentially linked to a criminal investigation. In the case of Spitzer, the Justice Department chose not to invoke prosecutorial discretion.
Funny thing, this ‘discretion.’ For example, Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, paid Washington DC prostitutes to put him in diapers (ewww!), yet the Senator was not exposed by the US prosecutors busting the pimp-ring that pampered him.
Naming and shaming and ruining Spitzer – rarely done in these cases - was made at the ‘discretion’ of Bush’s Justice Department.
Spitzer recently told Bloomberg News that President Obama’s regulatory reforms of the financial sector are “irrelevant” because regulatory agencies have not been enforcing corporate laws to begin with.
“Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
