The drug-connected crime problem isn't all about the junkies - it's about the dealers. Especially the violent crime problem. The key to
dealing with drug crime is drying up the profits of the illegal market.
Reliance on incarceration has only made the power of organized criminal gangs stronger. It hasn't broken a single gang. A lawless marketplace staffed entirely by criminals who protect their inventory and personal safety with arsenals of weaponry and enforce and regulate business disputes with gunfire is a pretty unique business model. A global business that ranks third in revenues after arms and oil and hides its profits with sophisticated money laundering techniques that allow the top players access into corridors of political power while providing unparalleled liquidity advantages in business competition is a pretty unique business model.
Nixon's early 1970s globalization of the War on Drugs was ostensibly aimed at enlisting all UN members in a united effort to shut down drug supplies at their source. What resulted instead was much closer to a U.S. imperial protection racket for drug kingpins, with the US holding the power to confer a status of impunity on politically favored players overseas. In return, those who benefited were able to target internal law enforcement efforts at culling their business competition, which typically worked to produce results sufficient to bolster their anti-drug credibility.
In Dark Alliance the late investigative journalist Gary Webb documented connections that led through multiple Latin American countries- El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Mexico- to drug rings operating in several regions in the US. He wasn't alone in his investigations, either.
The big picture that results when that research is reviewed is that the political and military leaders of a great many Central American and Caribbean nations during the Cold War era were provided with protected status in the transshipment of cocaine in return for maintaining pro-US policies in their countries.
General Bueso Rosa in Honduras; Hugo Banzer in Bolivia; the Salinas brothers in Mexico, and other Mexican governments before and since; Sandoval Alarcon in Guatemala; Trujillo and Noriega in Panama; the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, in the 1970s; Uribe in Colombia, Cedras/Emmanuel Constant FRAPH junta in Haiti; the JLP in Jamaica - this US policy is blatantly in effect right now in Afghanistan, the top source nation for opium and heroin in the world. It has been in effect from the outset of US intervention in Central Asia. It has become standard U.S. necropolitical operating procedure.
But back to Dark Alliance, Danilo Blandon, the Contra-connected supplier who furnished most of Rick Ross's cocaine, offered him an unprecedented deal soon after establishing that he could move large retail quantities on the street: consignment, no money down, at a kilo price that worked out to less than $20/gram.
Ross was able to move 200 kilos a month. That's over 2 tons a year, at a time when the DEA was estimating the annual US supply at 70 tons. Blandon was a true drug kingpin. Up until the Blandon-Ross connection was dismantled, with the help of Danilo Blandon, who received immunity from prosecution and earned around $200,000 as a paid FBI informant for providing testimony to take down a huge LA cocaine ring that he.was instrumental in enabling to boom to an unprecedented level.
Danilo Blandon's supplier was Norwin Meneses, who had been identified as an even bigger kingpin by US Federal law enforcement since the 1970s. Meneses was the brother of the Somoza-era chief of police, and at least one other general in Somoza's Guardia Nacionale, which eventually became the largest Contra faction, the FDN, under military commander Enrique Bermudez. Meneses also benefited from some sort of arrangement with US authorities, remaining free of prosecution, residing in the US and traveling back and forth between there and Central America without interference.
Blandon was not Meneses' only wholesaler and Meneses was not the only person involved with Contra resupply who had a long history as a major drug supplier and transporter into the USA. The Contra effort made use of a network of long-time Cold War era US intelligence/covert operations agents including a nucleus of Cuban exiles drawn from the ranks of Bay of Pigs battle veterans.
Some 8% of the 1500 Bay of Pigs veterans, about 120 of them, had been identified as kingpins as early on as the late 1960s. Mostly heroin, at that point- supplying the NYC market out of Union City, NJ. They later showed up everywhere from Southeast Asia to the Argentine Dirty War, and eventually as field operators in the Contra effort.
Speaking of the neofascist junta-era Argentine military, they became the first overseas liason to the formation of the Contras in the Reagan era, offering them a safe haven and working to train and equip the Somocista Guardia Nacionale in exile in 1981.
In the previous year, the Argentines had provided the principal base of support for the military coup in Bolivia that put the Cocaine Junta into power, in July 1980. DEA agent Michael Levine, the top field agent in the Southern Cone of Latin America at the time, contends that this was done in collaboration with the local CIA faction down there, who were bitterly opposed to Jimmy Carter's "human rights" foreign policy, which had brought pressure to bear on right-wing President Col. Hugo Banzer Suarez to relinquish his martial law "autogolpe" rule and hold elections. The Cocaine Coup successfully derailed the ascension of a civilian government to power.
Banzer had long-standing connections to the US, having been trained at the School of the Americas, Ft. Hood's armored cavalry school, and as a US diplomatic liason in DC. He was also affiliated with the Falange Socialista Boliviana, and the Latin American Anti-Communist League affiliated with WACL; with the international right-wing assassination program known as Operation Condor, along with his ideological allies in Pinochet's Chile and the Argentina junta. Banzer's family relations and associates were also busted repeatedly in the US and Canada for smuggling cocaine; one case involved his son-in-law and another his chauffeur, iirc. And one of Banzer's cousins was Luis Arce Gomez, one of the chief plotters of the Cocaine Coup.
seattletimes | “I’ve got three words for you: scared white people,” Parker says.
“Every period of racial progress in this country is followed by a period
of retrenchment. That’s what the 2016 election was about, and it was
plain as it was happening.”
To be clear: Neither Parker, nor the latest research, is saying that
Trump voters are all racists. Most voting is simply party-line no matter
who is running. What they’re saying is that worries about the economy,
free trade and the rest were no more important in 2016 than in previous
elections, but racial resentment spiked.
It makes sense, considering the candidate himself was maligning Mexicans and openly calling for banning Muslims.
What’s doubly interesting is that Parker suspects the reason his
research gets overlooked is because he is black. He senses it’s assumed
that as a black man he must be biased about race, or is too quick to
invoke it.
“I get a whole lot more respect over in Europe,” Parker told me.
“There, it’s all about the ideas and whether my social science is sound.
It’s not about who I am, like it so often is here.”
Meanwhile, white writers such as J.D. Vance, author of “Hillbilly Elegy,”
are seen as guru guides to Trump country. Even though the mostly
colorblind story of economic dead-end-ism Vance tells apparently isn’t
what really turned the election.
Parker and Barreto now are working on their own book, out next year,
called “The Great White Hope: Donald Trump, Race and the Crisis of
Democracy.” Will that get ignored, too?
“I get it, nobody wants to be told what they don’t want to hear,”
Parker says. “People want there to be a more innocent explanation, about
jobs or trade or something. But sorry, everyone — it just isn’t there.
My plea to people is we ought to start focusing on what’s real.”
Lie-started and Orwellian-illegal Wars of Aggression is
all the evidence necessary for US military to refuse all war orders
(there are no lawful orders for unlawful war), and for officers to
arrest those who issue them. This argument extends to all in US law
enforcement agencies for war-related crimes of treason, murders and
injuries to US military lied-into illegal Wars of Aggression, and .01% military looting last reported at $6.5 trillion.
Rather than “drain the swamp” and focus US resources on US upgrades,
President Trump joins our opponents with violating war law from two US
treaties that armed attack is only lawful if, and only if, the US is
under attack by another nation’s government.
Waiting for military honor
The ordinary US military are the used/abused pawns of the .01%
psychopathic class. They enlist from economic need, desire to serve
ideals within our Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, or
from attraction to ideals within this profession. Although they’re
trained to recognize unlawful orders within military duty, they are not trained to recognize unlawful Wars of Aggression. Of course, there are no lawful orders for unlawful war. Their Oaths of Enlistment
swear them to protect and defend the US Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater domestic enemy than
.01% “leaders” who lie them into unlawful Wars of Aggression.
Because US military are the ones applying War Crimes onto the world,
with all risk and suffering at their immediate experience, one would
imagine growing factions refusing to obey lying “leaders” and
dishonorable illegal armed attacks.
One would imagine, except We the People see no evidence.
WaPo | Cook and Sessions have also fought the winds of change on Capitol
Hill, where a bipartisan group of lawmakers recently tried but failed to
pass the first significant bill on criminal justice reform in decades.
The
legislation, which had 37 sponsors in the Senate, including Sen.
Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and 79 members of
the House, would have reduced some of the long mandatory minimum
sentences for gun and drug crimes. It also would have given judges more
flexibility in drug sentencing and made retroactive the law that reduced
the large disparity between sentencing for crack cocaine and powder
cocaine.
The bill, introduced in 2015, had support from outside
groups as diverse as the Koch brothers and the NAACP. House Speaker Paul
D. Ryan (R-Wis.) supported it as well. The path to passage seemed
clear.
But then people such as Sessions and Cook spoke up. The
longtime Republican senator from Alabama became a leading opponent,
citing the spike in crime in several cities.
“Violent crime and
murders have increased across the country at almost alarming rates in
some areas. Drug use and overdoses are occurring and dramatically
increasing,” said Sessions, one of only five members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee who voted against the legislation. “It is against
this backdrop that we are considering a bill . . . to cut prison
sentences for drug traffickers and even other violent criminals,
including those currently in federal prison.”
Cook
testified that it was the “wrong time to weaken the last tools
available to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents.”
After
Republican lawmakers became nervous about passing legislation that
might seem soft on crime, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
declined to even bring the bill to the floor for a vote.
“Sessions
was the main reason that bill didn’t pass,” said Inimai M. Chettiar,
the director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
“He came in at the last minute and really torpedoed the bipartisan
effort.”
Now that he is attorney general, Sessions has signaled a
new direction. As his first step, Sessions told his prosecutors in a
memo last month to begin using “every tool we have” — language that
evoked the strategy from the drug war of loading up charges to lengthen
sentences.
And he quickly appointed Cook to be a senior official
on the attorney general’s task force on crime reduction and public
safety, which was created following a Trump executive order to address what the president has called “American carnage.”
“If
there was a flickering candle of hope that remained for sentencing
reform, Cook’s appointment was a fire hose,” said Ring, president of
FAMM. “There simply aren’t enough backhoes to build all the prisons it
would take to realize Steve Cook’s vision for America.”
newyorker | So what makes for the madness of American incarceration? If it isn’t
crazy drug laws or outrageous sentences or profit-seeking prison
keepers, what is it? Pfaff has a simple explanation: it’s prosecutors.
They are political creatures, who get political rewards for locking
people up and almost unlimited power to do it.
Pfaff, in making his case, points to a
surprising pattern. While violent crime was increasing by a hundred per
cent between 1970 and 1990, the number of “line” prosecutors rose by
only seventeen per cent. But between 1990 and 2007, while the crime rate
began to fall, the number of line prosecutors went up by fifty per
cent, and the number of prisoners rose with it. That fact may explain
the central paradox of mass incarceration: fewer crimes, more criminals;
less wrongdoing to imprison people for, more people imprisoned. A
political current was at work, too. Pfaff thinks prosecutors were
elevated in status by the surge in crime from the sixties to the
nineties. “It could be that as the officials spearheading the war on
crime,” he writes, “district attorneys have seen their political options
expand, and this has encouraged them to remain tough on crime even as
crime has fallen.”
Meanwhile,
prosecutors grew more powerful. “There is basically no limit to how
prosecutors can use the charges available to them to threaten
defendants,” Pfaff observes. That’s why mandatory-sentencing rules can
affect the justice system even if the mandatory minimums are relatively
rarely enforced. A defendant, forced to choose between a thirty-year
sentence if convicted of using a gun in a crime and pleading to a lesser
drug offense, is bound to cop to the latter. Some ninety-five per cent
of criminal cases in the U.S. are decided by plea bargains—the risk of
being convicted of a more serious offense and getting a much longer
sentence is a formidable incentive—and so prosecutors can determine
another man’s crime and punishment while scarcely setting foot in a
courtroom. “Nearly everyone in prison ended up there by signing a piece
of paper in a dingy conference room in a county office building,” Pfaff
writes.
In a justice system designed
to be adversarial, the prosecutor has few adversaries. Though the
legendary Gideon v. Wainwright decision insisted that people facing jail
time have the right to a lawyer, the system of public defenders—and the
vast majority of the accused can depend only on a public defender—is
simply too overwhelmed to offer them much help. (Pfaff cites the
journalist Amy Bach, who once watched an overburdened public defender
“plead out” forty-eight clients in a row in a single courtroom.)
Meanwhile,
all the rewards for the prosecutor, at any level, are for making more
prisoners. Since most prosecutors are elected, they might seem
responsive to democratic discipline. In truth, they are so easily
reƫlected that a common path for a successful prosecutor is toward
higher office. And the one thing that can cripple a prosecutor’s
political ascent is a reputation, even if based on only a single case,
for being too lenient. In short, our system has huge incentives for
brutality, and no incentives at all for mercy.
counterpunch | On March 22, organizations led by Charles and David Koch, who have
made tens of billions of dollars from the environmentally toxic business
that they inherited from their father (Koch Industries), issued a
lucrative offer to Republican congressmen: vote against Rep. Paul Ryan’s
healthcare bill in exchange for generous 2018 campaign donations.
Naturally, the flip-side of their offer was a threat: vote for the bill
and we give you nothing.
The two multi-billionaires opposed Ryan/Trumpcare because of their
libertarian, Social Darwinist belief that everybody, no matter how poor,
is on his/her own and should not receive even the most minimal help
from the government. This is an old American story – white plutocrats,
deluded into thinking that they are self-made men rather than
fantastically lucky beneficiaries of their parents’ wealth, opting to
manipulate politicians into helping them keep as much of it as possible –
and then helping them make even more to boot.
Aside from the Koch Brothers’ callousness, insatiable greed, and
arrogant sense of entitlement, the real story here is that they just
committed a serious white-collar crime: bribery. Bribery, as defined in
federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 201, includes “directly or indirectly,
corruptly giv[ing], offer[ing] or promis[ing] anything of value to any
public official . . . with intent to influence any official act . . .”
For our purposes, the most important words in this statute are
“offers” and “promises.” Even if the Koch Brothers were now to retract
their offer or fail to follow through for any particular politician,
they still issued it. In this sense, it’s like attempt or conspiracy. It
does not require actual consummation – that is, an actual exchange of
money for legislative action.
Many, if not most, Americans, including politicians and journalists,
probably believe that this kind of “quid pro quo” – the exchange of a
thing of value for an “official act” – though distasteful, is perfectly
legal, especially after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in
2010. But Citizens United did not legalize bribery. On the contrary, it
said that bribery – “quid pro quo corruption” or its appearance – is the
one thing that corporations may not engage in; pretty much
everything else, including spending anonymous and unlimited “independent
expenditures” on political advertisements, is constitutionally
permitted. Of course, we know that this bribery still goes on all the
time between candidates and Super PACs, but we rarely have hard evidence
because they are generally smart enough to do all their bribing behind
the scenes, not directly in front of the media like the Koch Brothers
just did.
NYTimes | On
Aug. 19, 2015, shortly after midnight, the brothers Stephen and Scott
Leader assaulted Guillermo Rodriguez. Rodriguez had been sleeping near a
train station in Boston. The Leader brothers beat him with a metal
pipe, breaking his nose and bruising his ribs, and called him a
“wetback.” They urinated on him. “All these illegals need to be
deported,” they are said to have declared during the attack. The
brothers were fans of the candidate who would go on to win the
Republican party’s presidential nomination. Told of the incident at the
time, that candidate said: “People who are following me are very
passionate. They love this country, and they want this country to be
great again.”
That
was the moment when my mental alarm bells, already ringing, went amok.
There were many other astonishing events to come — the accounts of
sexual violence, the evidence of racism, the promise of torture, the
advocacy of war crimes — but the assault on Rodriguez, as well as the
largely tolerant response to it, was a marker. Some people were
outraged, but outrage soon became its own ineffectual reflex. Others
found a rich vein of humor in the parade of obscenities and cruelties.
Others simply took a view similar to that of the character Botard in
Ionesco’s play: “I don’t mean to be offensive. But I don’t believe a
word of it. No rhinoceros has ever been seen in this country!”
In
the early hours of Nov. 9, 2016, the winner of the presidential
election was declared. As the day unfolded, the extent to which a moral
rhinoceritis had taken hold was apparent. People magazine had a giddy
piece about the president-elect’s daughter and her family, a sequence of
photos that they headlined “way too cute.” In The New York Times, one
opinion piece suggested that the belligerent bigot’s supporters ought
not be shamed. Another asked whether this president-elect could be a
good president and found cause for optimism. Cable news anchors were
able to express their surprise at the outcome of the election, but not
in any way vocalize their fury. All around were the unmistakable signs
of normalization in progress. So many were falling into line without
being pushed. It was happening at tremendous speed, like a contagion.
And it was catching even those whose plan was, like Dudard’s in
“Rhinoceros,” to criticize “from the inside.”
Evil
settles into everyday life when people are unable or unwilling to
recognize it. It makes its home among us when we are keen to minimize it
or describe it as something else. This is not a process that began a
week or month or year ago. It did not begin with drone assassinations,
or with the war on Iraq. Evil has always been here. But now it has taken
on a totalitarian tone.
At
the end of “Rhinoceros,” Daisy finds the call of the herd irresistible.
Her skin goes green, she develops a horn, she’s gone. Berenger,
imperfect, all alone, is racked by doubts. He is determined to keep his
humanity, but looking in the mirror, he suddenly finds himself quite
strange. He feels like a monster for being so out of step with the
consensus. He is afraid of what this independence will cost him. But he
keeps his resolve, and refuses to accept the horrible new normalcy.
He’ll put up a fight, he says. “I’m not capitulating!”
michaelmoore |Here are the 5 reasons Trump is going to win:
I can see what you’re doing right now. You’re shaking your head wildly – “No, Mike, this won’t happen!” Unfortunately, you are living in a bubble that comes with an adjoining echo chamber where you and your friends are convinced the American people are not going to elect an idiot for president. You alternate between being appalled at him and laughing at him because of his latest crazy comment or his embarrassingly narcissistic stance on everything because everything is about him. And then you listen to Hillary and you behold our very first female president, someone the world respects, someone who is whip-smart and cares about kids, who will continue the Obama legacy because that is what the American people clearly want! Yes! Four more years of this!
You need to exit that bubble right now. You need to stop living in denial and face the truth which you know deep down is very, very real. Trying to soothe yourself with the facts – “77% of the electorate are women, people of color, young adults under 35 and Trump cant win a majority of any of them!” – or logic – “people aren’t going to vote for a buffoon or against their own best interests!” – is your brain’s way of trying to protect you from trauma. Like when you hear a loud noise on the street and you think, “oh, a tire just blew out,” or, “wow, who’s playing with firecrackers?” because you don’t want to think you just heard someone being shot with a gun. It’s the same reason why all the initial news and eyewitness reports on 9/11 said “a small plane accidentally flew into the World Trade Center.” We want to – we need to – hope for the best because, frankly, life is already a shit show and it’s hard enough struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck. We can’t handle much more bad news. So our mental state goes to default when something scary is actually, truly happening. The first people plowed down by the truck in Nice spent their final moments on earth waving at the driver whom they thought had simply lost control of his truck, trying to tell him that he jumped the curb: “Watch out!,” they shouted. “There are people on the sidewalk!”
theintercept |1. Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find — everyone except themselves — for last night’s crushing defeat of their party.
You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it’s impossible to express in words.
When a political party is demolished, the principal responsibility belongs to one entity: the party that got crushed. It’s the job of the party and the candidate, and nobody else, to persuade the citizenry to support them and find ways to do that. Last night, the Democrats failed, resoundingly, to do that, and any autopsy or liberal think piece or pro-Clinton pundit commentary that does not start and finish with their own behavior is one that is inherently worthless.
aljazeera |Trump is the late Shah of Iran and the late Saddam Hussein of
Iraq put together. Trump is every single Arab general or dictator the US
has befriended and kept in power.
These and scores of other nasty, brutish, vile and vulgar
dictators are - and have been - supported, endorsed, kept in power, and
used and abused to serve the US and its favourite settler colony Israel
military and economic might, and they all fall into the category of
Roosevelt's "our sons of bitches".
"Yes, it would be worthwhile to study clinically, in detail, the
steps taken by Hitler and Hitlerism," Aime Cesaire said famously in his
Discourse on Colonialism, "and to reveal to the very
distinguished, very humanistic, very Christian bourgeois of the 20th
century that without his being aware of it, he has a Hitler inside him,
that Hitler inhabits him, that Hitler is his demon, that if he rails
against him, he is being inconsistent and that, at bottom, what he
cannot forgive Hitler for is not crime in itself, the crime against man,
it is not the humiliation of man as such, it is the crime against the
white man, the humiliation of the white man, and the fact that he
applied to Europe colonialist procedures which until then had been
reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the coolies of India, and
the niggers of Africa."
Cesaire anticipated Trump and reaction to Trump too, for Trump is now
equally poised to do to America what Mussolini did in Libya, King
Leopoldo II in the Congo, the French in Algeria, the British in India,
the Spaniards in the Americas, the Israelis in Palestine. Obama is not
happy with Trump. He and his wife Michelle Obama and the entire
Democratic Party and liberal stalwarts like Elizabeth Warren are really
concerned what Trump might do to America what they have done to the
world at large.
Trump is the nasty Mr Hyde hiding inside the lovely looking Dr Barack Jekyll Obama, coming out unexpectedly for a house call.
Liberal America is up in arms capturing their Mr Hyde, hiding
it inside President Hillary Rodham Clinton in the White House so she can
do as US presidents habitually do, ripping the world to pieces and
keeping the liberal heart of this empire bleeding for "peace on earth"
just in time for next Christmas.
collective-evolution | Based on my research, the Bush and Obama
administrations seem to be very real war mongering radical regimes,
puppeteered, controlled and influenced by a higher power. Bottom line,
the way western media has depicted various Middle Eastern figures over
the past decade is partially twisted. We are and have been, I believe,
spoon fed lies on a daily basis when it comes to this topic.
I am not going to get into the politics
as to why he has been praised and hated by many from various parts of
the world, as this would require a very long article. I will instead
stick to this short list of 10 things about Gaddafi that “they” don’t
want you to know.
“They want to do to Libya what
they did to Iraq and what they are itching to do to Iran. They want to
take back the oil, which was nationalized by these country’s
revolutions. They want to re-establish military bases that were shut
down by the revolutions and to install client regimes that will
subordinate the country’s wealth and labor to imperialist corporate
interests. All else is lies and deception.” (source)(He also expressed these feelings in many of his speeches)
“Bad” human, “good” human, it doesn’t
matter. All humans have held light in their heart, no matter what they
have done, no matter how much “evil” they have shown, and no matter how
much we judge them. There are thing that they have shared that we can
learn from, regardless of actions that are considered to be radical and
extreme. It would be foolish of us to ignore these other sides.
***Much of this information was obtained
through Gaddafi’s Green Book, a document that outlines his political
philosophy. You can access it here.
*** There are also articles floating around on the internet like this that
claim some of these “facts” are lies. That could be the case, it’s hard
to know what to believe and that’s why I encourage more to focus on the
video below and take a look at some of Gaddafi’s interviews as well as
read his political philosophy that’s linked in the sources.
tomdispatch | Slaughter is all too human. Killing fields or mass burial grounds
are in the archeological record from the Neolithic period (6,000 to
7,000 years ago) on. Nonetheless, with the advent of modern weaponry and
industrial processes, the killing fields of the world have grown to
levels that can stagger the imagination. During World War II, when
significant parts of the planet, including many of the globe’s great
cities, were effectively reduced to ash, an estimated 60 million
people, combatants and civilians alike, died (including six million
Jews in the killing fields and ovens of Auschwitz, Belzec, Sobibor, and
elsewhere).
America’s wars in our own time have been devastating: perhaps three to four million Koreans, half of them civilians (and 37,000 Americans), as well as possibly a million
Chinese troops, died between 1950 and 1953 on a peninsula largely left
in rubble. In the Indochina wars of the 1960s and 1970s, the toll was
similarly mind-bending. In Vietnam, 3.8 million civilians and combatants are estimated to have perished (along with 58,000 Americans); in Laos, perhaps one million
people died; and in Cambodia, the U.S.-led part of that war resulted in
an estimated 600,000-800,000 dead, while the rebel Khmer Rouge murdered
another two to three million of their fellow countrymen in the
autogenocide that followed. In all, we’re talking about perhaps, by the
roughest of estimates, 12 million dead in Indochina in those years.
And that’s just to begin to explore some of the numbers from World
War II to the present. Nick Turse, who spent years retracing the
slaughter that was the Vietnam War for his monumental, award-winning book on war crimes there, Kill Anything That Moves,
has more recently turned to a set of killing fields that are anything
but history. In the last three years, he’s paid three visits to South
Sudan, the newest “country” on the planet, the one the U.S. midwifed into existence, producing a dramatic account of the ongoing internecine struggles there in his recent book Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan.
It’s a land that has experienced Syrian-level death counts with almost
no attention whatsoever from the rest of the world. Recently, he
returned to its killing fields and offers a chilling account of a
largely forgotten land in which slaughter is the essence of everyday
life. Tom
rawstory | “Snow White wasn’t afraid of apples before she bit into that really
bad one. But I’ll tell you, the next time an old lady comes at her with a
piece of fruit, Snow is going to get the f*ck out of there.”
That argument, he said, “has some real problems.” Many “good apples,”
he said, are forced to enforce bad laws and policies that
systematically persecute non-whites. Furthermore, police aren’t being
forthcoming with accurate statistics.
“Even some of the most basic questions are hard to answer,” he said,
as FBI Director James Comey pointed out when he said before Congress
that “We can’t have an open discussion because we don’t have the data.”
Oliver said that some schools are teaching students how to interact
with police in order to minimize the chance of being shot, which he
called “f*cking depressing,” but noted that this is the only class
students take where they don’t wonder when they’ll get to use these
lessons in real life.
The “bad apples” argument, he said, does a disservice to the issue and to the people who police are sworn to protect.
LATimes | A graphic police video that appears to show two Sacramento police
officers trying to run over a mentally ill homeless man with their
cruiser has sparked tough questions from both city leaders and some law
enforcement use-of-force experts who say it might be hard to justify the
behavior.
Patrol car recordings related to the July 11 fatal
shooting of Joseph Mann were released by police Sept. 20. But it wasn’t
until last week that enhanced audio from one dash camera inside a police
cruiser revealed one officer using an expletive and saying, “I’m going
to hit him.” The other officer can be heard saying, “Go for it" as the
patrol car turns sharply toward Mann.
Mann died less than a
minute later after officers chased him a short distance on foot and
opened fire, striking him 14 times. Police were pursuing Mann after
receiving reports of a man wielding a knife in the neighborhood.
Two
experts in police tactics said the video and audio recording raised
several troubling questions about the officers’ actions. They note that
for most of the pursuit, officers were safe inside their cars and no
members of the public appeared near Mann.
Ed Obayashi, a Plumas
County sheriff’s deputy and legal advisor on police use of force, called
what he saw on the videos "Lone Ranger-ish." He was most concerned by
the officer stating his intention to harm Mann half a block away from
the suspect, even before seeing what Mann was doing.
"I have a real issue with officers declaring their intent in the heat of the moment,” he said.
"The
issue [is] ... the use of lethal force with the radio car as a
weapon. That is tough to defend,” said Charles "Sid" Heal, a retired Los
Angeles County sheriff's commander.
“It is impossible to be
definitive because the situational awareness is developed beyond what
the video depicts, but without substantial provocation and urgency,
deciding to employ lethal force before confronting the suspect is going
to be difficult to defend,” Heal said.
Former Los Angeles Police
Department Capt. Greg Meyer, a prominent use-of-force expert, cautioned
that the officers' comments are open to interpretation. The remark "I'm
going to hit him" does not necessarily mean "run him over,” Meyer said
Sunday.
antimedia | Though the U.S. population accounts for only 4.4 percent of the world’s population, its prisons held 22 percent of the world’s prisoners at the end of October 2013, making America’s incarceration rate the highest in the world.
And while the cost of today’s federal prisons has surpassed the Federal Bureau Of Prisons’ $6.85 billion budget, state prisons are not far behind. With “[s]tate corrections budgets … nearly [quadrupling] in the past two decades,”
Vera Institute of Justice notes, each average inmate now costs
taxpayers over $31,000 per year. In 2010 alone, states spent over $5.4
billion on maintaining their prisons.
But while we know everything about government’s prison budgets, few
reports shed light on the hidden costs of high incarceration rates.
In order to help the U.S. population understand what mass
incarceration means to smaller communities, Washington University in St.
Louis conducted a study entitled “The Economic Burden of Incarceration in the U.S.,” led by doctoral student and certified public accountant Michael McLaughlin.
Researchers concluded the “annual economic burden” resulting
from the high rate of incarceration in America is an estimated $1.2
trillion, or nearly 6 percent of the GDP. This burden is also eleven
times higher than what governments take from taxpayers to support state
and federal prisons.
FP | If there is any singular feature that characterizes how many
Americans understand our national relation to violence, it is our
ingenuity at looking the other way, at siloing problems away from one
another, and at disavowing, sublimating, or repackaging our complicity
in the most easily observable patterns.
Signs of supposed progress in expressions of American violence often
disguise profound continuities. For example: The era of highly visible
public lynchings, which is estimated to have claimed some 5,000 lives,
has passed. Yet since then we have moved on to an institutionalized
death penalty regime, wherein states that previously had the highest numbers of lynchings
now have the greatest numbers of black people on death row. Both per
capita and in raw numbers, America’s prisons warehouse more human beings
than any other country on the planet, and its police demonstrate a clear pattern of racial bias in killing their fellow citizens at a rate stratospherically higher than that of any of its supposed peer nations. U.S. soldiers are deployed in some 135 countries, and the number of troops actually engaged in combat is almost certainly much higher than authorities are willing to admit. Meanwhile, America is far and away the world’s largest exporter of weapons, with the global arms industry’s largest and most profitable players based in the United States and reaping booming markets in conflict zones while being heavily subsidized by federal and state tax dollars.
Everyday Americans may not be “inherently more prone to violence,”
but our way of life is certainly structured around violence and around
selectively empowering, quarantining, directing, and monetizing it at
home and abroad. The majority of Americans apparently find no cognitive
dissonance in this arrangement, if we even perceive it at all. Instead,
we express bafflement and outrage that we are not something other than
what we are and what we have always been. Plumbing what lurks within the
“essential American soul,” a cynic might suggest, is a self-indulgent
exercise, a red herring. The better question might be whether we even
have one in the first place.
oftwominds |With Trump ascendant, the serfs are selecting the noble in the castle on the hill.Outrageous! Unheard of!
You
know the Establishment is freaking out when Establishment pundit
mouthpieces like David Brooks and Francis Fukuyama are freaking out
about Trump. David Brooks could not restrain his disdain for Trump
on a recent Charlie Rose segment, in which he intoned (and I paraphrase)
that Trump can't put eight words together without referring to himself,
i.e. he is not just a narcissist, but he is (take this, Trump!) a fragile narcissist-- unlike people like Brooks, of course, who are solid, secure, wise, well-educated, erudite water-carriers for the status quo.
Policy heavy-hitter Fukuyama confesses the political system in the U.S. is broken but
he can't understand why the citizenry has selected the "singularly
inappropriate instrument" (his description of Trump in the pages of Foreign Affairs) of Donald Trump to express their disdain for their neofeudal lords.
Well,
Mr, Fukuyama, let me explain it to you: the debt-serfs have selected
Trump precisely because the neofeudal financial-political nobility you
represent consider him a "singularly inappropriate instrument".
But, the pundits rage, he's a narcissist. He's fragile. (Now isn't that a
classic middle-brow slam from the hopelessly middle-brow ("I only sound
middle-brow due to my starring role in the mainstream media; actually
I'm brilliant beyond words") Brooks.
Policy guru Fukuyama has a much better turn of phrase, of course:
"narcissist" is way too common and middle-brow a critique at his level.
Thus we get "singularly inappropriate instrument" (ooh, now there's a
sharpened blade that slips easily between the ribs).
Dear Establishment pundits, flacks, hacks, sycophants, apparatchiks, toadies, lackeys, functionaries, leeches and apologists: the
more you label Trump as "singularly inappropriate," the more attractive
he becomes to the 81% who've been left behind by the
financialized-globalized-neofeudal order that has so greatly enhanced
your own wealth, influence and power.
thenation |At first, she used Facebook in that
cute, ho-hum way that most people do: selfies vamping new hairstyles,
jocular shots with her sisters and mom—nothing special. Not until just
after Christmas of 2014, and the debut of Selma. Within weeks
of seeing that electrifying portrayal of the civil-rights era, she
transformed her Facebook page. “I’m here to change history,” she
declaimed in a smartphone video posted in January 2015.
She apologized that she was about to go to bed. In a T-shirt and with
her hair pinned in rollers, she could not have seemed more
unself-conscious. Her face glowed with the smile that everyone who knew
her loved, and her voice was rich and friendly. “It’s time for me to do
God’s work,” she said. She called her new project #SandySpeaks.
In the next few months, she would post over two dozen videos.
Typically, they began with that smile and the greeting “Good morning, my
beautiful kings and queens!” Her links took readers to articles about
black history. (“No, this is American history!” she corrected.) She
posted about the economic crisis burdening young African Americans. She
suggested that white people get black friends and that blacks befriend
whites. That might be hard for African Americans to do, she said, but
God was testing their ability “to show love to somebody who can hate you
for no very reason.”
In the days after she died, #SandySpeaks went viral. Her videos
made her the first black casualty of police brutality whom the world
could know and deeply love postmortem. She’s been gone now for almost a
year, and we are still asking: #WhatHappenedtoSandraBland? Too often,
that question has been merely a call to conspiracy theory: about
monstrous jail guards murdering her, perfectly hiding the evidence, even
taping her eyes open after death to take a convincing mug shot. The
obsession over what transpired during three days at the end of her life
has left little room for considering the 28 years before. Black lives
matter—and hers was one of them, in its length, complication, and black
pain.
counterpunch | It is probably a truism that you do not know people you do not hang
out with very well. Maybe you read about them but if you happen to be
the person who is hired to write about them, they probably do not get
written about. You know why. Because they are not the people, you know
very well or at all.
Let us say we have the sort of generous plutocracy where about 20% of
the population, most of them the professional/gentrified class and a
few at the very top, the Equestrian/Patrician class. First, let me say,
that one fifth of a population of over 300 million is enough to keep the
Dow Jones doing its ups and downs. Also, members of this top 20% keep
the 80% informed, not about the 20 people who have wealth equal to 50%
of the population or about the consequences of this. Now the 80% who do
not know fuck all about Wall Street’s dark dealings have suddenly, in
the eyes of the 20%, emerged to push the presidential candidacies of
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
For the gentry, whether Democrat or Republican, this is like your
hired Nanny telling you to shut up, or a bunch of hooligans busting
through the gates of your “community” and wanting to do something other
than clean your pool. Somebody has shown up at the electoral dinner
party who wasn’t invited and whose name is unknown. This is not exactly
like Nat Turner showing up in a bloody rebellion but the sheer
unexpectedness of it is something like what 20% of the country is now
facing with the populist explosion in both parties.
So how come almost no one who represents what is going on knew this
would happen? Simple answer: they did not know these people were there
because they were not reporting anything about them and they were not
reporting anything about them because they were invisible to them. Look
at it this way: no one had been campaigning the bottom 40% hard
since…never. We have thrown into that group blue collar workers, the
once unionized manufacturing working class, the “salaried” class, and
now all, The Underclass. The classless, ungentrified. They have less
shopping power than the top 20%, they do not usually vote, they have no
one lobbying for them, they are not needed as laborers except for jobs
that cannot be sent out of the country, and they have almost no leverage
in a plutocracy. Right now, we have a burgeoning plutocracy still tied
to an electoral, representative democracy and so “one person one vote”
remains the solo bargaining chip of plutocracy’s “negative assets,” how The National Review refers to Trump’s followers.
theintercept |FOR DAYS NOW, American cable news has broadcast non-stop coverage of the horrific attack in Brussels. Viewers repeatedly heard from witnesses and from the wounded. Video was shown in a loop of the terror and panic when the bombs exploded. Networks dispatched their TV stars to Brussels, where they remain. NPR profiled the lives of several of the airport victims. CNN showed a moving interview with a wounded, bandage-wrapped Mormon American teenager speaking from his Belgium hospital bed.
All of that is how it should be: That’s news. And it’s important to
understand on a visceral level the human cost from this type of
violence. But that’s also the same reason it’s so unjustifiable, and so
propagandistic, that this type of coverage is accorded only to Western
victims of violence, but almost never to the non-Western victims of the
West’s own violence.
A little more than a week ago, as Mohammed Ali Kalfood reported in The Intercept, “Fighter jets from a Saudi-led [U.S. and U.K.-supported] coalition bombed a market in Mastaba, in Yemen’s northern province of Hajjah. The latest count indicates that about 120 people were killed, including more than 20 children,
and 80 were wounded in the strikes.” Kalfood interviewed 21-year-old
Yemeni Khaled Hassan Mohammadi, who said, “We saw airstrikes on a market
last Ramadan, not far from here, but this attack was the deadliest.”
Over the past several years, the U.S. has launched hideous
civilian-slaughtering strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria,
Somalia, Libya, and Iraq. Last July, The Interceptpublished a photo essay by Alex Potter of Yemeni victims of one of 2015’s deadliest Saudi-led, U.S.- and U.K.-armed strikes.
You’ll almost never hear any of those victims’ names on CNN, NPR, or
most other large U.S. media outlets. No famous American TV
correspondents will be sent to the places where those people have their
lives ended by the bombs of the U.S. and its allies. At most, you’ll
hear small, clinical news stories briefly and coldly describing what
happened — usually accompanied by a justifying claim from U.S.
officials, uncritically conveyed, about why the bombing was noble — but,
even in those rare cases where such attacks are covered at all,
everything will be avoided that would cause you to have any visceral or
emotional connection to the victims. You’ll never know anything about
them — not even their names, let alone hear about their extinguished
life aspirations or hear from their grieving survivors — and will
therefore have no ability to feel anything for them. As a result, their
existence will barely register.
WaPo | “Imbeciles” is the arch title that lawyer-journalist Adam Cohen has given his narrative ofBuck v. Bell,the 1927 casein which the justices approved Virginia’s involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded,” epileptic and other purportedly genetically “unfit” citizens.
The vote was 8 to 1. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s opinion dispensed with young Carrie Buck’s physical integrity in five paragraphs, the six cruelest words of which characterized Virginia’s interest in preventing Buck from burdening the state with her defective offspring: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
As Cohen shows, everything had to go wrong in the legal system to produce this horror, and everything did, starting with a crooked local process that declared Buck intellectually inferior based on her out-of-wedlock pregnancy — an indicator, state doctors averred, of promiscuity, which connoted feeblemindedness.
In fact, she had been raped by her foster parents’ nephew; the couple then sought to cure this embarrassment by having Buck sent away to the state colony for her “kind.”
Virginia established the institution to isolate those who supposedly threatened “racial hygiene” and prevent them from breeding. All told, more than 30 states had such laws during the mid-20th century, though only California surpassedVirginia’s 8,300involuntary sterilizations. It conductedroughly 20,000.
But the story isn’t over: Virginia has promised $25,000 per person in compensation butappropriated only enough for 16 awards. The Golden State has no compensation plan.
AndBuck v. Bell, though basically a dead letter, has never been formally overruled. It stands as a baleful monument — not to the court’s malice, but to the eternal flaws in human nature that cause people to commit injustice with the best of intentions.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...