Monday, May 26, 2014

What the Isla Vista Killings Have to Do With ‘Misogynist Extremism’ - Truthdig

How did the family miss getting better mental health treatment for their son? Surely, they weren't for lack of resources. Elliot Rodger was the son of Peter Rodger, assistant director of the Hunger Games, which featured a reality show-like death match among teens.

What the Isla Vista Killings Have to Do With ‘Misogynist Extremism’ - Truthdig


Ear to the Ground

What the Isla Vista Killings Have to Do With ‘Misogynist Extremism’

Email this item EMAIL    Print this item PRINT    Share this item... SHARE









Posted on May 25, 2014


  A woman looks at bullet holes Saturday in the window of IV Deli Mart where part of Friday night’s mass shooting took place in Isla Vista, Calif. AP/Jae C. Hong


When violent eruptions like the killings in Santa Barbara on May 23 happen, discussions in the news often—as they have in this case—focus on individual culpability as well as the assumed (and often substantiated) mental illness of the perpetrator. Familiar refrains about the loner, the loser and the loon are bandied about, and any explanation the killer might offer for the crime is sensationalized and then dismissed as the ravings of a disturbed, self-propelled menace—and thank goodness the authorities defused that human time bomb. Moving on.


Not so fast, says the New Statesman’s Laurie Penny in a forceful essay posted Sunday. What’s lost in recycling the lone-gunman trope in this instance is the chance to address systemic and ideological contributions to this particular young man’s rage, which Penny sums up with the term “misogynist extremism.” She offers this read of the Isla Vista tragedy before the news cycle rumbles on and 22-year-old Elliot Rodger is filed away as another sick unfortunate whose motivations and mentality, while supplying compelling fodder for belabored media analysis, are categorically incomprehensible to the sane population.
The ideology behind these attacks—and there is ideology—is simple. Women owe men. Women, as a class, as a sex, owe men sex, love, attention, “adoration,” in Rodger’s words. We owe them respect and obedience, and our refusal to give it to them is to blame for their anger, their violence—stupid sluts get what they deserve. Most of all, there is an overpowering sense of rage and entitlement: the conviction that men have been denied a birthright of easy power.
Capitalism commodifies that rage, monetizes it, disseminates it through handbooks and forums and crass mainstream pornography. It does not occur to these men that women might have experienced these very human things, too, because it does not occur to them that women are human, not really. Women are prizes to be caught and used or hags to be harassed or, occasionally, both.
Violent extremism always attracts the lost, the broken, young men full of rage at the hand they’ve been dealt. Violent extremism entices those who long to lash out at a system they believe has cheated them, but lack they courage to think for themselves, beyond the easy answers they are offered by peddlers of hate. Misogynist extremism is no different. For some time now misogynist extremism has been excused, as all acts of terrorism committed by white men are excused, as an aberration, as the work of random loons, not real men at all. The pattern is repeatedly denied: these are the words and actions of the disturbed.
The comments under Penny’s article are also worth a read and point out, in one example, how some media outlets have perpetuated problematic sexual power dynamics by highlighting Rodger’s virginity in their headlines.
—Posted by Kasia Anderson

Saturday, May 24, 2014

What Is the New Populism?

Frtm Portside:
Robert Borosage
May 22, 2014
Campaign for America's Future
 
This new populism is not something we have to invent. It is already stirring. It is Occupy Wall Street putting Gilded Age inequality at the center of our political debate. It’s exploited low-wage workers protesting fast-food restaurants in over 150 cities. Moral Monday protests against the assault on voting rights and the vulnerable mobilizing thousands in North Carolina and are spreading to Georgia and South Carolina.
 
 

,
 
 
The Princeton dictionary defines populism as “a political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.”
Not bad for a dictionary.
The New Populism arises from the stark truth about today’s America: Too few people control too much money and power, and they’re using that control to rig the rules to protect and extend their privileges.
This economy does not work for working people. This isn’t an accident. It isn’t an act of God. It isn’t due to forces of technology and globalization that can’t be changed. It isn’t a mistake. It is a power grab.
Decades of deregulation and top-end tax cuts, of soaring CEO pay and assaults on unions, of conservative myths and market fundamentalism have recreated Gilded Age extremes of wealth and power. Once more a new American plutocracy is emerging, doing what plutocrats always do – corrupting government to protect and expand their fortunes.
Americans don’t tolerate self-perpetuating aristocracies easily. Opposition to aristocratic wealth is as American as apple pie, dating back to the American Revolution, to Jefferson who warned about the “aristocracy of monied corporations.”
The Populist Tradition
The movement that gave populism its name swept out of the Plains states in the late 19th century as small farmers and steelworkers, day laborers and sharecroppers came together to take on the trusts, the railroads, the distant banks that were impoverishing them.
They railed against a government that handed public lands to the railroads, kept interest rates high, coddled monopolies and cracked the heads of workers trying to organize.
But in challenging the corrupted government, they came to a profound realization: that in the emerging industrial economy, simply cutting back government and limiting its powers would only free monopolies and banks to gouge even more from workaday Americans.
They concluded that they had to take back the government, turning it from the arm of the privileged to the people’s ally.
This led to two other challenges. First, they had to mobilize people to counter what Roosevelt called “organized money.”
And second, protest wasn’t enough. They had to invent new ideas, sweeping reforms to make the economy work for working people.
That populist movement lasted only a few years as an independent party, but the reforms it championed set the agenda for progressives for more than half a century – the minimum wage, the eight-hour workday, antitrust laws, the progressive income tax, a flat ban on subsidies to private corporations, and worker cooperatives. It mobilized millions around a new monetary policy. It pushed to expand democracy through direct elections of senators, initiatives and referenda. There’s a direct line from the Omaha Platform of the People’s Party in 1892 to FDR’s Four Freedoms and Economic Bill of Rights, to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, whose 50th anniversary we honor this week.
Today’s new populism stands in that tradition.
People aren’t worried that the rich have lots of money. This isn’t about envy; it is about power – that the privileged and entrenched interests rig the game, so the economy does not work for working people.
Billionaires like Sheldon Adelson toy with politicians as if they were miniature plastic puppets. Millionaires pay lower taxes than their secretaries. Multinationals stash profits abroad and pay lower taxes than mom-and-pop stores. After all, as hotel magnate Leona Helmsley famously said, “only little people pay taxes.”
Wall Street bankers – the folks whose excesses blew up the economy and cost millions their homes and their jobs – were bailed out. Now they are back, posturing as masters of the universe once more, apparently immune from prosecution for the epidemic of fraud they profited from. Jails, after all, are for little people.
The top 1 percent is capturing fully 95 percent of the nation’s income growth. CEO salaries are up and corporate profits hit record heights, while workers incomes are stagnating and insecurity is rising.
Mobilized People vs. Mobilized Money
What will it take to make this economy work for working people again? Mobilized people will need to take on organized money. Investments in areas vital to our future can be paid for with progressive taxes. But redistribution isn’t enough. Sweeping structural reforms – expanding shared security, making work pay, curbing Wall Street speculation, balancing trade and more – are essential to any new deal.
The American people get it. They don’t need to be convinced on the issues. CAF is issuing a report today at PopulistMajority.org that documents the simple fact: the majority of Americans are with us. Citizens United? Four of five Americans want it repealed, including three-fourths of Republicans. Raise the minimum wage? No question. Curb Wall Street? Lloyd Blankfein may think Goldman Sachs is doing “God’s work,” but Americans want more accountability. Protect Social Security and Medicare? Even Tea Partiers agree.
This new populism is not something we have to invent. It is already stirring. It is Occupy Wall Street putting Gilded Age inequality at the center of our political debate. It’s exploited low-wage workers protesting fast-food restaurants in over 150 cities. A left-right congressional coalition forming against continuing ruinous corporate trade policies. Moral Monday protests against the assault on voting rights and the vulnerable mobilizing thousands in North Carolina and are spreading to Georgia and South Carolina. A feisty citizen’s opposition growing in rural areas to block big oil’s effort to frack their lands.
We can see it in the culture. The new Pope condemning the modern “idolatry of money” and the “tyranny of unfettered capitalism.” Or bizarrely, a 685-page book by an obscure French economist about wealth inequality heading the best-seller lists along with Danielle Steele’s steamy new novel, “First Sight.”
Forceful leaders are emerging like senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders; Rep. Keith Ellison; New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. The demand for change is rising from activists in the heart of the Obama majority, the rising American electorate of millennials, people of color and single women that have fared the worst in this economy. The organized base of the Democratic Party, from unions to community and civil rights groups, women and environmentalists, are pushing an agenda far bolder and broader than that now before the public.
Democrats in the Senate have now moved to a “fair shot” agenda, calling for raising the minimum wage, pay equity, paid family leave, and lowering student loan interest rates paid for by taxing millionaires. A Forbes Magazine columnist warns the GOP that they can’t ignore the new “populist wave.” Sen. Rand Paul argues that Republicans can’t simply be the party of “fat cats, rich people and Wall Street.” It might be too late for that.
The Challenge
Washington is gridlocked by Republican obstruction, so people are driving reforms from the bottom up. The minimum wage is being hiked from Hawaii to Maryland to Seattle, where it is headed to $15 an hour. Californians voted to tax the rich to invest in schools. Cleveland uses government procurement to support locally based, worker-owned cooperatives. Over a hundred cities have joined the call for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Pundits suggest that Republicans have the advantage in the low-turnout 2014 elections, with the Democratic base discouraged by the lousy economy. Elites in both parties warn against a new populism, as if the old politics held any answers for people.
But this isn’t about one election or one leader. The pressure for change is only beginning. People are waking up to the fact that the game is rigged. They won’t tolerate it for long. It will take muckraking, organizing, teaching, protests and demonstrations, new ideas and new allies. It will face fierce resistance. The wealthy and entrenched interests will spend lavishly to defend their privileges. Our system is designed to clog change, not facilitate it.
But when the people speak, politicians listen. And this new populist movement has only just begun. The stakes are fundamental – whether the democracy can in fact check the power of great wealth and entrenched interests. This is the challenge facing our democracy and for each one of us privileged to be its citizens
* These remarks were prepared for delivery at The New Populism Conference in Washington, May 22, 2014.
 
 

Monday, April 21, 2014

Your Cellphone Could Be a Major Health Risk, and the Industry Could Be a Lot More Upfront About It

(AlterNet article on cellphone EMF risks follows these links re proposed legislation or regulations.)
There have been attempts in U.S. cities and states to protect against cellphone radiation. But there have been ups and downs with these attempts.
Legislation has passed in Maine, but in a March 2014 legislation review, key Democrats switched sides after the bill passed both houses and killed the bill.
Yet legislation was passed and later killed in San Francisco in May 2013.
(Of related interest: FCC finally opens review of cell phone safety standards Nine months after the FCC said it would take a closer look at its standards for cell phone safety to see if the agency needs to revise the 15-year-old guidelines, it finally opened the official inquiry. CNet, March 29, 2013)  
CNN Anderson Cooper report:


From Cellphone Radiation Digest  

Call for Action to Reduce Harm from Mobile Phone Radiation, January 24, 2013

Europe has issued a warning that users globally should heed.
The European Environment Agency published a major report today to alert governments about the need to attend to early warning signs about technology health risks, including mobile phones.
The 750-page volume, “Late Lessons from Early Warnings,” includes twenty new case studies and has major implications for policy, science and society.  Although the report was prepared by the European Environment Agency to provide guidance to the EU nations, its implications are global. 
 . . . .
Martin Blank, Aternet.com
The science is becoming clearer: Sustained EMF exposure is dangerous.
The following is an excerpt from  “Overpowered: What Science Tells Us About the Dangers of Cell Phones and Other Wifi-age Devices” by Martin Blank, PhD. Published by Seven Stories Press, March 2014. ISBN 978-1-60980-509-8. All rights reserved

Key excepts, but read the valuable book:
You may not realize it, but you are participating in an unauthorized experiment—“the largest biological experiment ever,” in the words of Swedish neuro-oncologist Leif Salford. For the first time, many of us are holding high-powered microwave transmitters—in the form of cell phones—directly against our heads on a daily basis.
Cell phones generate electromagnetic fields (EMF), and emit electromagnetic radiation (EMR). They share this feature with all modern electronics that run on alternating current (AC) power (from the power grid and the outlets in your walls) or that utilize wireless communication. Different devices radiate different levels of EMF, with different characteristics.
What health effects do these exposures have?
Therein lies the experiment.
 . . . .
What we know
The science to date about the bioeffects (biological and health outcomes) resulting from exposure to EM radiation is still in its early stages. We cannot yet predict that a specific type of EMF exposure (such as 20 minutes of cell phone use each day for 10 years) will lead to a specific health outcome (such as cancer). Nor are scientists able to define what constitutes a “safe” level of EMF exposure.
However, while science has not yet answered all of our questions, it has determined one fact very clearly—all electromagnetic radiation impacts living beings. As I will discuss, science demonstrates a wide range of bioeffects linked to EMF exposure. For instance, numerous studies have found that EMF damages and causes mutations in DNA—the genetic material that defines us as individuals and collectively as a species. Mutations in DNA are believed to be the initiating steps in the development of cancers, and it is the association of cancers with exposure to EMF that has led to calls for revising safety standards. This type of DNA damage is seen at levels of EMF exposure equivalent to those resulting from typical cell phone use.
The damage to DNA caused by EMF exposure is believed to be one of the mechanisms by which EMF exposure leads to negative health effects. Multiple separate studies indicate significantly increased risk (up to two and three times normal risk) of developing certain types of brain tumors following EMF exposure from cell phones over a period of many years. One review that averaged the data across 16 studies found that the risk of developing a tumor on the same side of the head as the cell phone is used is elevated 240% for those who regularly use cell phones for 10 years or more. An Israeli study found that people who use cell phones at least 22 hours a month are 50% more likely to develop cancers of the salivary gland (and there has been a four-fold increase in the incidence of these types of tumors in Israel between 1970 and 2006). And individuals who lived within 400 meters of a cell phone transmission tower for 10 years or more were found to have a rate of cancer three times higher than those living at a greater distance. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated EMF—including power frequencies and radio frequencies—as a possible cause of cancer.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

As Fracking-Quake Link Becomes Clearer, Ohio Requires Stricter Seismic Monitoring

In the context of increased seismic activity, Ohio is citing fracking as the "probable" cause for several earthquakes in March, 2014. This is all the more reason to have regulations against fracking. From ThinkProgress:

As Fracking-Quake Link Becomes Clearer, Ohio Requires Stricter Seismic Monitoring

BY JOANNA M. FOSTER ON APRIL 15, 2014 AT 5:05 PM

Fracking was the “probable” cause of a series of small earthquakes that shook northeast Ohio last month, state officials announced on Friday. This is the first time gas drilling in Ohio and local quakes have been linked. Previous studies have only found connections between the underground injection of fracking wastewater and tremors.
In March, Houston-based Hilcorp Energy was ordered to halt work at seven wells in Poland Township, near the Pennsylvania border after two small earthquakes, 3.0 and 2.6, rattled nearby residents. With no wastewater injection sites nearby, investigators focused on whether fracking itself had caused the ground to shake, and they now believe it did.
The news came as the Ohio Department of Natural Resources released strict new guidelines for monitoring seismic activity in the state.
The rules will require companies to install seismic monitors before beginning to drill within three miles of a known fault or in an area that has experienced seismic activity greater than a 2.0 magnitude. If seismic monitors detect a quake of 1.0 or more, regulators will suspend fracking and investigate whether drilling is connected to the quake. Humans can generally feel earthquakes of magnitude 3 and above.
A recent article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer pointed out that the threshold for halting drilling operations was low enough, at magnitude 1, that the Seattle Seahawks Fans might jeopardize drilling. At the NFL playoffs, 67,000 football fans at CenturyLink Field managed to create just such a tiny quake by stamping their feet. This talking point has already been adopted by those who oppose the new rules.
[Go to the original ThinkProgress article for continuation of the story.]

Monday, April 14, 2014

Why Do Bosses Want Their Employees’ Salaries to Be Secret?

This is all about breaking unions, breaking worker solidarity and consciousness. From The Nation.
Opening excerpt.


Michelle Chen
April 11, 2014
The Nation
In a narrow vote this week, the Senate politely smothered the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have protected workers’ rights to compare and discuss their wages at work. Aimed at dismantling workplace “pay secrecy” policies, the legislation built on the 2009 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which strengthens safeguards for women and other protected groups against wage discrimination.
Asking someone at a party how much they make in a year might get you a weird look. Asking someone about their salary at work might get you fired. Seem unfair? Don’t bother complaining: Washington just once again reaffirmed the boss’s inalienable right to punish workers for talking about whether they’re being treated fairly.
In a narrow vote this week, the Senate politely smothered the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have protected workers’ rights to compare and discuss their wages at work. Aimed at dismantling workplace “pay secrecy” policies, the legislation built on the 2009 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which strengthens safeguards for women and other protected groups against wage discrimination. Both measures aim to fill gaps in the enforcement of longstanding civil rights laws, which, half a century on, are still failing to combat the most insidious forms of discrimination—the subtle labor violations that grease the gears of economic inequality. Wage discrimination has persisted in large part because workers are routinely discouraged or outright banned from discussing compensation levels with coworkers.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would have shielded workers from retaliation if they discuss their salaries with coworkers. Employers would have had to “prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons,” according to the National Partnership for Women & Families. In addition, the bill would have closed disparities in the legal remedies available for violations of the Equal Pay Act, so workers could claim the same kinds of damages provided under other wage discrimination laws. And overall, workers would have had an easier time seeking compensation in federal court, rather than the bureaucracy of the National Labor Relations Board, which tends to yield weaker penalties.
The bill would also have directed the Labor Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to proactively gather data and investigate wage discrimination on a broader scale.
To partially offset the Senate defeat, President Obama signed two executive orders that placed similar mandates on federal contractors, but while that would cover a substantial chunk of the workforce, many millions of workers may remain effectively gagged at work.
Yet making pay fair is not just a matter of correcting payrolls. Despite all the handwringing on Capitol Hill around the oft-cited seventy-seven-cents-to-a-dollar figure, the restrictions of speech in the workplace attest to a more systemic power imbalance.
According to a 2003 study, “Over one-third of private sector employers…recently surveyed admitted to having specific rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with coworkers. In contrast, only about 1 in 14 employers have actively adopted a ‘pay openness’ policy,” which explicitly protects workplace discussion of wages. A 2011 survey estimated that 50 percent of workers are subject to some kind of restriction on discussing their pay with coworkers—slightly more women than men, with the largest concentration among private sector workers (about 60 percent, compared to less than 20 percent of public workers). The gaps vary along demographic lines: women workers, single parents and married childless women tend to face higher rates of these secrecy controls than do married mothers. And although civil servants generally had far lower rates of pay secrecy, the practice was more prevalent among women in the public sector.

Many of these workers will never even know that they’ve unfairly benefited from or suffered from unequal pay. Ultimately, the big winner in this game of secrecy is the boss, who profits directly from the ignorance and pliability of workers who don’t grasp their own economic situation.
So there’s a gap between what’s fair and what’s legal. Discussing wages in a private workplace isn’t technically covered by any First Amendment guarantee against censorship, but the issue of pay secrecy raises crucial questions about workers’ freedom to learn and communicate about their labor conditions.
In unionized workplaces, where there is additional protection for organizing-related activities, the National Labor Relations Board and the civil courts have consistently sided with workers, ruling that under the National Labor Relations Act, wage discussions should be considered “concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

 . . . . 
Read the rest of the article at The Nation.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription to The Nation for just $9.50!

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Shocking Decline of Real Value of America's Minimum Wage

Alex Planes, Feb. 16, 2014 from the Motley Fool column.

It is apparent that the golden years were roughly from 1950 to 1980. The graphs show how far we have declined since the loss of industrial labor, the decline of organized labor (read here, here and here), the losses since the onset of the deregulation craze beginning in the 1970s and the onset of globalization/free trade agreements, essential background issues that the article was silent on.

The Shocking Decline of America's Real Minimum Wage in 9 Charts

Click here to access the original article, text.

 

 

Click here to access the original article, text.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Don't Forget the New Victims of NYPD Violence in the Occupy Wall Street Protests

A very good new site, Activist Post, has an article on a woman recently sexually assaulted by the NYPD, yet who the NYPD is charging with felony assault.

New York City's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, needs to demonstrate a change and stop the New York Police Department's persecution of political dissenters and gratuitous sexual assault. He is to be applauded for changing the police department's policy regarding stop and frisk. He must extend that spirit toward reforming how the police department interacts with protestors.

Appeal to New York City public advocate Letitia James on her behalf, one Centre Street, 15h Floor, New York, NY, 10007 (212) 669-7200

Woman Faces 7 Years in Prison After Altercation With NYPD At Occupy Protest

Drop the charges against Cecily McMillan. McMillan was sexually assaulted, beaten unconscious and into seizures by NY Police, but the city is charging her with felony assault over the incident.

Cecily McMillan, image source
Kevin Zeese
Activist Post

Occupy participant Cecily McMillan is being prosecuted for felony police assault and may face up to 7 years in prison. In reality, it is the NYPD that should be on trial for their assault on McMillan. The trial has already been delayed because of the credibility of the arresting officer; however, New York City should review the case and drop all charges against McMillan.
On the Sixth anniversary of Occupy Wall Street Cecily McMillan arrived at midnight to Zuccotti Park to meet some friends and go out to celebrate her birthday. Instead, she would find herself unconscious, in seizures and badly bruised.

McMillan was not in Zuccotti to protest, but she arrived as the police began to violently break up the crowd. She felt someone grab her right breast she involuntarily swung her elbow around and hit the offender in the face. It turned out to be an undercover police officer, Grantley Bovell. She was violently arrested, knocked to the ground, unconscious and began suffering seizures while she was handcuffed. It would be 15 to 20 minutes before an ambulance arrived. Photos of McMillan show bruises from fingers that grabbed her breast, a swollen eye and other bruises.

Officer Bovell has some serious problems in his history as a police officer including alleged police abuse. As PolicyMic reports:
Officer Bovell has been accused of brutality before. He was named in a lawsuit in the Bronx Supreme Court, filed by Reginald Wakefield, a young black man who was 17 at the time, that alleges the police maliciously used an unmarked police car as a weapon to knock him off his dirt bike in the course of a pursuit. In court filings, Wakefield said his nose was broken, two teeth were knocked out and his forehead lacerated following the encounter with Bovell and other officers on March 21, 2010. The suit is still active, according to court records.
And, now it has come out that he has some serious credibility problems, as a result if he testifies his credibility will be put in doubt. The District Attorney has provided McMillan’s defense attorney, Martin Stolar, documents that show Bovell was part of 500 officers tied to the infamous 2011 Bronx ticket-fixing scandal. Stolar told PolicyMic: “He was involved and internally disciplined.”

If this case goes to trial the NYPD should be put on trial by the defense and the full embarrassment of its response to Occupy Wall Street exposed. The NYU School of Law and Fordham Law School, issued a detailed report that found that the NYPD consistently wielded excessive, aggressive force with batons, pepper spray, scooters and horses. In addition there were mass arrests that were often arbitrary, gratuitous and illegal, with most charges later dismissed. NYPD has been sued by occupy protesters resulting in settlements of $50,000, $82,000 with more still pending. NYPD abuse of protesters is a long-term problem as the 2004 protests against the RNC shows. In that case the largest settlement for police abuse in history was announced last month -- $18 million. Videos show how the NYPD randomly picked people out of crowds during the occupy protests even if they were doing nothing illegal or were even involved in the protest.

And, it seems that there was a consistent practice of New York police officers grabbing women’s breasts. As anthropologist David Graeber wrote:
Arbitrary violence is nothing new. The apparently systematic use of sexual assault against women protestors is new. I’m not aware of any reports of police intentionally grabbing women’s breasts before March 17, but on March 17 there were numerous reported cases, and in later nightly evictions from Union Square, the practice became so systematic that at least one woman told me her breasts were grabbed by five different police officers on a single night (in one case, while another one was blowing kisses.) The tactic appeared so abruptly, is so obviously a violation of any sort of police protocol or standard of legality, that it is hard to imagine it is anything but an intentional policy.
But, put all of that history of NYPD violence against citizens and sexual assaults against women aside and just look at the McMillan case. Martin Stolar points out in a video that in order for there to be a crime there must be criminal intent. McMillan did not intend to assault a police officer. Her breast was grabbed from behind by an undercover officer, she reacted involuntarily by swinging around and hitting him with her elbow. An involuntarily reaction is not intent to assault someone. If there was any intent to assault someone it came from Officer Bovell, not from Cecily McMillan.

The New York District Attorney would be wise to drop all charges against McMillan before the trial begins on March 3. With the disclosures about Bovell’s past alleged police abuse and involvement in the ticket fixing scandal, their key witness is no longer credible. The history of police violence and sexual assault against woman adds to the credibility of the allegations of McMillan against Bovell and they are supported by photographs and videos. And, finally, the facts in this case do not support a criminal prosecution as there was no criminal intent.

It is time for the criminal charges against Cecily McMillan to be dropped. The NYPD has done enough damage, the District Attorney should not be adding to these injustices.

Kevin Zeese serves as Attorney General in the Justice Branch of the Green Shadow Cabinet

For more on this case see:

Justice for Cecily, the support group working for justice in the Cecily McMillan case.

Bizarre Prosecution Of Cecily McMillan For Police Assault Delayed, Popular Resistance by Kevin Zeese, February, 14, 2014.

This Occupy Activist Could Go to Prison for Standing Up to the Cop Who Grabbed Her Breast, PolicyMic by Peter Rugh, February 13, 2014.

Cecily McMillan's Occupy trial is a huge test of U.S. civil liberties. Will they survive?, The Guardian by Chase Madar, February 13, 2014.

Occupy Protester Who Suffered Seizure During Arrest Stands Accused Of Felony, The Gothamist by Christopher Robbins, February 10, 2014.

Activist Allegedly Beaten Into Unconsciousness By Police Faces 7 Years In Prison For Elbowing Cop, Think Progress by Aviva Shen, February 10, 2014.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

"A Place at the Table" - Film on Hunger in America - My Favorite Line From This Trailer? ‘If Another Country Was Doing This To Our Kids, We’d Be At War.’

This movie was released last year but can now be streamed online. It's one of the best summaries of a growing problem we have in this country that is totally solvable.