• About
  • Documentary Films
  • Index
  • Nota bene
  • Protect and Serve
  • Readings

Lumpenproletariat

~ free speech

Lumpenproletariat

Tag Archives: San Francisco Bay Area

Heterodox Economist Dr. Richard Wolff On the Philosophy of Hegel

17 Fri Feb 2017

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, Civic Engagement (Activism), Democratic Party (USA), Dr. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), Philosophy, Political Science, Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

CNN, Donald John Trump (b. 1946), Dr. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), Dr. Richard David Wolff (b. 1942), Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi BA (b. 1940), San Francisco Bay Area, Switchback Brewing Co. (Burlington VT), Trevor Hill (NYU student)

hegel_portrait_by_schlesinger_1831LUMPENPROLETARIAT—GONZO:  Whilst studying heterodox (and neoclassical) economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (which houses one of the USA’s most radical economics departments), one of the most influential philosophers, which came up in many discussions with graduate students around campus, is Hegel.  In a special supplemental broadcast of free speech radio’s Economic Update, economist professor Dr. Richard Wolff has improvised a second hour of programming to expand the weekly hour-long broadcast (and pick up the slack for the absent sports-and-politics show The Collision). [1]  Listen (and/or download) here. [2]

Messina

***

ECONOMIC UPDATE—[17 FEB 2017; 12:00 PST]  [musical break:  instrumental, ‘Eastern’ jazz ensemble] 

[KPFA announcement:  KPFA meetings are posted on KPFA Event Calendar at least a few days in advance, etc.  Submit email to meetings@kpfa.org to receive correspondence regarding KPFA’s democratic governance structure, by which KPFA listener-supporters are the owner-operators of the local and national free speech Pacifica Radio Network.]  (c. 2:30) 

[Economic Update theme music:  John Lee Hooker and Santana]  (c. 3:30)

[Dr. Richard Wolff’s opening remarks.]

DR. RICHARD WOLFF:  “Welcome, friends, to another edition of Economic Update, a weekly programme devoted to the economic dimensions of our lives, our incomes, our debts, those coming down the road to confront us, and those already changing the lives of our children.

“I’m your host, Richard Wolff.  I’ve been a professor of economics all my adult life.  And, currently, I teach at the New School University in New York City.

Weekly Economics News Updates

[Switchback Brewery (Burlington, Vermont) became a Worker Self-Directed Enterprise (or workers’ cooperative), upon the coming retirement of the two founding members, who decided to democratise the workplace by transferring their shares to the workers.  Three cheers for Switchback Brewery for bringing democracy to the workplace!]  (c. 7:40)

[snip]

[Next segment, on Trump administration and profiteers, coal corporations, and coal workers (coal miners).]  (c. 15:13)

[snip]

Democratic Party Apologia for Anti-democratic Capitalism

DR. RICHARD WOLFF:  “Well, an interesting thing happened a week, or so, ago.  It was captured on video; and, so, it became a kind of viral story.  And it is one, that I want to comment on, in case you missed it.

“A young man at a town hall organised by the network CNN had a confrontation, a very mild and polite one, between a young college student, Trevor Hill, and the leader, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, from the Bay Area in California.  Young Mr. Hill cited a poll taken last spring by Harvard University‘s Institute of Politics.  And it showed that a random sample of young Americans from the ages of 18 to 29—not just Democrats or anything, but a random collection—no longer support the system of capitalism.  They are, either, in favour of socialism or have serious doubts and criticisms of capitalism.

“And young Mr. Hill‘s question to Nancy Pelosi was:

Are the Democrats, your party, Ms. Pelosi, willing to move to the left to accommodate, to respond to, to reflect the views of the young people that are, of course, growing into the majority of American people with the passage of time?

“Nancy Pelosi‘s response was very quick.  And I’m going to quote it to you.  Quote:

Well, I thank you for your question.

“She said and, then, continuing—her words:

But I have to say we’re capitalist.  And that’s just the way it is.

“End of quotation.  I think Mrs. Pelosi is quite right.  The Democratic Party is capitalist, in the sense that it accepts, supports, endorses, encourages—all that kind of word—the capitalist economic system, that is dominant here in the United States.  And, in that way, the Democratic Party is exactly like the Republican Party, which feels the same way about the capitalist system.  And I mean all of the Republican Party—the George Bush type of Republican Party, the Paul Ryan type of Republican Party, and the Donald Trump type of Republican Party.  Indeed, all three of those names—Bush, Ryan, Trump—are, themselves, capitalists.  And, so, it’s hardly surprising.  (c. 18:35)

“But this raises a question.

What does it say about a society, like the United States, that the two major parties, that completely and absolutely dominate the federal government—the state government and, basically, most local governments in the United States—that these two parties have no substantial difference about the capitalist system?  That the leaders of both parties would respond just as Mrs. Pelosi did, by saying: Of course, we’re capitalist.  And that’s just the way it is.

“Here’s what it tells you.  There is no opposition to capitalism in the United States, that takes a political form.  We know from the Harvard poll, that Trevor Hill quoted that there’s lots of opposition to capitalism in the society.  We know that millions of people voted for Bernie Sanders, who described himself as a democratic socialist.  So, we know that there’s widespread feelings, views, attitudes, that are critical of capitalism, and that would like a better or different economic system in its place. [2]

“So, here’s what we’ve got:  A society with grave doubts, widespread criticism of capitalism, but it lacks any political party able, or willing, to express, to organise, to mobilise that perspective.  And that makes the United States different from most capitalist economies.  That is, most other countries, in which the capitalist system prevails—because in most other countries, where capitalism prevails, there are political parties, that are critical of capitalism, opposed to capitalism, pursuing other systems—they are stronger in some countries and weaker in others.  They carry names, like socialist, communist, anti-capitalist, and so on.  But the United States lacks a political party, that could put forward a critique of capitalism and a programme for moving to another system.  And, yet, there’s every evidence that, if such a party emerged, and if it positioned itself that way, it would have, very quickly, a very sizable constituency, as young Trevor Hill and his question clearly implied.  (c. 21:46)

Trevor Hill (NYU student) challenging Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi [3]

“It makes one wonder whether the absence of such an anti-capitalist political party in the United States really has very little to do with the population’s feelings, views, needs, or desires, and a great deal to do with the concerted effort by Republicans and Democrats to avoid any competition from such a party.

“Please keep that in mind the next time you hear a leading Republican and/or Democrat give one of those July 4th speeches about the virtues of competition, please keep in mind how those very same people, have been and, continue to do everything in their power to avoid, repress, suppress, anything and everything, that moves in the direction of producing a party, that would respect and reflect huge anti-capitalist political perspectives.  That’s what was behind the squelching of the Occupy Wall Street movement under Obama.  That was, likewise, the squelching of Bernie Sanders movement by the Clinton part of the Democratic Party, of which Mrs. Pelosi was a leading, and is a leading, member.  It is important to keep that in mind.  (c. 23:39)

A critique of the financial advisor industry in the context of eroded, pillaged, and stolen pension systems

“Our next update has to do with a move by the Trump administration this last week to direct the Labor Department to review an Obama administration rule governing financial advisors.  Let me explain.

[snip]  (c. 29:00)

Statistics show immigrants actually increase value of property and community

[Statistics valorise immigrant communities.]  [snip]  (c. 31:00)

[Next, Dr. Richard Wolff appealed to listeners to ‘please share Economic Update and its content’ with their friends and family, on their social media, blogs, websites, and their local free speech radio and TV stations, and so on.  Dr. Wolff encouraged listeners, as he does regularly, to also partner with Economic Update to help inform and educate the public on questions of economics and ‘the economic dimensions of our lives’.  (Economic Update began broadcasting in March of 2011.)]  (c. 37:20)

On Hegel’s Concept of Slave and Master

DR. RICHARD WOLFF:  “Alright.  I wanna turn to an unusually philosophic subject for the first of our major discussions.  And I wanna begin by reminding you, if you’re not familiar with it and I’m explaining it, perhaps, for the first time.

“A remarkable piece of philosophic reflection by, perhaps, the greatest German philosopher ever.  His name was Hegel—H-E-G-E-L.  And, perhaps, the most famous thing he ever wrote—and he wrote quite a bit—and much of it has been extremely influential in the history of the world over the last few centuries.  But one of the most important pieces he wrote was called The Dialectic of the Master and the Slave.  And it was an exploration, a few pages long—it’s not very difficult—about the relationship between master and slave because he felt that it had not been properly understood.  And he wanted to explain how he understood it.  (c. 38:34)

“His idea is fundamentally simple, that the mistake has been to imagine that because the master dominates the slave that the line of dependency is one direction: The slave depends on the master. The master orders, controls, directs, literally owns the slave. The master is active. The slave is passive. The master controls. The slave is dependent.

“The point Hegel wants to make is that this is only a one-sided perspective.  It turns out, it runs the other way, too.  What I mean is that the master is dependent on the slave, also.  And here’s how it works.  Precisely because the master can get the slave to do virtually everything he needs, because that’s what a slave means—that the slave is so dependent, the slave is so subordinate, the slave is so slavish—that the master can compel the slave to do everything, and in so doing the master becomes dependent on the slave doing everything for him.  And, thereby, the very mastery of the slave makes the master the slave of the slave, the slave of his own dependence on the slave.  Or, to say the same thing as simply as I know how, the line of dependency runs both ways.

“The illusion of the master, that he is in charge, is smashed the minute the slave declares he’s not gonna do it anymore.  He refuses to continue to be a slave, whereupon the master discovers his dependence on the slave.  And, in that act of rebellion, the slave confronts what Hegel is teaching, that the dependence runs both ways, that the slave and the master are caught in a relationship they both depend on.  (c. 41:20)

“Now, why do I talk about this?  Because it gives us an insight into how capitalism, among other systems, works.  Let’s show you that.  The capitalist needs the worker.  But the capitalist also dominates the worker.  The capitalist decides whether the worker he employs has a job or not.  That’s an enormous power.  The capitalist pays the worker, or not.  The capitalist profits from the worker.  The worker is dependent for income, for the work, for his or her position in the world, ability to feed their children.  The dependence of the worker on the capitalist can appear to be one-sided, can appear to be slavish in many respects.  And many workers have felt that.  And, indeed, the capitalist acts in a dominating way towards the employee all the time.  Let me just give you the two big examples.  (c. 42:45)

“Capitalists are forever trying to replace workers with machines, to get rid of the worker, to save having to pay the worker any wage by replacing the costly worker with a less costly computer or a less costly, at least in the long run, robot.  The capitalist is always, in a way, threatening the worker with unemployment by having the worker replaced with a machine. [4]

“Likewise, the worker is threatened by his or her employer because the employer has the power, as an employer, to relocate production. [5]  That is, to move it.  To move it where?  For example, where wages are lower—threaten your job by moving to China or India or Brazil or Mexico.  There’s another way that a capitalist can threaten your job.  If he chooses not to move the production to another country to catch the low wages there, he can bring the low-wage people here—immigration—and get away with paying them less money for the work, that he would have had to pay a native-born person here.  (c. 44:15)

“So, capitalists are always squeezing, threatening, calculating, conniving, to save on labour costs, which threaten the worker.  The system compels capitalists to do that.  They are competing with other capitalists, who are doing it.  So, they have to also.  They depend on profits to stay in business.  And profits can be enhanced by automating your workers or relocating to lower wages.  But here comes, now, the other side, that Hegel alerts us to look for.

“The more successful the employer is replacing workers with machines, so he doesn’t have to pay those workers wages anymore, moving production out of the country—firing the workers here in the United States, for example, and hiring ‘less expensive’ workers in Asia, Africa, Latin America, or where ever—the more the capitalist does that, the more he is forced to confront his dependency, as a capitalist on the workers because, having cut the wages or removed the wages of workers, they lack the ability to buy.  To buy what?  To buy what the capitalist has to sell, if he’s going to stay in business.  (c. 45:47)

“Herein lies what Hegel would call the contradiction—the two-way relationship of dependence.  The worker depends on the capitalist, to be sure, like the master depends on the slave.  But the master—excuse me.  The slave depends on the master.  That’s how the worker depends on the capitalist.  But the reverse also holds.  The capitalist depends on the worker.  He depends on workers to produce whatever it is he has to sell.  But he also depends on workers to buy what it is he has to sell.  And, if they cannot, or if they do not, then the capitalist is as destroyed, as a capitalist, as the master would be destroyed if the slaves were unable or unwilling to work.

“And, you know, it runs the other way.  Workers know, in some sense, even if they can’t say it in so many words, that that capitalist depends on them, that in a way they have the upper hand, even if it seems that the capitalist does.  How workers have the upper hand?  How do workers make capitalists depend on them?  Well, let’s quickly review.  (c. 47:13)

“First of all, the workers are the majority.  The capitalists are the minority, as it was with masters and slaves.  And workers long ago struggled to get universal suffrage, to be able to vote, to make political leadership, at least, subject to [the democratic principle of] one person, one vote.  And that gives the masses the power, through the vote, to confront the masters, the employers.  And workers use that power, often to choose someone from government, that the employers were at best neutral about or very skeptical about.  That’s what the workers in England did when they voted to leave the European Union.  And that’s what many workers did in this country when they voted for Mr. Trump after the business establishment made it clear they were, at best, of mixed minds about him. [6]  (c. 48:25)

“Here’s another way, that capitalists depend on workers.  The vast bulk of the police and the army, the enforcers of the rules of capitalism, are working people.  They are not, themselves, capitalists.  And, so, the capitalists depend on the army functioning the way they want, and the police functioning the way they want.  That’s a dependence of the capitalist on the powers of enforcement, that are workers.  But, I’m not done.

“Here’s another way workers reveal the dependence of the capitalist.  They can go on strike.  They can say to the capitalist:  We won’t work. And, you know what, Mr. Capitalist? You don’t make any money. You don’t make any profit. You depend on us, therefore, for your survival, rather like a master depends on the slave, who he has enslaved to do everything for that master. So, it turns out, the capitalist depends on the worker.  (c. 49:40)

“And, then, there’s that last little item, that historically needs to be included.  Workers can sabotage the production process.  And, here, the way to explain it is to give you the history of the word.  Sabotage comes from the French word, sabot—S-A-B-O-T.  And that was the word for the wooden shoes, that people in northern France and northern Europe used to wear.  Some still do.  And, when workers were angry at their capitalist employers, they were known—secretly and quietly—to throw one of their wooden shoes into the machinery in the factory and, thereby, to commit sabotage.  In other words, it’s another way to remind the capitalist that he isn’t in charge altogether, that he depends on the workers, too.  (c. 50:42)

“Well, what’s the message, and the lesson, of Hegel‘s teaching?  Master and slave, therefore, is not the master in control and the slave altogether dependent.  The dependency runs both ways—between the lord and the serf in feudalism, the same truism.  And, now, between capitalist and worker, the same two-way dependency.  Well, what happens in this system is that you have two choices.  You can continue the endless conflict, the endless struggle—master trying in every way to dominate, control, and profit from the slave; and the slave finding ways to use the dependence of the master to relieve their suffering, to impose costs on the master; and the same back and forth between lord and serf; and the same back and forth between employer and employee.  (c. 51:49)

“The struggle can last forever and take up your whole life.  Or you can try to make a resolution, what Hegel would call a synthesis of the two opposites.  Solve the problem of endless conflict between master and slave—lord and serf, capitalist employer and worker/employee—by overcoming that relationship.  And what that means, in economics, is a democratic worker cooperative.  Make the workers, both, the employer and the employee.  End the struggle between two people, two groups, each dependent on, and trying to overcome at the same time, this dependency and not recognising that they were locked into a relationship and that the escape from the dependency and the endless struggle requires fundamentally changing the relationship.

“That’s why, as far back as ancient slave society and throughout the history of feudalism and throughout the history of capitalism, human beings have tried to escape from those tensions, those oppositions, those contradictory struggles, to form cooperatives, to produce goods in a collective way, that did not pit master-slave, lord-serf, and employer-employee.  They did it in religious orders, when nuns and monks would work collectively to produce what the nunnery or the monastery needed.  Farmers did it in conditions where a collective effort struck them as making more sense than continuing in the endless struggle of the opposites. (c. 54:02)

“Hegel’s teaching is a way to understand, both, what ails us in a conflict-ridden economic system and where the escape, the future, the better economic system lies.  It lies with an overcoming of the contradictions, what beleaguer slavery, feudalism, and capitalism.  It lies with the democratisation of a cooperative community organisation of work together with the same kind of democratic community organisation of the residential neighborhoods and communities where we live. (c. 54:55)

On parallels between the Great Depression and the Global Financial Crisis

“In the time, that remains today, which isn’t a great deal, I wanted also to draw your attention to a certain parallel between the 1930s, when capitalism crashed after 1929’s [economic] collapse, and our current period, a period after the second-worst crash.  We can learn something about what’s happening to us now by looking carefully at what happened the last time the economic system in which we live broke down badly.

[snip]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at ECONOMIC UPDATE.

***

[1]  The Collision, a sports and politics show, which normally airs on free speech radio KPFA (and, likely, other free speech radio or Pacifica Radio stations throughout the USA) failed to file their weekly broadcast.  So, Dr. Richard Wolff seems to have improvised a second hour of Economic Update.

(Dr. Richard Wolff was a doctoral advisor to one of my professors at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), Dr. Erik Olsen, who teaches Marxian economics and Urban Economics.  During the spring semester of 2015, since I often cited Dr. Wolff in class, Dr. Olsen invited me to a party at his house, which was going to host Dr. Wolff during the fall semester of 2015.  Unfortunately, I was graduating in May of 2015.  So, I wouldn’t get a chance to ask Dr. Wolff why he perpetuates the myth that the federal government taxes the public in order to raise funds for public spending.  It seems Dr. Richard Wolff refuses to acknowledge modern money theory (MMT), which is taught at heterodox economics departments, such as UMKC.  MMT reminds us that the USA operates a sovereign monetary system, which means that the USA can afford to spend without fiscal constraints, including for instituting a job guarantee programme, which can effectively end involuntary unemployment as we know it.  It seems Dr. Wolff’s preoccupation with bashing capitalist modes of production causes him to engage in intellectual dishonesty by perpetuating myths about taxation and our monetary system, by refusing to honestly inform the people about how government spending really works and by refusing to dispel myths about our monetary system (or federal money system).)

[2]  The institution and implementation of modern monetary theory (MMT) policies in the federal government, such as a federal job guarantee programme, which could end involuntary unemployment as we know it, could function as economically emancipatory institutions for the working classes as well as subversive to capitalist modes of production.

[3]  Trevor Hill asks an unscripted and sincere question of Nancy Pelosi:

“Nancy Pelosi Desperately Defends Capitalist at Town Hall” posted to YouTube (12 FEB 2017) by Democratize the Media

In the video above, posted by Democratize the Media, our narrator seems either too excited to smoothly deliver his analysis; or, perhaps, he is persevering despite a challenging speech impediment.  But, be patient friends, the young man offers a very sincere and heartfelt, yet clearheaded, analysis of this notable moment in capitalist history.  Essentially, most everything the narrator says is consistent with a quality university education in economics.  And, if one watches Mrs. Pelosi’s response in its entirety, it’s quite amazing how easily an undergraduate student is able to completely throw her off her game.  Imagine if a critical undergrad student of heterodox economics or a graduate student or a radical economics professor (with an ounce of courage) was allowed to go HAM on Mrs. Pelosi in a Town Hall, with follow up questions and all.  Wow.  All we can say is that defenders of capitalist modes of production have an indefensible position.  It’s a mathematical fact that capitalism produces widening inequality.  If there’s one thing I learned at university, it is that fact.

In the video below, we can see Trevor Hill’s entire question as well as Mrs. Pelosi’s entire, pathetic and nonsensical, response.

“Nancy Pelosi Dodges the Only Progressive Question” posted to YouTube (1 FEB 2017) by Dey Dey

[4]  Of course, here, we wonder why Dr. Richard Wolff never mentions an MMT-based job guarantee programme.  I do know that some of my Marxian friends in the graduate department of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (and other heterodox economics departments) are so opposed to capitalism, as well they should be, that they view the job guarantee programme as a form of saving capitalism, or extending the life of zombie capitalism, which has already shown itself to have failed society and the world repeatedly, but which is only propped up with artificial and temporary stop-gap measures, such as bailing out failed banks, rather than nationalising them.  (Incidentally, the U.S. government essentially nationalised the major banks temporarily in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis; only, this fact was downplayed by officials and the corporate media.)

However, it’s difficult not to view as a permanent federal job guarantee programme as educational, consciousness-raising for the public, and emancipatory for the working classes, who would come to understand that the federal government can use modern money for public purpose, such as ending involuntary unemployment as we know it.

[5]  Also see issues of globalisation from above versus globalisation from below, as well as the wage race to the bottom.  An excellent introductory reading is Flat Broke in the Free Market: How globalization fleeced working people (2013) by Jon Jeter.

[6]  A common argument posed by political analysts has explained Mr. Trump’s electoral success in terms of his ability to feign a working class populist posture, which Mrs. Clinton was unable to do as a categorically establishment candidate.  (Although, we acknowledge that Trump lost the people’s vote, but won the vote of the outdated and anti-democratic Electoral College.)  Nevertheless, Donald Trump appeared to be an outsider to many working class voters, especially those with a right-wing political orientation; but news reports have indicated that Trump did meet with establishment elites prior to his acceptance by the Republican Party bosses.  This helps explain why Trump’s cabinet picks largely consist of establishment Republicans, including many Bush operatives.  And, of course, it’s widely understood that Trump would have never been able to overcome the working class populism of Senator Bernie Sanders, had Sanders garnered the Democratic presidential nomination (or had the courage or political conviction to run as a socialist, Green, or independent candidate).  But the Democratic Party, through cheating and fraud, insured that Sanders never had a chance to win the Democratic Primary election.

For more on the deceptive working class populism of President Donald J. Trump, see, for example:

  • “The Dangerous Deception Called ‘The Trump Presidency'” by Dr. F. William Engdahl, Global Research, 30 NOV 2016.
  • “Workers of the USA fooled by Trump” by dfmese1, Daily KOS, 4 DEC 2016.
  • “Guns and Butter Presents The Lost Hegemon: Whom the gods would destroy (2016)” by Messina, Lumpenproletariat, 7 DEC 2016.
  • “Hey, White Working Class, Donald Trump Is Already Screwing You Over” by Joy-Ann Reid, The Daily Beast, 8 DEC 2016.

***

[19 FEB 2017]

[Last modified at 07:42 PST on 1 MAR 2017]

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Police State Terrorism: The Murder of Alex Nieto

07 Mon Mar 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Fascism, Mindfulness, Police State, Racism (phenotype)

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Benjamin Bac Sierra, Bernal Heights, Buddhism, City College of San Francisco, CopWatch, cowboy cops, Dennis Bernstein, Flashpoints, gentrification, Justice4AlexNieto, KPFA, Mission District (San Francisco), Pacifica Radio Network, Phillip Burton Federal Building, racial profiling, racial residential segregation, San Francisco, San Francisco Bay Area, Sergeant Jason Sawyer (SFPD), transcript

AlexNieto-ryns-wedding-3-copy1LUMPENPROLETARIAT  Some, such as Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, have argued that corruption, having reached saturation point, had now entered the age of inquisition, where the state openly kills in broad daylight, not by accident, but by design and with the intent to intimidate the general public and send a message of horror, to show the people what the state is now capable of doing.

Messina

 

JUSTICE FOR ALEX NIETO—[accessed 8 MAR 2016]  Who was Alex Nieto?

Alex Nieto was born and raised in the Bernal Heights and Mission districts. He was a beloved son and brother, and an active peaceful member of the community. He was an accomplished:

ryns wedding (3) - Copy

  • Full-time scholarship student at CCSF, earning a criminal justice degree and applying for transfer to a 4 year college program
  • Full-time security guard at El Toro nightclub
  • Provider for his family
  • Practicing Buddhist pacifist
  • Prior intern at the Youth Guidance Center’s Probation Department
  • Member of the Mission Peace Collaborative
  • Campaign volunteer in federal and local elections (Tom Ammiano, Bill Clinton, etc.)
  • Volunteer at youth organizations (Coleman Advocates, HOMEY, etc.)
  • Community event participant and organizer (Carnaval, poetry readings, etc)

Alex dreamt of helping guide youth in a positive direction, which is why he aspired to become a probation officer. He had a gigantic heart, and everyone loved him for his intellect, gentleness, and kindness.

Alex is survived by his loving parents and brother. [Learn more about the Nieto Family.]

SFPD MURDERED ALEX NIETO

On Friday evening, March 21, 2014, Alejandro “Alex” Nieto, 28 years old, was killed when he was struck by 14 to 15 bullets (of a total of 59 shots) fired by four San Francisco Police Department officers, on Bernal Hill Park, without justification. The officers who killed Alex Nieto are: Sgt. Jason Sawyer (then lieutenant), Officer Roger Morse, Officer Richard Schiff, and Officer Nathan Chew. (Read more about the 9 month struggle to obtain their names here.)

Alex was enjoying his dinner near a bench with a sunset view to Twin Peaks, dressed for his security guard shift with his licensed taser at his hip. He was also wearing his elegant new 49ers jacket, and minding his own business.

A dogwalker called 911 simply because he didn’t like the sight of this young Latino working class man on Bernal Heights. Police confronted Alex as he was walking downhill on his way out of the park, and killed him with two sequential volley of shots. The first volley took him down to the ground. The second volley of over ten shots killed him.

New Justice for Alex Nieto Banner!

A KEY FACT: NO THREAT REPORTED

Alex Nieto posed no threat to anyone on Bernal Hill on the clear sunset evening. A witness told reporters: “…he wasn’t threatening to me. He seemed like a guy just eating a burrito.” [Source: ABCLocal; SFBG]

In the 911 Call (narrated by Chief Suhr at the Town Hall Meeting) and in dispatch audio, Alex is simply described as eating sunflower seeds or chips with his taser “at his hip”, never drawn. He is never described as threatening anyone.

All the same, a battalion of officers was sent to the hill to confront him.

A Bernal Heights native, Alex routinely ate dinner in Bernal Park, before going to his security guard shift. He had been with his parents before going out.

WHAT WE BELIEVE HAPPENED: A POLICE COVER-UP

Greg Suhr refuses to release names of officers involved in Alex's shooting

Officers racially profiled Alex as a gangbanger exclusively based on his description as a Latino male wearing a red jacket. Racial profiling is illegal and a violation of civil rights.

Officers gave Alex no chance to respond to warning before they shot him to the ground with two or three shots. With Alex injured on the ground, officers decide—without any evidence of danger—to continue shooting at him, until he stopped moving. 59 bullets were fired.

This looks to us like an unjustifiable police murder —a deliberate execution— of an innocent man.

We also believe SFPD and the City and County of San Francisco are involved in a cover-up of an unlawful killing. We believe they fabricated a false narrative of events and have hid or tampered with evidence.

OPPOSING VERSION OF EVENTS:

WHAT CHIEF OF POLICE GREG SUHR SAYS HAPPENED*

WHAT FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT SAYS HAPPENED**

* [Source: Chief Suhr, Town Hall Meeting 3/25/2014.] [Listen to KQED audio of Town Hall Meeting.] ** [Source: Civil Federal Lawsuit filed 8/22/2014. Read Case Status & original filings.]

EYEWITNESSES PRIOR TO SHOOTING

  • Alex is reported behaving erratically by eyewitnesses.
  • Witnesses recount seeing Alex at the park peacefully sitting alone on the bench enjoying his burrito.

911 CALL

  • 7:11pm: 911 dispatch receives a call reporting a Latin male adult with a red jacket, black pants, and a handgun on his hip, pacing near a bench close to a chain linked fence on Bernal Hill.
  •    7:14pm: Caller (who stays on the line while police arrive) reports Alex eating chips or sunflower seeds.
  •    7:18pm: Calling party hears shots fired by police.
  • A couple -Timothy Isgitt and Justin Fritz- called 911 and erroneously reported Alex as having a black gun on his hip.
  • Alex was carrying his licensed *holstered* taser.
  • The caller does not report that Alex is bothering anyone or posing any type of threat.
  • The caller simply reports Alex is walking near the bench, and eating.

THE TASER

  • Alex was wearing a holstered taser that looks like a gun.
  • When drawn, this type of taser emits a red dot.
  • Alex  was dressed for work, wearing a *holstered*, licensed taser, as part of his security guard uniform.

THE SHOOTING

  • A Sergeant and Officer from Ingleside are the first to arrive on scene.
  • Alex is engaged 75 feet away up a hill, with his back to the west, Officers looking towards horizon.
  • An SFPD Patrol car entered the park and drove up a fire trail before stopping approximately 75 to 100 feet away.
  • Alex at that time was casually walking down the trail to the Park’s entrance, with his hands in his pockets.
  • Two Officers emerged from the patrol car and immediately took cover using their car for protection.
  • Two other Officers arrive.
  • Several other Officers had also gathered on the jogging path, appeared to be carrying rifle-type guns and were positioned behind Alex. (i.e. not facing western horizon as SFPD says.)
  • Alex has his hands behind him. Officers asked him “to show his hands.”
  • Alex responded “you show me your hands.”
  • Alex drew his taser, and tracked officers with the red taser dot.
  • Officers shoot him.
  • Alex wounded, goes down in a prone and tactical position.
  • One of the Officers behind the patrol car called out and ordered Alex to “stop.”
  • Within seconds a quick volley of bullets were fired at Alex.

Ear and eye witness’ revelations say:

  • No additional orders or any other verbal communication was heard between the first Officer yelling “stop” and the initial volley of gunfire that rang out.
  • Alex did not threaten anyone nor verbally resisted Officers.
  • Alex did not attempt to grab or point any object at the Officers prior to being shot.
  • Alex falls to the ground after the initial shots.
  • Prone, wounded, and on the ground, Alex continues to “track” Officers with the red laser dot.
  • Eye witness’ revelations do not see Alex point any object at the Officers, before or after Officers shoot him to the ground.
  • Eye witness believes Alex to be mortally wounded after the initial shots, and says Alex falls over his hands.
  • Officers say they feared for their lives and shot him repeatedly, until he stopped moving.
  • After a brief pause of just a second or two, another barrage of shots were fired.
  • The Officers’ bullets struck Alex in his forehead and at least nine other places leaving his body grossly disfigured and mortally wounded.

THE AUTOPSY REPORT:

Nearly six months after Alex was killed, the Medical Examiner released an autopsy report that deems his death a homicide. The autopsy confirms fourteen to fifteen bullet wounds (one entrance wound is for two shots, therefore, at least 15 shots hit Alex.) Eleven out of the fifteen shots caused downward trajectory wounds. That is, eleven shots are fired from above Alex into his face, temple, chest, shoulders, and back. Seven of those shots are in a head to toe downward trajectory indicating that Alex was in a completely defenseless position when officers fatally wounded him. This could imply criminal intent and murder.

Please check our Diagram and Analysis of the Autopsy Report, for more information.

Alex Nieto Autopsy Side w Title_001

AUDIO:

Audio from a home security camera reveals TWO initial shots fired  (possibly a 3rd), followed by a 6 second pause. Then a continuous volley of at least 10 shots. (We now know that there was a total of 48 bullets fired at Alex.)

The pause between the first and second series of shots is relevant because officers made a deliberate decision to barrage Alex with the shots that actually killed him. This could imply criminal intent and murder.

Learn more at JUSTICE FOR ALEX NIETO.

***

[Partial transcript by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Flashpoints] [2]

FLASHPOINTS—[7 MAR 2016]  Today, on Flashpoints, we update you in the federal civil trial of the murder of Alex Nieto by  San Francisco police.  Also, an update on Haiti with [Flashpoints] senior producer Kevin Pina.  And, later, we’ll hear from a Canadian writer and activist on Canadian general Roméo [Antonius] Dallaire and his prominence in Canadian national mythology.  My name is Mike Biggs, in for Dennis Bernstein.  All this, straight on Flashpoints. Stay tuned.  (c. 1:00)  [brief music break]

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “In Berkeley, I’m Dennis Bernstein.  You’re listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio

“We turn our attention back to the police murder of Alex Nieto.  There is a federal trial taking place, right now, in San Francisco.  This is an incredibly important case, in which the police shot down—one more time—shot down somebody, who—I guess—they just felt like killing a person of colour.

“Joining us to talk about this situation is a spokesperson for the Justice4AlexNieto; his name is Ben Bac Sierra.  And he joins us from San Francisco.  It was a busy day in court.  And, I wanna hear all about that.

“But first of all, for people who don’t really understand what happened here, please set the scene.  (c. 01:42)

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “I will.  Thank you for inviting me to talk, Dennis.  Alex Nieto was a security guard, a City College of San Francisco student, a beloved son, community activist.

“He was a security guard who was going to work on Friday, March 21st of the year 2014.  He had bought a burrito and some chips.  And he was eating it at a very peaceful, beautiful place to enjoy the view called Bernal Heights, which was only one block away from his house.

“And, so, he had gone up there to relax, to meditate, to eat before what was, probably, going to be a pretty busy night at the nightclub where he worked as a security guard.  He was already dressed for work.  He was wearing black pants, his work boots.  And he also had his licensed Taser holstered at his hip.

“Now, the people who called the police on him do not even claim that Alex Nieto ever even looked at them.  But they called the police anyway because they thought Alex had a gun on his hip.

“And the police come in a military, tactical fashion, very aggressive.  And why did they come in such an aggressive fashion?  Well, even though Alex Nieto has done nothing wrong, they get over the radio a description that he is a Latino male, six-foot tall, wearing a red jacket.  And, with that description, they immediately profile Alex Nieto as a gang member, even though Alex Nieto has never been arrested in his life.  He has actually volunteered at the Juvenile Correctional Facility to help out youth.  I knew him very well.  He was a practicing Buddhist.

“He had no idea anybody had called the police on him.  He walks down the hill.  The police are approaching him in a very aggressive fashion.  In fact, we now know, based on the testimony in court, that they think they are cowboy cops.  They do not wait for any type of back up.  They actually bypass other police officers, that are near them.  And they go to kill whoever is on the hill that fateful, unfortunate night.

“They see Alex Nieto, a neutral witness claims, that Alex Nieto was casually walking.  The officer, the lead person in charge that evening, Sergeant [Jason] Sawyer, he actually claims when he sees Alex Nieto, Alex Nieto was eating from a bag of chips, walking down a hill.

“Now, you figure it out.  That, in no way, is any type of menacing figure, yet they jumped out of their car with their weapons drawn.  And the witness states that they simply shouted, Stop!, once.  Then, they immediately began firing.  (c. 5:06)

“And the testimony today is even more specific about what happened.  But that is the general story of what happened to Alex Nieto.  It is:  He was shot at 58, 59 times, struck at least 14 to 16 times.  And numerous of those shots were while Alex Nieto was face down on the ground.

“And, so, this is a fight, that we’re fighting, that we’ve been fighting for approximately two years now.  March 21st is coming up soon.  March 21st, and that will be the two-year anniversary of his killing.

“We made it to federal court.  And, so, this is a very rare event because we usually do not get this.  They dismiss the case.  Or they will settle out of court.  And, in this case, we actually get to hear the evidence, present it.

“And that’s what I’ve been doing for the past two days now in court. (c. 6:09)

“Yesterday, we had a rally with hundreds, if not a thousand, people in front of the federal court building in San Francisco. [1]  And we did poetry.  We did singing.  We had Aztec danzantes, Buddhist chanting.  And, so, this is a very beautiful, revolutionary moment.  We look forward to all of the evidence coming out.

“But I do have an update for you about the evidence.  But I’d like to ask you if you have any further questions.”

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “Yeah, well, let me come in here.  And, before we get the latest breaking news, I think it’s very important for people listening outside of San Francisco—and we broadcast across the country—that they understand the context here.  That there is an attack on the Mission District, this beautiful, historic Mission District, that is really a part of Central and Latin America, has played a very important role in the City.  People love the Mission District.

“But, of course, now a certain kind of 1% and the people working for the 1% are moving in.  So, there is a major battle going on, a major gentrification, all kinds of crazy fires, every kind of attempt to gentrify and get rid of the people who made the Mission what it is.  You want to talk a little bit about that?  The sort of, the social context.”  (c. 7:41)

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “Dennis.  Dennis, Alex Nieto was killed specifically because of gentrification.

“I did not fully explain the context of why somebody called the police.  Alright?  We have two new gentrifiers, new as a far as new to the neighborhood, who come into Bernal Heights.  And Bernal Heights was a working class, blue-collar neighborhood, full of African-Americans, Latinos, working class whites, Filipinos, Samoans, multicultural, diverse.

“Alex Nieto had lived there his entire life.  However, he was able to live there because of rent control.  Now, unfortunately, what happened is, starting in the ’90s, that area began to become gentrified.  And, not, it’s thought to be one of the most expensive places to live in the United States of America.  Places where you could buy a house, back in the ’70s, for $35,000 are now—the same, exact piece of property, the wood hasn’t changed, right, it’s not made of gold now—those same houses are now worth $1.7 million dollars.

“And, so, these new people came into the neighborhood.  And they see Alex Nieto.  And they think of him as being out of place.  And they end up calling the police because they have never had to have a security guard job.  They don’t understand.  What?  A Latino with a red jacket and he has a gun on his hip?  He’s not even facing them.  He’s actually peacefully eating a burrito.  But, supposedly, these people see him with his hand resting on his hip.

“And they, actually, they do not both see it.  Only one of them sees this.  And he tells his friend: Hey, did you see the guy with the gun?  His partner tells him:  No, I don’t see the guy.  I didn’t see a guy with a gun.  And the guy who supposedly saw the weapon first, he doesn’t even have the guts to call the police, himself.  He tells his friend:  Well, I saw a guy with a gun.  You call the police.

“This is total gentrification, racial profiling, and, unfortunately, it was part of the reason why Alex Nieto was killed because he was profiled by the people who called the police.  And he was also racially profiled by the police, who came and killed him.” (c. 10:20)

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “Let me also ask you to describe how the police treated the family of Alex Nieto.”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “Oh, what a horrible story.  A very horrible story, here, is that we what have is the police understanding immediately after they killed Alex Nieto, unjustifiably killed Alex Nieto.  Because right after they killed him, they knew that this man did not have a hand gun.  And they claimed that Alex Nieto—it seems like they were just concocting the story.  And we’re proving this right now.

“But I will go over what the police narrative is.  The police narrative is that this person, Alex Nieto, who has never been arrested in his life, who has less than two hours before he has to go to work, is walking down the hill.  And, notice here, the police officer, himself, Officer Sawyer, said:  He’s eating from a bag of chip.  This person, he’s eating from a bag of chips.

“Now, think about that.  When we think about a stereotypical person relaxing, we think about:  Well, that person is a stiff.  You’re on your couch, eating a bag of chips.  This person is walking down the hill, eating from a bag of chips.  There’s absolutely no reason to regard this person as a menace.  And this person, eating from a bag of chips, would have the mind set to, then, know that two officers, who jump out of their vehicle and point their weapons at him is going to, then, throw his bag of chips on the floor, go into his holster, point a weapon at them, and, you know, with a Taser, that doesn’t even fire more than 15 feet—and they’re supposedly 100 feet away—and he’s gonna do this.  Right?

“So, they immediately concocted this story.  And this was all in the mainstream media.  You have the police spokesperson saying:  The person who was killed in Bernal Heights had a gun.  They knew immediately that he did not have a gun.  The knew he only had a Taser.  And they knew immediately who he was.  (c. 12:32)

“Yet, it took them 18 hours to, I guess, think about what they were gonna say.  And try to find out as much dirt, as they could on Alex Nieto and try to go ahead and—18 hours later—go to the parents, and then begin to question the parents without an interpreter.  The parents speak only Spanish.  Without an interpreter, they go over there, start grilling them about Alex Nieto.  And, about 45 minutes into this interview, these very humble, beautiful people, the father ends up asking them.  He had invited them into the house already.  They start rummaging through the house, without a warrant.  And he asked them:  Why are you here?”  (c. 13:30)

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “The father asked the cops?”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “Why are you here? 

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “The father asked the cops.”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “Yes.  And it is only, then, that the police officers tell them.  Well, we’re here because your son was killed by the police.”

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “Wow.”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “And that is just horrific.  There is absolutely no justification for that.  But it leads to us.  It leads us to understand the totality of these circumstances, which is cover up.”

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “That’s right.”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “Cover up!  Cover up.”  (c. 14:03)

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “Alright.  Let me jump in here because we’re running out of time.”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “Yeah.”

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “We’re speaking with Ben Bac Sierra.”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “M-hm.”

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “We’re talking about a federal civil trial, that’s taking place in San Francisco now on behalf of the late Alex Nieto, who was gunned down, brutally, by police, a Buddhist, somebody who was actually interested in law enforcement—”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “Yes.”

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “—worked with young people, an upstanding member of the community, gunned down.  Give just—we only have a few seconds left.  But, what’s new in the—was it powerful in the courtroom?”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “What we understood is all of the officers, for one, are professional testifiers, even the rookie, who was on the stand, at the beginning of today.  He has claimed that he has testified already over 50 times.  His father is a San Francisco Police Department officer.  And this person is well-groomed on how to stay consistently accurate with concocted types of stories.

“Yet, we saw that the story is being broken down by excellent attorneys from the law offices of John Burris.  Adante Pointer noted that, very important here, the rookie officer, who first started firing at Alex, claims that he first started firing at Alex because Alex Nieto was walking purposely down; and he made eye contact with Alex Nieto.  He saw into his eyes and saw Alex was angry.  And he also saw his forehead scrunching.  Note, here, it was proven by the evidence today that Alex Nieto had sunglasses on!  And that he had a baseball cap on!  So, it would be impossible for him to have seen his forehead scrunching.  (c. 15:54)

“These are all pieces of evidence, that will show the inconsistency and the illogic; and also I have to say the physical evidence will also prove that the police are–just.  It’s impossible for us to believe their narrative.

“I invite you all, listening today, to follow on Justice4AlexNieto.org.

“You could also Google my name, Benjamn Bac Sierra.  I am posting daily updates about the specifics of the testimony.”

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “Alright.  Were gonna leave it right there.  But Ben Bac Sierra, we’re gonna stay in touch with you.  We appreciate the great work you’re doing.  And we will remember and celebrate the life and times of Alex Nieto, how he died.  And we will cover that moment when that justice comes.

“Thank you so much for being with us on Flashpoints.”

BENJAMIN BAC SIERRA:  “Thank you, Dennis.  Have a great night.  Goodbye.”

DENNIS BERNSTEIN:  “Bye bye, now.”  (c. 16:52)  [SNIP]

[SNIP]  (c. 59:59)

Learn more at FLASHPOINTS.

[This transcript will be expanded, as time constraints allow.  Contact us to help transcribe important free speech radio broadcasts.]

***

[1] RALLY!  THE TRIAL: ALEX NIETO VERSUS THE SFPD, MARCH 1st, 2016

The rally was held on day one of the trial in front of the United States federal courthouse in San Francisco’s Civic Center at 450 Golden Gate Avenue.  The federal court building is also known as the Phillip Burton Federal Building.

[2]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Flashpoints, hosted by Dennis Bernstein, for Monday, 7 MAR 2016, 17:00 PDT.

***

[8 MAR 2016]

[Last modified 16:45 PDT  10 MAR 2016]

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Civic Archives: Resistance Against Police Terrorism, Environmental Destruction

03 Sun May 2015

Posted by ztnh in Free Speech, Police State, Racism (phenotype), Social Theory, Sociology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

activism, Black Lives Matter, Bowling Alone, BP Oil disaster, CA), civic engagement, CopWatch, Davey D, Fight for $15, gentrification, KPFA, Oakland, Oakland School Board, Obama, Pacifica Radio, Rent is a Crime, Rent's Too Damn High, Robert D. Putnam, San, San Francisco Bay Area, urban economics

hard-knock-radioLUMPENPROLETARIAT—With all of the escalating tensions across the nation, as a result of increasing resistance to police terrorism and cops killing unarmed civilians with impunity, Davey D (co-host of Hard Knock Radio on Pacifica Radio:  KPFA, Berkeley, CA), becomes an invaluable boots-on-the-ground asset.  Lumpenproletariat.org will archive (after final exams) as much of Davey D’s important interviews from the streets of USA with some of the most dedicated activists around today.

In the meantime, don’t sleep on the following free speech radio broadcasts before they must be taken down from KPFA.org. [1]

—Messina

***

KPFA March-370x230HARD KNOCK RADIO:  The following audio archives should be available for another day or so because…[1]

  • 23 APR 2015:  Includes:
    • KPFA News Headlines
    • Discussion of police infiltration of #BlackLivesMatter and the corrupt criminalisation of activists (and citizens simply trying to invigorate civil engagement [2]) under post-P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act auspices
    • (c. 42:40) sociopolitically conscious R&B
    • (c. 48:10) Black Agenda Report with Glen Ford
    • (c. 53:00) sociopolitically conscious hip-hop music
  • 22 APR 2015:  Includes:
    • KPFA News Headlines
    • (c. 7:00) Davey D reports from a street protest against “the architects of gentrification” and rising rent costs for urban communities, urban economics, and gentrification.  “It seems to be they don’t care about working class people,” says one protester.  ‘We want rent control’ and ‘affordable housing.’  ‘We also want the big techs to pay their fair share of taxes.’ Jo-eesha Detta(sp?)
    • ‘I grew up in Oakland, born and raised.  It was predominantly black people and now it’s more mixed.’
    • ‘These are the folks who have been priced out of San Francisco.’  ‘the problem that gentification is causing.’  ‘Their cohesion is here in the neighbourhoods they grew up in and have been living in.’
    • Scott’s Restaurant confrontation, “even though most of the doors have been blocked.”  Chanters chant:  “Evictions are everywhere!”
    • (c. 16:00) Music Break:  Hard Knock Radio theme
    • (c. 17:00)  Anita Johnson speaks with Gulf South Rising representative
    • on “the gulf coast communities”, five years after the BP Oil Disaster.  An update from Houston, Texas.
    • ‘We organised a funeral at BP Headquarters.  They refused to sign our petition asking them to come clean and stop the legal maneuvering that they’ve been doing for the last five years.  So, we’re basically trying to get them to stand…’  2038
    • ‘impact on the fishing communites…Vietnamese fishermen were impacted the most.  They were wanting to deliver the petition.  They are seeing their catch diminish.  There is a fear of a collapse of the fishing stock.  Many communities are completely dependent on water.  And the BP Oil Disaster has deeply impacted their lives.  BP has made a terrible situation a whole lot worse.’
    • ‘relocation of a small tribe, due to the BP Oil disaster’
    • ‘There has been an abdication of responsibility, not just of Obama, but I think also the liberal left, the well-funded groups.  We’re trying to do what we can, but I feel there’s a lot of talking out the sides of their mouths.  They need to put their money where their excitement is.  This cannot be just on the backs of a few people.  We need help in ways that are not co-opting our message, but providing tangible support.  We appreciate Hard Knock Radio covering this issue of the ongoing battle dealing with the BP Oil disaster fallout.’
    • Contact:  GulfFuture.org and Gulf South Rising, or by phone 504.534-5313
    • 40:00  ‘Assigning police officers in public schools has become a widespread practice.  More than half of all public schools have officers stationed in schools.  Some people say, police can actually make things worse for children.’  The lead organiser for the Black Organizing Project.  Oakland, CA.
    • ‘This has been a yearlong process, starting in April of last year to eliminate [] as well as putting a cap on []  insure there is a 2.3. million dollar allocation and continue the program.  Also, we want to insure [].’
    • ‘Tonight, the Oakland Board has agreed to some concessions, which will mean more young people will be in our schools and not on our streets.  We want transparency.  We know that Restorative Justice and other programs are saving lives.’
    • “We’re students, not suspects.”  Police are imposing their punitive justice in school altercations, which had already resolved the issue by school officials.  But police come in and override the school officials peace-keeping to inflict maximum criminalisation of youth and punishment.
  • 21 APR 2015:  Includes discussions of:  the state of our police state in the USA; the history of San Francisco’s Upper Room, an important community institution.
  • 20 APR 2015:  no longer available

***

COUNTERPUNCH—(19 FEB 2015) For activists throughout the Gulf Coast 2015 is a year of anniversaries. It is the fifth anniversary of the BP oil spill; the 10-year anniversary of hurricanes Katrina and Rita as well as a BP refinery explosion in Texas City that killed 15 people; and 40 years since a massive influx of Vietnamese immigrants, who are now at the heart of the region’s fishing industry, began settling the region. And perhaps most notably the fiftieth anniversary of the march on Selma and the Voting Rights Act.

Everything from the Gulf Coast’s history and environment to its politics and culture is shaped by the energy economy. 

To commemorate these historic events, communities across the region are organizing a series of actions under the banner, “Gulf South Rising.” According to the group’s website their aim is “to inform and engage Gulf South communities around the climate crisis and its impact on the region.” (The tagline for the group goes: “the seas are rising and so are we.”)

Tackling climate change is not easy anywhere but perhaps especially so in this part of the country. The Gulf Coast is in many ways the oil and gas industry’s stomping grounds. It was here after all that democratic senator Mary Landrieu made her last stand fighting for the Keystone XL Pipeline. It also happens to be one of the regions most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, where sea levels are rising and coastal lands are vanishing. According to NOAA, every year an area off the Gulf Coast larger than Manhattan disappears due to subsidence and sea level rise.

Learn more at COUNTERPUNCH.

***

[1]  Audio archives are routinely taken down after a couple of weeks due to copywrong restrictions.  I used to be in contact a bit, during my KPFA/MediaRoots.org days, with Davey D.  But I lost contact since I’ve been at UMKC.  Although he recently said hello and asked how I’ve been via facebook a few weeks ago.  But stuff tends to get lost/buried on facebook.  Hence, we’ve created Lumpenproletariat.org, as a permanent hub for ghetto life and working class life.

[2]  Notably, Robert Putnam’s best-selling book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000) discussed the lamentable decline in civic engagement in the USA.  But, perhaps, Putnam overlooked police terrorism intimidating, brutalising, and even killing in broad daylight civilians attempting to exercise their Constitutionally-protected human and civil rights of free speech, association, and assembly.  I’ll have to re-read and check.  (But, at a glance, seems no:  Index lists “police” and “community involvement” on pages 317-318, 336, 346 and “employment of” on pages 145-146.  “Community policing” only discusses police propaganda campaigns to nominally deputize citizens to identify with police.  The Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) is held up as one example.  There is no mention of local Copwatch groups.  On page 336, Putnam mentions Thomas Jefferson’s proposal to amend the “Constitution to facilitate grassroots democracy.”  This is reminiscent, more recently, of US Day of Rage‘s pre-Occupy Wall Street calls for a constitutional amendment to move our society from a one-dollar-one-vote system to a one-person-one-vote system.  On page 346, Putnam writes:  “Police close more cases when citizens monitor neighborhood comings and goings.”  But Putnam does not mention the right of neighborhood CopWatch groups’ need to monitor the police, themselves, as police terrorism is stifling civic engagement, especially when that engagement involves shining light on police terrorism and cops criminalising activists, i.e., civically-engaged citizens, and killing unarmed civilians with impunity.  On pages 145-146, Putnam only discusses the changing size of police forces.  Admittedly, Bowling Alone is pre-9/11.  Nevertheless, state repression of civic engagement, aka activism, has been a perennial problem.  This major inhibitor of civic engagement that is police intimidation and terrorism of civilians is definitely a gaping hole in Putnam’s analysis.  )

[Last modified 23:34 CDT 5 MAY 2015]

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
%d bloggers like this: