Eric Garner Was Not A Member Of Al Qaeda

By now, many have heard the story of Eric Garner and have seen the video of his death at the hands of the NYPD. Initially approached by the police for his involvement in breaking up a fight, he was then accused of selling loose single cigarettes (for what would amount to the profit of a few pennies). He was then accosted by police officers, became indignant at having to suffer yet another round of harassment, and had this to say in response:

“Get away [garbled] … for what? Every time you see me, you want to mess with me. I’m tired of it. It stops today. Why would you…? Everyone standing here will tell you I didn’t do nothing. I did not sell nothing. Because every time you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me [garbled] Selling cigarettes? I’m minding my business, officer, I’m minding my business. Please just leave me alone. I told you the last time, please just leave me alone. Please, please, don’t touch me. Do not touch me.”

At that point he was placed in an officially banned choke-hold by a police officer. In his very last words, gasping for air, Eric Garner repeated the following: “I can't breathe.”

How did we as a society arrive at the point where an incident like this can transpire? A man breaks up a fight, gets accused of a spurious crime, and then ends up dead at the hands of a police officer who had repeatedly been accused of misconduct in the past. That this ever happened at all is a tragedy; that it's an incident which most wouldn't find particularly surprising... is a dystopian nightmare.

The Guilty, The Innocent, And The Corrupt: Ferguson & The Case of Rodney Reed

I've recently learned about the case of Rodney Reed. He is currently on death row in Texas for the murder of Stacey Stites. The curious thing about this case is that the victim's family is convinced of Reed's innocence and believes, instead, that the actual murderer was her fiance, Jimmy Lewis Fennell, Jr.. 

At the time of Stacey Stites' death, Fennell was a 34-year-old police sergeant with the Georgetown, Texas, Police Department. At the time of the murder Fennell was not adequately investigated as a suspect. According to an article in the Austin Chronicle, “Police never searched the apartment Stites and Fennell shared, though it was the last place she was reportedly seen alive, and they had returned to Fennell the pickup truck she'd allegedly been driving the morning she disappeared before thoroughly processing it for evidence.”

Since the murder of Stites and the conviction of Rodney Reed, Sergeant Jimmy Lewis Fennell, Jr. confessed and has been convicted of raping a young woman (which he did while on duty). The victim of that attack, in an interview, discussed how he had casually raped her in a calm sadistic manner. She also explains how Fennell was the responding officer when she immediately called 911 after the attack.

After the conviction of Fennell (sentenced to 10 years and scheduled for release in 2018), and during the subsequent appeal of Rodney Reed, a pattern of violent behavior by Fennell against other women  was revealed.

Capitalism ≠ Anarchism

In recent years a ridiculous notion has been promoted in the United States. It's the idea that the philosophy of anarchism is compatible with the principles of capitalism. Proponents of this proposed ideological merger call themselves anarcho-capitalists, market anarchists, or agorists. And while anarchists around the globe may not believe in the seriousness of those proposing the merger of these philosophies, I remind them that the proponents we are talking about are primarily people within the borders of the United States of America. This is the same land that has also concocted the notion of “national anarchism” which promotes racial segregation. These are concepts from “the land of the free” – where more people are imprisoned in total numbers (and per capita) than in any other nation. So, as absurd as it is, I assure you that the idea of “anarcho-capitalism” is a real thing.

The Media's Spin On Anarchists

There has recently been a growing and disturbing trend whereby right-wing idealogues, organizations, and terrorists have been presented in the media as being “anti-government” or even anarchists. This effectively serves to confuse the public about the philosophy of anarchism and what anarchists actually stand for. And this practice will, undoubtedly, have negative consequences for actual anarchist communities.

This inaccurate media portrayal of right wing extremists really caught my attention after the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin – when Amy Goodman subsequently interviewed a former DHS analyst on the subject of “right-wing extremists.” In that interview her guest dismissed the idea that Timothy McVeigh was a racist and no mention of his Christian fundamentalism was put forward. He was described primarily as being involved with “anti-government” militias. This despite the fact that McVeigh constantly praised the Turner Diaries (a novel that romanticizes a race war), which he sold below cost at gun shows, and despite the fact that he was associated with the fundamentalist Christian Identity movement. And, actually, McVeigh was not really anti-government. Rather, he was merely opposed to certain aspects of the government currently in charge. So, while I am a frequent member of DemocracyNow's audience, I think Ms.Goodman dropped the ball in this particular interview and should have been a little more challenging with her questions.

More to the point along these lines... a prominent headline in the news recently has been about a supposed “anarchist” cell within the U.S. military which was allegedly planning to carry out political assassinations, blow up dams, and poison Washington state's apple orchards. However, despite numerous headline's referring to them as “anarchists,” when one looked a little deeper it was discovered that these "anarchists" were actually just “true patriots” who were essentially looking to take the country back. Later it was revealed that the alleged ringleader of the group was an usher at the RNC in 2008. Like McVeigh, this group seems to be comprised of fairly typical right-wing militants – who are not really "anti-government" and certainly not anarchists.

An Open Letter To Derrick Jensen

Dear DJ,

I hope you don't mind me addressing you by your initials because that has simply become a habit of mine over the years as I've spammed links to your articles and videos all over the internet. Indeed, you have often given voice to certain issues in a way that is very much appreciated. For that, I must thank you.

However... I am inclined to write this letter, and make it public, because I don't feel you adequately address criticism from those of us who share many of your concerns and much of your perspective. I can understand this lack of a response in psychological terms because no one likes to be criticized. Nevertheless, I feel that honestly acknowledging such criticism could be beneficial to expanding the discussion about the issues and ideas you champion. As I don't have much faith in getting a response from you on any public forums, and because my time during any Q & A period would undoubtedly be limited, I've chosen to present my criticism and questions thusly.

There is a difference between a declaration of martial law and a draconian crackdown...

I would like to challenge everyone to examine more closely what martial law actually is, and then... consider what has effectively been declared with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 -- especially when taken together with previous legislation like the Patriot Act.  I won't condescend to explain here what the NDAA or the Patriot Act is (follow the links), but I'd really like people to take a moment for consideration about the implications of this growing body of overtly authoritarian, and even totalitarian, legislation.  While most cities and towns don't have tanks rolling through their streets every day, and while curfews are rare, I'd suggest that there are more subtle factors to martial law than these things.  Additionally, while a widespread crackdown and purge of assorted "radicals" hasn't occurred yet, I'd like to point out that the legislation in question allows, and paves the way, for precisely that.  This legislation is, effectively, a declaration of Martial law by the U.S. government.  While arguably few people have been subjected to the worst effects of this legislation, the declaration has been made and many people are, basically and technically, existing in violation of current U.S. law.  If you are living within the borders of the United States of America, you are living under martial law at this very moment. 

Finally, while I don't want to argue too much about definitions... the U.S. has more prisoners per capita (and in total numbers) than any other nation on Earth.  Wiretapping and other broad surveillance measures have been codified by the state.  American citizens can now be arrested by the military, detained, and imprisoned indefinitely without the right to a trial.  All of this amounts to the very definition of a totalitarian police state.

Orwellian Surveillance, Spies & Infiltration

In George Orwell's world of 1984... were a billion people suffering from the effects of malnutrition?  Was a full seventh of that fictional population hungry?  Obviously things were rough in that fictitious world, but was it really that bad?  Was it hard for billions of people to find potable water to drink?  Were the oceans surrounding Oceania full of plastic?  Was the primary fuel source of Eurasia leading to a negative feedback loop in the climate (which consequently might raise the planet's temperature by several degrees within the next century)? 

I recall in the book that the proles were rationed low quality cigarettes along with imitation chocolate, and I know they were spoon-fed manufactured pop culture to keep them content... but did they really have it that bad?  I mean... compared to the reality of our world today -- in the U.S.A. and beyond. 

On The Continuing Protests In Madison, Wisconsin.

As impressive as the tens of thousands of Wisconsinites have been in protesting the harsh austerity bill being pushed through by Governor Scott Walker, let's not overlook the fact that this battle is just getting started.  Any lulls in protest activity are still punctuated by huge protests on the weekends and literal signs for a general strike are appearing and being carried all over town.  Horns are still blasting around the Capitol building at any given hour and vigils are still being maintained.  There is a sense that the unions, and the rest of the populace, are preparing themselves for the next round.  And as hard as it might be to conceive of these huge recent protests as part of a rope-a-dope strategy... it is the general population that has been playing gently with the Governor thus far.  History has shown us that the masses ultimately have the power, if they are willing to use it, and it doesn't appear that the right-wing has a very thoughtful tactician to guide them through the impending battles. 

That said... the protest movement, particularly insomuch as it is being manipulated by mainstream politicians and self-appointed marshals, could falter.  It will be up to individuals, thinking for themselves and communicating their ideas horizontally, to prevent this movement from becoming too watered-down and compromising.  It should not be misunderstood -- the power at this point is in the hands of the masses of protesters.  Not to put too much of fine point on it, but it's somewhat reminiscent of the scene in Fight Club when Tyler Durden reminds the local politician...

"The people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances, we guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us."

I'm not suggesting that union members should start fight clubs, and lord knows I wouldn't want to go fisticuffs with a steelworker, but the point is that no one should allow their power or importance in society to be diminished -- especially when considered collectively as part of mutually beneficial organization.  The people hold the real power in this world -- as long as they are willing to use it.  They should not be looking to give concessions -- they should be looking to take them, all of them.  And when the grassroots "leadership" starts talking about giving concessions... their megaphones should be shoved somewhere the sun doesn't shine.  The notion of giving concessions at this point is beyond ridiculous -- unless you're willing to take yet another step towards giving everything away. 

What needs to be understood is that this right-wing putsch by Governor Walker, and it is an attack on far more than worker's rights, was a blunder which must be thoroughly capitalized upon.  Right-wing asses are showing and now is not the time to help them pull up their pants or to offer them your extra pair.  The right-wing putsch has suddenly accelerated the political pendulum -- and we need to take the momentum on the back-swing to topple everything the right-wingers stand for.

On voting...

There have been several articles written about the futility or the negative consequences of voting.  But I wanted to put forward some of my thoughts about electoral politics.  I do want to point out that I'm not taking an extremely hardline position against voting.  There may be a time and a place for voting -- but I don't see it as particularly useful on the national level.

Values of a College Education

Much of my adult life I've spent enrolled in, or usually just around, various universities and colleges. This is because I appreciate some of the fresh ideas and the open-mindedness that is often associated with such institutions. I like to see prominent speakers come to town for participation in panels, or public discussions, or simply to give lectures about their fields of expertise. And I admire the passion that so many people around campus have about various subjects -- whether of a technical nature or with more obvious social importance. And, honestly, I often appreciate the decadent revelry that takes place throughout the school year.

That said... in just the last 15 years I have noticed some very disturbing trends which are making institutions of higher learning less beneficial to those enrolled within them and for society at large. Certainly some of these trends have been manifesting for some time longer than the last decade or so, and more seasoned academics could probably point out larger more insidious differences between today's college experience compared to campus life a few decades ago. But it's also possible that negative changes have started to occur more rapidly and with greater consequences to society as a whole.

It was dehumanizing... completely.