1560 stories
·
2 followers

The City of Minneapolis Releases Statements of Probable Cause for Other Notable Violent Incidents

1 Share

“The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions, including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease. The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by police, his underlying health conditions, and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”
The City of Minneapolis’ statement of probable cause in George Floyd’s death

- - -

We understand that Joan of Arc was prone to visions, which she believed were messages from angels and saints telling her that she was chosen by God to lead France. Of course, we now understand these visions to be the sign not of divine intervention but of an unwell mind. This merely confirms our longheld hunch that Joan’s pre-existing mental condition was the key factor in her demise at nineteen, which — coincidentally, and in a completely unrelated matter — was simultaneous with, but not the result of, her being burned at the stake.

- - -

The thing is, Marie Antoinette wasn’t exactly a paragon of fitness and wellness when the French people called for her head. Famously, she subsisted largely on champagne and pastries. Her cholesterol and blood sugar were sky-high, plus she was deficient in all the essential vitamins. As we all know, malnutrition kills. Do guillotines also kill? Sometimes! But any rational person would conclude that Marie’s death was surely due as much to her poor dietary habits as from having her head severed from her body by a giant, weighted blade.

- - -

Alexander Hamilton was obviously in poor health — grieving his dead son, nursing self-imposed humiliation over his affair — when he went to Weehawken the morning of his death. While it involved a bullet that presumably was dislodged from a weapon by some other individual, it feels much more pertinent to note that Alexander was wearing his glasses when he died. So like… his vision was bad. It was not good. Cause of death: Astigmatism, probably.

- - -

Honestly, when you think about it, isn’t it more accurate to say that John Lennon was killed by society?

- - -

While approximately 300 Lakota men, women, and children died during their encounter with the United States Army at Wounded Knee, it feels presumptuous and a little unfair to assume that the former were slaughtered by the latter. Basically, it was a people with guns versus people without guns situation, so we can see why you might assume it was a massacre. But, really, anything could have happened there. Maybe it was just like… a bad crop that year? Food poisoning! Yeah, food poisoning. We’re just gonna go with that.

- - -

By the time he was nailed to the cross, Jesus Christ was severely dehydrated. He literally said, “I am thirsty.” And then they just gave him wine, so on top of being dehydrated, he also had intoxicants in his system. So, yeah, when you think about it that way, it’s a no-brainer what really killed Jesus (too much booze, not enough water, etc.) and what didn’t kill him (being crucified, bleeding out, etc.).

Read the whole story
koranteng
1 day ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Backlash Politics

1 Comment and 5 Shares

Will Trump be able to make white backlash politics work for him re: riots?

The situation sure suits his vicious temperament. “Unlimited use of the military” against US citizens. I’m sure that’s what his hard-core base wants to hear. But does the ‘silent majority’ – a.k.a. enough white people in suburbs – want to hear it? Will enough of them watch the news and think ‘holy shit, those people are out of control and we need law and order. Maybe that cop went too far but they arrested him. These riots show sometimes you gotta get rough.’ Or will more of them start to think, ‘a vicious culture of cop impunity, capped off by plainly unconstitutional qualified immunity and deliberate gutting of civil rights protections by right-wing judicial activists and the Trump administration have finally come to this.’

We need: 1) a cultural consensus that a video of one African-American’s death, on the ground, is a portrait of a rotten system, not a tragic exception to be dealt with through ‘the system’. Bill Barr needs to sound like a liar to suburban voters.

“Accountability for [Floyd’s] death must be addressed and is being addressed through the regular process of our criminal justice system both at the state and at the federal level,” the attorney general said Saturday. “That system is working and is moving at exceptional speed. … Justice will be served.”

2) Recognition that a vote for Republicans is a vote against peace and civil order. The arc of Republican rule is long but it bends towards injustice, hence riot and ruin. You can strip brown people of some protections all of the time, and all of their protections some of the time, but since you can’t strip them of all civil rights all of the time, you can’t make a stable apartheid where you have ‘law and order’, rather than periodic eruption and riot, when instruments of regular oppression become too appalling and obvious to be endured. People have cell phone cameras.

We need to get to the point where white people in the suburbs find Bill Barr’s bright idea that you should just threaten African-Americans into respecting cops, whether the system deserves respect or not, is not just offensive but unworkable.

I think that’s it: there might be a shift if it became clear to the median, white suburban voter that the Chief Justice Officer’s main message to whole communities has been, ‘you can have apartheid or you can have anarchy, but you can’t ask for justice.’ If that was clear, it might come clear as well that, love the smell of it or loath it, this shit is on the likes of him. Because that’s going to be: no deal. If the plan really is to try not to have to provide justice, then law and order looks like rioting, some of the time.

It does not seem impossible that we could get 1&2. The arguments against ‘qualified immunity’ are so obvious and compelling, legally and morally. It’s hard to make the ‘woke social justice warriors too soft on crime’ narrative stick. This is happening under Trump, not Obama. On the other hand, one of the core commitments of contemporary Trumpist ‘conservatism’ is: no apologies for anything, no matter how horrible. No concessions, no matter how just.

It is tragically impossible to imagine some sort of bi-partisan consensus against ‘qualified immunity’, because it is self-evidently unconstitutional and evil, and a root of wide-spread abuse, not just some thing that very occasionally leads to regrettable results around the edges.

The question is: will enough white voters see insane intransigence for what it is? Or will it be more of a ‘I dunno, that’s a lot of shops on fire.’ If R’s win on this in November, we are fucked. But if they lose on it, it might mean a shift. In the past, I think, white backlash politics worked because law&order types seemed to have tough-minded plans for maintaining law&order. If it becomes obvious the plan is to do things that obviously lead to riots, maybe it won’t work.

In the meantime, I expect Trumpists will be satisfied to see communities burn, pointing out how it is hurting those communities. Which is true. ‘We can stay racist longer than you can stay solvent. Therefore, we aren’t racist.’ Say what you will, it’s an ethos.

Read the whole story
koranteng
2 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
DGA51
2 days ago
reply
Thoughts on suburban whites, Bill Barr's lies, and police.
Central Pennsyltucky

COVID-19 in Mauritius and Other Tourist Paradises: A Progress Report

1 Share
Mauritius coped well with Covid-19 despite its tiny size and the importance of tourism.
Read the whole story
koranteng
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

How will the NY City, LA, and Chicago governments pay their way in the future?

1 Share
The governments of the really big cities of the US were in fiscal trouble BEFORE the COVID crisis. The Democratic Party has long governed these places and throughout that period they made promises with regard to disbursements that far exceeded...
Read the whole story
koranteng
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Nation Astonished by Spectacle of Twitter Management Demonstrating Responsibility

1 Share
Andy Borowitz jokes that Twitter, by fact-checking one of Donald Trump’s tweets, has shown a surprising sense of responsibility.
Read the whole story
koranteng
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

What Have You Got To Say To That?

1 Share

In 1966 the American director and producer Joseph Strick was commissioned by the BBC to make a film about a British phenomenon that was new to him: political heckling. Introducing the film, he says “I was amazed by the heckling, I’d never experienced anything like it. People standing up in the audience and shouting at the leader of the opposition, shouting at the Prime Minister, and what’s more being answered by them. Dialogues developing between them… We don’t have anything like that in the United States.”

The film is wonderful; nothing more than 45 minutes of politicians addressing crowds in halls, theatres and on the streets, all of whom are interrupted by members of the public shouting from the floor. The responses of politicians vary; some shoot back quick retorts, or address them in good faith, while others lecture and insult them. But none of them have the deer-in-the-headlights terror that politicians today often display when they come face-to-face with a pissed off public. 

Yesterday Dominic Cummings, the senior political adviser for the British Prime Minister, and one of the most powerful men in the country, found himself heckled by his own neighbours as he scurried down the street. Cummings is the centre of a political scandal, having been caught breaking his own strict lockdown guidelines while much of the UK remains unable to visit sick loved ones, attend family funerals or be with their nearest or dearest. The cabinet, and much of the press, has supported him, claiming that any loving parent would break the law in the interest of their children — a bold position to take, considering how many have abided by the law, and implicitly suggesting that those who maintained quarantine and watched relatives die over video-call simply didn’t love them enough. It’s unsurprising that the majority of the public seem to want him to resign for this act of hypocrisy, and for the insulting response. One neighbour leant from his window to shout at Cummings “Because of the lockdown, some of them couldn’t go to other people’s funerals. Ey?... What have you got to say to that?” 

Subscribe now

He had nothing to say to that. This heckling, many commentators suggest, is the behaviour of a mob. “Something deeply repulsive about taking pleasure in mob behaviour - those who eulogise this and those  who took part in this ‘street justice’ have departed from all standards of common decency - it is vile” wrote Phillip Blond, the think-tank director who provided much of the ideological ammunition for Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. Mail on Sunday commentator Dan Hodges wrote “Having seen those vultures who claim to be Cummings ‘neighbours’ taunting him in the street I see I was right to be concerned. We’ve completely lost our way. There's a section of the 'liberal' Left  who get off on being vicious behind a veneer of morality.”

Heckling is not mob behaviour, and it’s not about humiliating a political figure. It’s about holding them to account — all the more important when there is no other democratic mechanism for doing so, as in Cummings’ case. The imbalance between heckler and speaker already gives the politician the upper hand, and there’s no reason they can’t answer the damn question and make capital from it. So much is clear from Strick’s film; as he says in his introduction, “it’s an extremely democratic confrontation between audience and speaker, no matter who he is.” Politicians often get support from the audience; while some heckles get cheers, other hecklers are booed out of the auditorium. When an Empire Loyalist heckles Harold Wilson about the regime in Rhodesia, Wilson refers to him as “Rudyard Kipling over there”, inducing a wave of laughter from the audience. Heckles are democratic challenges, and once upon a time, an accepted and useful part of political discourse. So why are hecklers so feared by the political establishment today that they’re compared, as Blond did, to the terror of lynching?

A combination of factors is behind this transformation of what is seen as acceptable public discourse. In Strick’s film it’s obvious that there’s clear water between the platforms and ideologies of the political parties. Following the destruction of the trade union movement, Thatcher’s economic and cultural restructuring of the country, and the rise of New Labour in response, those differences shrank. Instead a managerialism crept into the political system; you weren’t so much voting for two differing visions of how to shape a country, but for who was the best manager of a country whose shape was already fixed. As such, professionalism was the name of the game, and a party’s public image was key to winning the trust of the electorate. The window of political possibilities shrank, and largely stayed from way until well after the financial crisis of 2008 showed that, in fact, the “economic common sense” policies that shaped politics for almost twenty years were deeply loaded political questions.

Still, the rot had already set in. The troika of the spin doctor, the professional politician and the SpAd (special adviser) became the forces that shaped the political landscape. For the spin doctor, the heckler was poison, always waiting to catch a politician off-guard and humiliate them if they didn’t know the answer, or to show them up as unpopular, even within their own party. In 2005, at the Labour Party conference, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was delivering a speech where he claimed "We are in Iraq for one reason only: to help the elected Iraqi government build a secure, democratic and stable nation", to which a member of the audience, Walter Wolfgang, heckled back “nonsense!” I suppose we will have to wait for history to judge who was right, but Wolfgang was physically dragged out of the conference hall and held under anti-terror legislation. Wolfgang was a veteran peace campaigner, and a member of the Labour Party since before Straw would walk, and his rough ejection from the hall led to outrage and an apology, but the implication was clear. Heckling was not democracy, but criminality.

The professionalisation of the political class has also produced a fear of the public. In 1979, MPs whose occupation prior to their election was listed as “Politician” made up only 3.4% of Parliament. There were as many former miners as there were professional politicians — an effect of a functioning trade union movement. These life experiences, as well as a campaigning culture that necessitated frequent, unmediated public appearances before live audiences, gave politicians some rhetorical tools to answer their public critics. By 2015, the professional politician made up nearly 20% of Parliament, more than any other profession, with former manual workers comprising only 3% of MPs: a stark indictment of the so-called Age of Meritocracy. Huge numbers of MPs have been on the pipeline to Parliament since they were teenagers, through student politics or researcher positions. No wonder the sight of a rowdy constituent sends them straight for their chauffeured car.

The rise of the SpAd, like the focus group, has also served to distance politicians from the public. Removed from the cut-and-thrust of public hustings, cowering in fear of the heckler, the job of producing policy doesn’t emerge from listening to the needs of constituents so much as the arcane arts of thinktanks and SpAds. One reason Johnson seems so reticent in firing Cummings is his inability to develop or enact policy without his big-brained genius, his éminence grise. Cummings seems to have the magic touch as a disrupter, precisely because many of his methods bypass the established three decades practice of using marketing practices such as focus groups to establish political positions. For all his supposed Churchillian qualities, it’s difficult to imagine a Johnson administration functioning without the man who has been the architect of the current political situation.

Subscribe now

It’s unsurprising Cummings is attracting the ire of, quite literally, the man and woman on the street, however. The hypocrisy of his actions are bound to offend many suffering under a lockdown they nonetheless abide by in the name of the common good. One neighbour called after Cummings “My mum’s terrified. My dad’s had three shoulder operations… Stanmore (Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital) have left him without his shoulder, and she won’t even let him walk in the garden… she won’t even entertain me in the garden with a tent. As a single parent I’ve had no childcare since the beginning of this whole mess, not that I can afford to pay for childcare. Hypocrite!” These are experiences that seldom find voice in press conferences. Britain’s press system is seriously flawed, skewed by a handful of big owners and a click-driven economic model. The journalistic lobby system, combined with the unconscionable growth of the seriously anti-democratic culture of figures like Cummings briefing and leaking to leading political editors off the record, has fatally compromised the ability of journalists to adequately hold power to account. The BBC’s own Political Editor frequently leaks attack lines from “sources” close to power, while the government itself drags its feet on communicating its own policies with the public itself. Such a nest of Machiavellian intrigue might be exciting for those who get to play, but it’s corrosive to public trust, to journalism, and, in a time of a pandemic crisis, to public health. Why is a neighbour of Cummings, hanging from his window, able to offer a stronger interrogation of the anoracked Richelieu than the country’s main political editors? And why is the response of much of the commentariat, such as Hodges or Blonde, to close ranks in defence of Cummings with contemptuous comparisons to “lynching”?

It is this political system, and not the potty-mouthed public, that is genuinely toxic. Nobody deserves abuse, but shouting your question is not abuse. Often, shouting your insult is not even abuse. Cummings is a hypocrite, and it does no harm to hear it said. Even Ted Heath knew the value of it, responding in The Hecklers “if they’d like to heckle decently, then let them stay.” Demands for a “return to civility” in politics are not just ahistorical, as Strick’s film demonstrates, but antidemocratic. The voices such demands silence are those most in need of being heard, and the demand itself is an intentional attempt to keep politics restricted to channels which can be controlled. A party that drives a van to the poorest areas of the capital, demanding immigrants “GO HOME OR FACE ARREST” has no recourse to the defence of dignified speech. Attempts to control the tone of discourse are attempts to professionalise it, to keep the grit of public experience out of the vaseline that keeps political life lubricated, that keeps wealth and influence circulating within the halls of power. If you’re not a politician or a SpAd, then the heckler is you. Britain needs more hecklers, and more politicians brave enough to heckle back.

‘utopian drivel’ is a weekly essay series by Huw Lemmey. Please feel free to share and forward today’s newsletter with anyone who might be interested. For those just visiting, I send out a newsletter/podcast a week to paying subscribers — for less than $5 a month — and one a month for free subscribers. You can subscribe here, and, if you like it, please hit the like button. It helps other people find my newsletter.

Subscribe now



Read the whole story
koranteng
6 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories