RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
My Husband Raped Two Women - and I Had to Answer for His Crimes Print
Thursday, 14 January 2016 14:43

Moroney writes: "We lock down the families of offenders, typically into poverty, stigma, and shame. We often deem victims to be ruined for life. We make pariahs of people who have made mistakes right along with people who plan and carry out murder and harm 'in cold blood,' rather than getting to the root causes of either type of offending behavior."

Shannon Moroney and her husband Jason. (photo: Shannon Moroney)
Shannon Moroney and her husband Jason. (photo: Shannon Moroney)


My Husband Raped Two Women - and I Had to Answer for His Crimes

By Shannon Moroney, VOX

14 January 16

 

was writing a thank-you card for a wedding gift when I heard the knock at my door. It was 2005, I was 30 years old, and my life was about to change forever.

I was away from home, staying at a hotel for a school guidance counselors' conference. When I opened the door to the corridor I expected to see my colleagues at the threshold, inviting me to breakfast. But instead, I saw the silhouette of a police uniform filling the frame.

"I'm here about your husband," the officer said. "Are you Jason Staples's wife?"

I nodded, unable to speak. Yes, I am Jason Staples's wife. We'd been married exactly a month.

"Jason was arrested last night, charged with sexual assault."

My mind raced: What does he mean? There must be some mistake.

But there was no mistake. "I understand that your husband called 911 himself," the officer said, "and that he has given a full confession."

"What happened?" I asked, my words barely audible. The officer didn't know the details of the assault because he was from the Toronto police force. He handed me the phone number of the sergeant in Peterborough and said I should call him right away. He said gently, "I think you better expect that it was ‘full rape.'" I felt nauseated. I could only think, What happened? What happened to you, Jason? Images of Jason as I had known and loved him — of someone who had come so far in his life — flashed before my eyes.

Jason had a criminal past — but we thought he'd moved beyond it

I'd met Jason three years earlier, at a soup kitchen where I volunteered with a group of my students and where he was the head chef. We had an instant connection. On our first date, he told me about his past.

"There is something you have to know about me right away," he said. "I was in prison for 10 years, and I'm on parole with a life sentence."

His disclosure left me breathless, and I sat still as he told me the whole story. In 1988, a few months after his 18th birthday, he killed his 38-year-old female roommate during an argument that got very out of control, very quickly. He pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was given a sentence of Life-10 — 10 years in prison, then parole for life. He had no prior history of violence or trouble of any kind, and the judge saw his youth and his potential for rehabilitation.

True to expectations, Jason returned to society 10 years later — he'd been a model inmate and was thought to pose no further risk to society. By the time I met him, he'd successfully carried out his parole process and had been living safely and contributing to the community for five years. He planned to go back to school soon and make the most of the second chance he'd been given.

I checked these facts with his parole officer and his psychologist, and in official records. Everything he told me checked out. The reports all stated that the murder was a one-time act of adolescent rage. His reentry to society made him a poster boy for Corrections. He was not considered a risk to reoffend.

Still, I was hesitant to get involved with Jason — he would be on parole for life, which would make traveling (one of my passions) difficult. If we had children, we would one day have to tell them. More immediately, I would have to tell my family and closest friends — this wasn't something I could or would keep secret.

For three months, I struggled to come to terms with the unalterable truth. As I considered our future, I remembered something I'd heard long ago: Forgiveness means letting go of all hope for a better past. In this, I found a way to accept Jason fully, and I was rewarded with a wonderful, fulfilling relationship.

He was my soul mate, and I loved being with him — taking bike rides, watching movies, volunteering together, having long conversations. This was apparent to my parents, siblings, and close friends, who all liked him immensely. When I told them, one by one, about the part that wasn't apparent at all, they were shocked and saddened. But they weren't quick to judge. Like me, they talked extensively with Jason and found themselves able to accept him. We trusted that our justice system had rehabilitated him, and time seemed to have proven that.

Jason and I built a life together with the full support of my family — united in our sadness over the murder he'd committed now more than 15 years prior, but also in our faith that he would continue to live up to his promise of a life contributing to society. Like everyone else who'd helped him start over, my family and I put our trust in him, and there were no signs that he would one day break it.

But now, after three years of building that beautiful life together — Jason's straight-A graduation from art school and budding illustration career, my career steps forward as an educator and counselor, buying and renovating our first home, getting married and planning a family — I was in my hotel room, a police officer standing next to me. Jason was in a jail cell in the basement of the police station.

What happened on the night of the crimes

Once I got back to Peterborough, I heard the whole story. Two women had been afternoon customers in the health food store where Jason worked part time. When the first woman, a 46-year-old, walked in, Jason held her up at knife point, dragged her behind some stock shelves, brutally sexually assaulted her, and then confined her in the basement.

When the second victim walked in, minutes later, Jason held her at knife point, and a struggle broke out. He overcame her by choking her to unconsciousness. He took her to the basement, where she returned to consciousness and he assaulted her. Then he bound both women with duct tape, went out to rent a van, returned, and drove them to our home.

By that time night had fallen, and he carried them into the house and down to the basement, where they bravely tried to talk with him, to rehumanize him.

Officers told me that according to both of the victims' statements and Jason's confession (which matched each other perfectly), Jason left our house around 9 pm and returned to the store, where he gathered a ladder and some rope as he started to formulate a suicide plan.

Then he returned to our house, where the women continued to talk with him. He switched back and forth from monster to human, terrorizing them and then apologizing. A little after 10 pm he answered my chipper, chatty phone call. When later I realized that during that phone call there were two women injured and terrified in my home, I wanted to vomit.

Jason then left our house and called police from a payphone. He told the officer who he was and what he had done, and he asked them to come and help the women. He planned to drive into the woods to carry out his suicide plan, but when after 25 minutes of watching our house the police still hadn't arrived, he called them again. Cruisers now in the area swarmed in and arrested him, disrupting his suicide plan. That night at the station, Jason gave a full confession that ended with, "Just put me away."

The police told me that given Jason's history and the violence of these new charges, he would be a candidate for the dangerous offender designation, the highest sentence in Canada. He would spend the rest of his life in prison.

"He has a wife. Who is she? What's wrong with her?"

News of the crimes hit the media, and I couldn't return to my home, now a crime scene surrounded by police tape. Privacy was ripped away and replaced by public scrutiny. He has a wife. Who is she? What's wrong with her? Was she part of this?

The police were clear in telling me whose side I was on, no matter what my feelings for the victims might be. When I asked if there was anything I could do to help them, the victim services officer looked me up and down and said sternly, "The victims don't need to hear from Jason's arena."

Some friends drew lines in the sand, too. "Shannon, don't you know these women will never recover? You can't have compassion for them and Jason." Others offered their sympathy and support, as they faced their own conflicted feelings toward the Jason they'd known and the terrible things he had done.

I was in agony — reliving every detail of the violence described to me by the police, putting myself in the place of the victims, feeling their fear but unable to help them in any way. I grasped to understand how Jason could possibly have done this, feeling love for the person I'd known and repulsion for what he did. I was thrust upon a terrifying journey through the justice system, the media, and the social stigma of being the spouse of a sex offender.

The ripple effect of Jason's crimes was widespread, from the victims and their families to my family and me to Jason's boss — the health food store owner, whose life's work was now a crime scene on the front page of the paper — and his family to our friends and neighbors and my school community.

While Jason spent nine months in solitary confinement — or "protective custody," as it was called — I was left on the outside to deal with the aftermath, completely unprotected, an easy target for judgment and blame. My school principal banned me from entering the school without permission and forced me out of my job. I lost my salary, benefits, seniority, place of belonging, and, worst of all, my relationships with students, staff, and parents. I was made guilty by association.

I turned to victim services at the police for help, as surely they could let the public know I had nothing to do with the crimes, that I hated what Jason had done. They could explain that my visits to Jason — news of which had spread in our small town — were about getting answers to my questions, which only he had: Why did you do this? How could you do it? What's wrong with you? Do you know what you have done?

But there was no one to help me. The defense counsel was for Jason, the accused. Victim services were for the real victims, not the collateral ones like me. I didn't fit anywhere. All I could do was put one foot in front of the other and try to find a way through to the other side, whatever that would look like.

Visiting Jason, which I did first just a few days after his arrest and continued over the next couple of years, wasn't about "standing by my man," as so many assumed. It was about understanding my human — the only one in this nightmare whom I had contact with. I wasn't allowed to talk to the victims or even know who they were. The prosecutor wouldn't even look at me, even though I was on his list of victims — Jason also confessed to surreptitiously videotaping me and others in the bathroom of our home on a few occasions leading up to the assaults, crimes of voyeurism.

I pored over books about sexual deviance, pornography addiction, the effects of childhood sexual abuse, and dissociative identity disorder — all suggested to me either by what Jason was disclosing in our visits (he was like a volcano spewing toxins, one that we'd all mistaken for an inert mountain) or by the doctors and researchers I connected with. I needed to try to understand.

I also searched every inch of my own home for clues about what had gone wrong inside Jason — was there anything I should have seen? There wasn't. Even a three-day, four-officer police search of our home had turned up nothing.

Jason didn't give me or anyone else a chance to help him or to prevent these crimes: He seemed to have two completely separate identities, one of which was entirely secret. The murder he committed as an 18-year-old, now 18 years ago, did nothing to prepare any of us — family, friends, or professionals — for his reoffending, and certainly not for sexual offending, though many on the outside were quick to say that I or we should have known. This was a painful judgment.

An illustartion of handcuffs. (photo: Vox.com)
An illustartion of handcuffs. (photo: Vox.com)

I'm not alone as a woman experiencing judgment and scrutiny for her husband's sexual crimes. Camille Cosby has had to comment publicly on the assault allegations against her husband, Bill Cosby, and was subpoenaed in the defamation lawsuit that's currently being brought against him. (A judge ended up ruling that she does not have to testify, though that could change.) With Hillary Clinton running for president again, her husband's past rape and sexual harassment allegations are being brought back to the surface. No matter what these women's private, emotional journeys are, their reactions and decisions will be public.

Far more women across the country — those with no means to access counseling or savvy in dealing with the media — will endure the nightmare of a husband's transgressions, criminal or not. Many of them have children. Lines in the sand will be drawn for them, too.

The two-and-a-half-year trial

Jason's trial went on for 2 1/2 years (despite his consistent efforts to plead guilty), and throughout it I saw and experienced the cold and clinical way "justice is served" to victims, families, and communities. At the end of it, after enormous pain and loss were expressed in victim impact statements, remorse and confusion were expressed in Jason's statement, and the facts of the assaults were reviewed by the judge, all that happened is that one person was sent to prison for the rest of his life and everyone else was just sent home. It was indescribably empty, with no peace or healing to be found. That was something, it seemed, we would each have to find on our own.

After the sentencing, on a beautiful day in May 2008, I watched as Jason — handcuffed and in leg irons — was put into a van and hauled away to prison. He gave a small wave, almost as though he were a child going to summer camp. I didn't see the victims leave, but I imagined them going home to start rebuilding their lives, hoping they had the support I had in my family and close circle of friends.

How I found healing

I tried to rebuild my life, finalizing my divorce from Jason, going to therapy, taking dance lessons, and, yes, even dating. I also wanted to do what I could to rebuild the justice system so that it could have the power to heal, not only the power to punish.

I pursued a social work master's degree, confident that this would give me purpose and open some doors. I focused my studies on trauma and restorative justice. I found research, theory, and evidence that supported and put words to what I was experiencing.

Howard Zehr, the leading US expert on restorative justice, put it the best. He explains that the conventional criminal justice system responds to crime by asking three main questions:

What law has been broken?

Who did it?

What punishment do they deserve?

These are important questions, but they have their limits. They put the state and the accused in the center and victims around the periphery, typically using victims' stories only to achieve a conviction and to influence sentencing. The focus is on retribution.

The ripple effect of crime through families and communities is seldom addressed, and participation of those affected is minimal or absent. Offenders are sent away to serve time, and in Canada almost all are returned to society having had minimal or no treatment. In the US, the story is similar, only the rate of incarceration is more than 20 times what it is in Canada — the highest in the world.

At its core, restorative justice sees crime and violence not as an assault on the state but on human relationships of trust. Therefore, "justice" is an attempt to restore — to bring back, recreate, repair, or in some cases build for the first time — trust and safety within relationships through accountability, dialogue, empathy and an effort to "make things right." Restorative justice poses three different questions:

Who has been harmed?

What are their needs?

Whose obligation is it to fulfill those needs?

Asking these questions includes and values the voices and experiences of the people closest to the harm, and tries to support everyone. It does not necessarily exclude a component of punishment (incarceration) but does recognize its limits.

Because when we merely lock people up, we seal off much of our own chance to build understanding or have our questions answered. Victims can be plagued by questions their whole lives, questions that only the offenders may be able to answer: Why did you do it? What was going through your mind? Why me? Do you know what you've done? Do you know how you've hurt me and my loved ones? How can I know you won't do it again?

We lock away offenders' ability to be accountable, to make amends, to understand the impact of what they did or why they did it in the first place — what brought them to the place or choice to commit a crime.

We lock down the families of offenders, typically into poverty, stigma, and shame. We often deem victims to be ruined for life. We make pariahs of people who have made mistakes right along with people who plan and carry out murder and harm "in cold blood," rather than getting to the root causes of either type of offending behavior. And all too often, we lock up people who suffer from mental illness, even as we know we cannot punish the mental illness out of a person.

I never had a formal restorative justice process with Jason, but I did have an informal one. I visited him many, many times in prison — for as long as it was helping me move forward. In our conversations, he expressed remorse and accountability, and I had the chance to ask questions and explain how much he'd hurt me and others.

I'm a better, healthier, stronger person for this experience, and I feel fortunate to have had it. I was able to leave behind the betrayal and destruction Jason caused and the anger that threatened to consume me, and to start a new life that is full of love, trust and meaning.

Why I share my story

Going public with my story — first by accepting invitations to speak at justice conferences starting in 2008, and then publishing my memoir in 2011 — gave me back my voice and cleared me from guilt by association. While I felt vulnerable standing up in front of my first audience, and it was painful to relive everything as I wrote it all down, both were healing. Audiences responded well, with compassion and new awareness. They restored my dignity and broke apart the cloud of stigma that was such a threat to my health and future.

I regained my voice, and found purpose in what was otherwise senseless. From the beginning, I'd figured (based on the prison population) that there must be thousands more like me out there — the wives, sisters, mothers, fathers, brothers, friends, and colleagues of people accused or guilty of crimes — but I could never find them. Once I starting speaking out, they found me. They shared their stories, and continue to, to this day.

Like me, they endure public scrutiny, shunning, blame, trauma, and grief. They have empathy for the victims (who were less often strangers and more often other family members) but are asked to choose sides. They need help, and from a public position I can educate and advocate for it. For this, I am grateful.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Cattle Grazing Is a Climate Disaster, and You're Paying for It Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30542"><span class="small">Ben Adler, Grist</span></a>   
Thursday, 14 January 2016 14:37

Adler writes: "Ranchers using federal land, like the Bundy family that is leading the occupation and the Hammond family in whose name they took up arms, are recipients of massive federal subsidies for activities that exacerbate climate change and damage sensitive ecosystems. It's time the taxpayers stopped indulging these whiny welfare queens and kicked them off the dole."

Cattle grazing in a field. (photo: Max Whittaker/Reuters)
Cattle grazing in a field. (photo: Max Whittaker/Reuters)


Cattle Grazing Is a Climate Disaster, and You're Paying for It

By Ben Adler, Grist

14 January 16

 

he rules governing cattle grazing on federal lands are so obscure that your average climate change correspondent hasn’t given much thought to them. But now that a gang of pathetic losers with guns has occupied a federal wildlife sanctuary in Oregon to gripe about the federal government’s audacity to set rules for how ranchers use publicly owned land, it’s worth taking a look at this policy.

As it turns out, ranchers using federal land, like the Bundy family that is leading the occupation and the Hammond family in whose name they took up arms, are recipients of massive federal subsidies for activities that exacerbate climate change and damage sensitive ecosystems. It’s time the taxpayers stopped indulging these whiny welfare queens and kicked them off the dole.

Why this land matters to the climate

Grasslands are, like trees, essential carbon sinks. Shrubs and grasses breathe in carbon dioxide and thereby regulate atmospheric concentrations of carbon. Loss of grasslands contributes to rising rates of carbon in the atmosphere and therefore to global warming. These lands are also important habitats for threatened species and their ruination contributes to the ongoing massive loss of biodiversity. Only 5 percent of the original grasslands in the U.S. remain.

Climate change can cause the degradation or loss of grasslands because drought and heat waves damage or kill plants. This problem is currently plaguing the West. And, in a vicious cycle, that contributes even more to climate change.

Putting cattle on these grasslands just leads to more problems: The livestock can rip plants to shreds, push other species toward extinction, and turn the land to dust. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, “In the arid West, livestock grazing is the most widespread cause of species endangerment.” The group explains: “Cattle destroy native vegetation, damage soils and stream banks, and contaminate waterways with fecal waste. After decades of livestock grazing, once-lush streams and riparian forests have been reduced to flat, dry wastelands; once-rich topsoil has been turned to dust, causing soil erosion, stream sedimentation and wholesale elimination of some aquatic habitats; overgrazing of native fire-carrying grasses has starved some western forests of fire, making them overly dense and prone to unnaturally severe fires.”

In 2012, a study by Oregon State researchers found that climate change is worsening environmental stressors on Western grasslands, and therefore the federal government should consider reducing or eliminating livestock grazing on public lands.

At the core of this current kerfuffle in Oregon is a dispute over the penalty for ranchers who illegally set fire to federal grassland. The militants who took over the wildlife sanctuary think the prison sentence set forth in federal law is inherently invalid. But from a climate perspective, the behavior at issue is totally unacceptable.

In the face of an overwhelming climate crisis, you would think the federal government would make preserving and protecting these carbon sinks the overriding purpose of its land management. You would be wrong. Instead, the government leases out 270 million acres of public land in the West for livestock grazing. It’s just as outrageous as leasing out public land for coal mining and oil drilling.

How cattle hurt the climate

Even aside from their impact on grasslands, cattle are terrible for the climate.

Cows emit methane — a greenhouse gas that is 86 times more damaging than carbon over 20 years — when they burp, fart, or poop. As CNN recently noted, “14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most reputable authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry’s role — 65% — comes from raising beef and dairy cattle.” A pound of beef has about the same carbon footprint as driving an average American car 70 miles.

This is far worse than most foods. The Environmental Working Group found that beef has the second highest carbon footprint of any common food after lamb. Pound for pound, it is twice as bad for the climate as cheese and pork, four times worse than chicken, and more than 14 times worse than broccoli.

And that’s not even considering the other unsustainable aspects of beef, such as using land and water much less efficiently than plants or chickens to produce food. There’s just no reason for our government to actively promote cattle raising and beef.

Taxpayers are subsidizing these ranchers

If the federal grazing-lease program were enormously profitable, and the profits were put to some good use, then there would at least be a counterargument in the program’s favor.

Instead, the program is a big money-loser — a giant taxpayer subsidy for an environmentally destructive industry. As FiveThirtyEight points out, “In 2012, the [federal government’s] fees for grazing were 93 percent cheaper than the average market rate in 16 Western states ($1.35 versus $20.10 per AUM, which is a fancy acronym for the amount of land needed to support a cow and her calf for a month).” These minimal grazing fees are the same ones Bundy family patriarch Cliven Bundy refuses to pay.

The Center for Biological Diversity calculates that below-market grazing fees amount to a direct subsidy to ranchers of more than $100 billion per year, and that indirect subsidies such as federal predator control programs that protect livestock may add up to $300 billion.

Keith Nantz, a rancher in Oregon, wrote Friday in The Washington Post that “many ranchers must lease [federal land] to create a sustainable operation.” By “sustainable,” he means profitable, not eco-friendly. If it’s unprofitable to raise cattle on private land, why is it the taxpayers’ responsibility to bail him out? Some things are worth taxpayer dollars: education, national defense, health care. But beef?

What should we do?

The public should use the land it owns not for subsidized, carbon-intensive economic activities like cattle grazing and fossil fuel development, but for climate change mitigation and adaptation and habitat preservation.

Nantz complained in the Post that the federal government pushes ranchers around by creating new rules to protect endangered wildlife. He wants the feds to defer more to the ranchers on issues like whether to protect endangered species.

OK, here’s my counter-offer: Nothing. You don’t like being told where, when, and how to graze your cattle on public land? Then get them off public land. The ranchers frame their complaint as being about government overreach, but what they really object to is federal policies that balance their interests with others’.

The Bundys, their compatriots, and the politicians who kiss their asses, like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, argue that states and individuals should be able to misuse grasslands ad infinitum. But if the federal government were to hand them over to anyone, the morally and ecologically responsible recipients would be the Native Americans from whom this land was originally stolen in the first place, not a rentier class of entitled white men who want to exploit it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26125"><span class="small">Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 14 January 2016 12:54

Simpich writes: "My friend Ron McGuire is a lawyer. He is involved in a case of life and death. His life. His death. He is trying to get paid more than eleven dollars an hour for a civil rights case he has worked on for 19 years. A case that he won."

In 2011, hundreds of CUNY students and sympathizers protested while the board of trustees met at Baruch College. (photo: Michael Appleton/The New York Times)
In 2011, hundreds of CUNY students and sympathizers protested while the board of trustees met at Baruch College. (photo: Michael Appleton/The New York Times)


A Big Win for Political Expression – Why Punish the Advocate?

By Bill Simpich, Reader Supported News

14 January 16

 

y friend Ron McGuire is a lawyer. He is involved in a case of life and death. His life. His death. He is trying to get paid more than eleven dollars an hour for a civil rights case he has worked on for 19 years. A case that he won.

For the first time, the students at the City University of New York (CUNY) –predominantly young people of color and Muslim immigrants – can publish their student newspaper without being subject to the worst kind of censorship. CUNY has the third largest student body in the country.

The Second Circuit upheld the right of student journalists to publish prominent editorial opinions on candidates for election on the campus. 

CUNY students protesting tuition rate hikes (2011).  A continuing history of resistance. (photo: RT)
CUNY students protesting tuition rate hikes (2011). A continuing history of resistance. (photo: RT)

The court told the president of the College of Staten Island that she violated the First Amendment rights of student journalists, candidates, and voters when she canceled a campus election to punish the newspaper for publishing a special endorsement issue on the eve of balloting. 

You would think that would be a ruling all reasonable people would celebrate. You would be wrong. It was a 2-1 ruling. That means one judge was on the losing side.

The losing judge bragged about not reading the ruling written by the winning side. He went on to compare the CUNY students to the genocidal Cambodian leader Pol Pot. This judge really hated losing. 

Ron is 67. Born in the Lower East Side. Grew up in a housing project in the Bronx. Sole practitioner. Wants to retire. No savings. This case was his nest egg. His health is, to put it in two words, not good. 

Ron worked on this case for 19 years, He fought several CUNY lawyers at almost every hearing. The administration sent a dozen lawyers into the field in an all-out effort to shut the students down. And their big-mouth attorney.

Somehow, Ron’s motion to get paid wound up in front of the losing judge. The judge saw a way to get revenge. Ron’s fee award was slashed to the bone. Eleven dollars an hour. Just about the minimum wage. 

The losing judge calls it “a case about nothing.” Students and allies say the judge is full of shit and, yes, Ron is their hero.

As a civil rights lawyer, I can assure you that many cases at the courthouse are not about much. But everyone makes sure that the lawyers get paid.

Not here. Because Ron McGuire is a people’s lawyer. Why did Ron make this choice? Or was it even a choice?

Ron was part of the movement to open up admission at CUNY to everyone in 1969. Back then, that meant a free college education for all. Not just students of the European persuasion. 

Ron joined the student strike, standing in solidarity with Black and Brown students. 

A couple of years earlier, Ron found a way to avoid arrest. He sat in a tree. He wouldn’t get out. The police couldn’t get him out. A cop and a construction worker stepped into the scoop of a front end loader. From high in the air, they tried to lasso him. Ron grabbed the rope and lashed himself to the tree. The media loved it. Ron was a tree-sitter before there were tree-sitters. The authorities were furious. Ron was suspended. 

When Ron stood with Black and Brown students, the authorities knew what to do. Ron was expelled.

Ron moved to the West Coast. He went to Laney Community College, with a major in Black studies. He was at the barricades in the antiwar movement in the years during and after Vietnam, which is how I know him. After an era of determined resistance, the military pulled up stakes and abandoned virtually every base in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

The Presidio, Mare Island, Alameda Naval Air Station, Concord Naval Weapons Station, the list goes on. All gone. In their place? Beautiful parklands. How’s the economy? Maybe the best in the country. Any questions? 

As that era was winding down, Ron went back East to go to law school at NYU. After school, he went to a fancy law firm for a couple of years.

In 1991, he heard that they were trying to end open admissions at CUNY. 

When Ron went to school there in 1969, it was 92% Anglo. Twenty years later, it was a whole different population. Black, Puerto Rican, Dominican. Admission was no longer free, but it was still available to working class people. The looming cuts could have ended all that.

The students went on strike. They defied a court injunction to end the strike. Thirty of them were arrested. Nearly 200 of them faced expulsion.

Ron never went back to the firm. He said the students “reflect the future we fought for in 1969.” 

He advised the students how to fight back. They formed a defense team, with two lawyers and lots of students. The defense of necessity is rarely allowed in the courts. In political cases, it enables people to justify their acts. Any way the courts looked at it, the evidence remained the same. The students kept the school open and stopped the authorities from closing it. 

The result? No convictions, expulsions, or suspensions. The decisions in Ron’s cases and the transcripts of the disciplinary hearings became required reading in legal skills for first year CUNY law students. 

The administration fought back. Ron’s work continued to be used, but his name was expunged from the course materials. The university disciplinary code was changed to eliminate the defense of justification.

Nor were the students allowed to have a free press. The authorities insisted on “balance.” In the mid-90s, a campus election was overturned because of this lack of “balance.” That’s when this suit began. 

CUNY students are stronger than they have been in some time, with a Second Circuit decision protecting their right to free speech and to organize effectively.

Ron is facing poverty and ruin.

Who will ever represent these students again?

In the last two weeks, the Second Circuit has been confronted by a wave of legal briefs from allies throughout the community, including New York City Council member Ydanis Rodriguez, naming Ron “the foremost advocate and … the leading expert on the civil rights of CUNY students.”

Their message? Reverse the decision to punish the advocate – if freedom of the press means anything in this country.

Yes, and honor the dignity of Ron and the students of CUNY.



Bill Simpich is a civil rights attorney who knows that it doesn’t have to be like this, but it will continue unless people speak out against these grand juries. My next article will discuss how a new Supreme Court case means that anti-war activists can be subpoenaed by grand juries for nonviolent action – after all, it might free up someone’s resources to take violent action.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Al Jazeera America Terminates All TV and Digital Operations Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29455"><span class="small">Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept</span></a>   
Thursday, 14 January 2016 12:05

"Executives of Al Jazeera America (AJAM) held a meeting to tell their employees that the company is terminating all news and digital operations in the U.S., resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs. The announcement marks a stunning and rapid collapse of what, from the start, has been a towering failure."

Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: AP)


Al Jazeera America Terminates All TV and Digital Operations

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

14 January 16

 

xecutives of Al Jazeera America (AJAM) held a meeting at 2 p.m. Eastern Time to tell their employees that the company is terminating all news and digital operations in the U.S. as of April 2016, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs. The announcement marks a stunning and rapid collapse of what, from the start, has been a towering failure.

AJAM began when Al Jazeera purchased Current TV in late 2012 from founder Al Gore for $500 million, and the channel launched six months later. From the start, the project was beset with massive failures, from bitter internal strife and employee discrimination lawsuits to minuscule ratings and distribution failures. AJAM and Gore ended up in a protracted, embittered lawsuit with one another. Ratings were so low as to be almost unquantifiable; even by 2015, the network was averaging a tiny 30,000 viewers in prime-time and at some points had literally a zero rating in the key 25-54 demographic.

From the start, employees complained vociferously that network executives were paralyzed by fear, believing they had to avoid all hints of bias and opinion in order to steer clear of what these executives regarded as the lethal stench of the Al Jazeera brand for American audiences. This turned much of the network into a diluted, extra-fearful version of CNN, which itself has suffered from remarkably low ratings for years. AJAM journalists typically blame one AJAM executive in particular, Ehab Al Shihabi, its executive director of international operations. Al Shihabi, whose background is in business and not journalism, was widely regarded as the prime author of the network’s identity problems and obsession with voiceless content.

2013 column in the Toronto Star by former Al Jazeera English chief Tony Burman warned that “the Al Jazeera America project has the odor of potential disaster.” Burman cited a New York Times article that began: “While it has a foreign name, the forthcoming Al Jazeera cable channel in the United States wants to be American through and through.” A NYT article from May on the “turmoil” plaguing the network pronounced that “the station has been a nonfactor in news.” Rather than fill a market gap for strong-voiced journalism with a focus on domestic counter-terrorism policy and the Middle East, AJAM opted for the much safer – and ultimately futile – strategy of trying to be an inoffensive, generic cable news network.

AJAM has been losing staggering sums of money from the start. That has become increasingly untenable as the network’s owner and funder, the government of Qatar, is now economically struggling due to low oil prices. The decision was made recently to terminate AJAM, which allows the network to terminate all of its cumbersome distribution contracts with cable companies, and re-launch its successful Al Jazeera English inside the U.S.

While AJAM has struggled with its television programming, its online reporting and digital opinion sites have been successful, finding relatively large audiences among American news consumers. Nonetheless, all of AJAM is terminating, and both the TV and digital employees are expected to lose their jobs.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Stay Classy: Flint Residents Are Still Being Billed for That Poisonous Water Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Thursday, 14 January 2016 09:47

Pierce writes: "The case against block-granting the federal safety-net programs back to the states - a.k.a., the only 'anti-poverty program' the Republicans have - gets stronger by the day. May we approach, Your Honor?"

LeeAnne Walters of Flint shows water samples from her home January 21, 2015, to Flint emergency manager Jerry Ambrose after city and state officials spoke during a forum discussing growing health concerns about the drinking water. (photo: Ryan Garza/Detroit Free Press)
LeeAnne Walters of Flint shows water samples from her home January 21, 2015, to Flint emergency manager Jerry Ambrose after city and state officials spoke during a forum discussing growing health concerns about the drinking water. (photo: Ryan Garza/Detroit Free Press)


Stay Classy: Flint Residents Are Still Being Billed for That Poisonous Water

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

14 January 16

 

Bureaucracy in action.

he case against block-granting the federal safety-net programs back to the states—a.k.a., the only "anti-poverty program" the Republicans have—gets stronger by the day. May we approach, Your Honor?

Exhibit A:

Advocates had urged Bevin to keep kynect, a website praised for its accessibility and ease of use. They said helped hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians sign up for health coverage. It also included a public information campaign and workers to help people get health coverage. "That's really disappointing," said Emily Beauregard, executive director of Kentucky Voices for Health, a coalition of advocacy groups. "It's a lot more than just a website." The decision also was criticized by Jason Bailey, executive director of the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, a non-partisan, progressive policy and research group based in Berea. "The repeal of Kynect by Gov. Bevin is a big step backward on access to healthcare in Kentucky," Bailey said. "It will create an even bigger hole in Kentucky's budget, using at least $23 million to dismantle the national model for state exchanges that could be better spent on education, public safety or other essentials to thriving communities."

How can this possibly be "disappointing"? Bevin ran on doing precisely this. Bevin has been a Tea Party fanatic his entire career. Bevin is being exactly the governor that Kentucky said it wanted. He wants the Affordable Care Act to fail in Kentucky, but he doesn't want his fingerprints on the murder weapon. How is this in any way a surprise to anyone?

Exhibit B:

At a press conference, Snyder was repeatedly questioned about the state's admitted mishandling of the water emergency and whether he knew it was a major problem before he addressed it in a press conference in early October. "I have a degree of responsibility," he said. It wasn't until last week that Snyder declared a state of emergency in Flint, where the first batch of 2,200 blood tests turned up 43 children with elevated lead in their blood—which can cause mental and physical development problems. Only 2 percent of the city's population has been tested, even though the state's chief medical officer said every child under the age of 6 years should be assessed. Officials warned Monday that the tap water still isn't safe to drink, but it took five days after the emergency declaration for the state to start handing out bottled water. And Flint's economically challenged citizens are still being billed for water that authorities say they shouldn't consume or even use to brush their teeth.

Oh, how tempting it must be for the relevant federal authorities to let Snyder's calls go straight to voicemail. "If you're calling to ask for help in a crisis you helped create, please press 8 and jam the phone in your ear."

Exhibit C:

The investigation, which Walker said initially focused on just a couple of employees at the Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake juvenile prisons north of Wausau, began quietly more than a year ago and became public this week. The FBI said Dec. 10 that it was now "assisting" the state Department of Justice with the inquiry. Walker said the Department of Justice told his office about two weeks ago that problems at the prisons were more widespread than originally thought. At that point, Walker said he instructed Corrections Secretary Ed Wall "to take aggressive action in dealing with both personnel and policy." But at least one person with inside knowledge of the situation has contacted WiG to complain that Wall has purposely allowed the situation to fester in order to support Walker's ultimate goal of privatizing Wisconsin prisons. Walker has received big donations from the for-profit Corrections Corporation of America. "There were 88 vacancies when (Wall) accepted his appointment. Today, there are over 500," wrote Christine Ewerdt, the wife of a correction officer, in an op-ed for WiG. She said that Wall has never worked one day within the confines of a correctional facility and purposely implements policies that are destined to fail, to further Walker's goal of privatization. "The vacancies within the DOC are staggering enough today to shut down activities in the prisons and create mandatory overtime, all at extra cost to taxpayers," Ewerdt wrote. "Gov. Walker has long lobbied for privatization, and Wall is the tool he's using to accomplish this goal."

You had to know that there'd be some goggle-eyed homunuculating involved somewhere in the evidence. I believe what this woman wrote about Walker's ultimate agenda because it's exactly the same kind of penny-ante mendacity and cowardice that has marked his entire political career.

So, no, gang. I don't think handing the only lifelines poor people have over to the tender mercies of the likes of these jamokes is a valid policy prescription.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 Next > End >>

Page 2185 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN