|
Why No One Should Be Truly Shocked by the Mistrial in the Freddie Gray Case |
 |
|
Thursday, 17 December 2015 15:17 |
|
Ross writes: "There are now a series of cultural cliches and almost meaningless declarations that can be expected after yet another police officer, facing the rare event of criminal charges, manages to go home a free man or woman."
Police stand outside Baltimore City Circuit Courthouse after the hung jury was announced in the trial of Officer William Porter on Dec. 16, 2015. (Molly Riley/AFP/Getty)
Why No One Should Be Truly Shocked by the Mistrial in the Freddie Gray Case
By Janell Ross, The Washington Post
17 December 15
 ust as the nation has developed an increasingly stale ritual on mass shootings -- one of shock, followed by mass grief, followed closely or sometimes concurrently by public statements about gun policy -- there are now a series of cultural cliches and almost meaningless declarations that can be expected after yet another police officer, facing the rare event of criminal charges, manages to go home a free man or woman.
First there is a death -- that person is disproportionately likely to be black and, often, but not always, young. A far, far smaller share are also unarmed. Then there is an outpouring of concern for the dead and/or the police officer or officers involved. The latter is, all too often, based on a selective set of facts and the aggressive attempts of local police departments to deny wrongdoing, withhold information or distract a sometimes-all-too-receptive press and public with any and all things the dead have ever done wrong.
The facts surrounding that person's actual death become less and less important to those on both sides. Then, there will be calls for investigations, pleas for outsiders or the federal authorities to look into what went wrong. And almost as certainly there will be the crowdfunded defense fund set up for the police officer or officers online, claims that the officer is a victim of racism and the powerful forces that have the unmitigated gall to draw public attention to racial disparities in policing.
If the officers involved are black, as is the case with some of those charged in Baltimore, there will also be any number of obtuse claims that race or racism have no role in the case at all. That, in turn, is almost always followed by some local or state grand jury hearing, and even more rarely a trial.
Then, some beleaguered officer stands before a bank of cameras or grants some exclusive interview to express gratitude for his or her freedom, the depths of their fear and suffering "since this whole situation began."
And in the process, what's most often revealed is the extent to which that officer or officers were invested in and acted upon nothing more than racial bias dressed up to look and sound like it could, possibly -- if you look at it sideways in a mirror -- amount to nothing of the kind.
If you doubt this last part, take a moment to read Officer Darren Wilson's story in the New Yorker magazine. He is the police officer whose actions and decisions led to the death of Michael Brown and the riots in Ferguson, Mo., last summer. Then read The Washington Post investigative team's months-long look into the frequency with which certain Americans are killed by police and how officers involved face few if any lasting consequences at all.
You see, the non-indictment, no-conviction or mistrial outcome in cases in which a police officer is seated at the defendant's table is, at this point, about as formulaic as the "thoughts and prayers" that public figures feel inclined to offer after a mass shooting.
As such, there is both a tendency to anticipate and make not-at-all-veiled references to the possibility of riots after a non-conviction. There is also a short-term stream of largely similar legal observations about why this was, almost certainly, going to be the outcome.
But let us be very clear here: Just as shocking at the mistrial outcome in Baltimore on Wednesday would suggest one is not familiar with this trend, so too do blasé and recycled pronouncements about the impossibility of any different legal outcome.
Why? In a democracy founded on the idea that all humans are equals but where this promise has never been made reliably real for all, viewing the undressed and unpunished death of another citizen as inconsequential or inevitable points to a deeply twisted state of affairs.
It requires that some Americans accept, cheer or at least think little about what limited or non-existent access to justice that others have. It points to why activity as unproductive and dangerous as rioting can, in the rough and inaccurate calculus of the moment, seem just about right. It all but requires that the disproportionate loss of black life at the hands of police simply remain an open secret.
And if that can't be avoided, then it requires a pivot to a totally different egregious issue -- black-on-black crime. That last move is particularly notable, because it effectively declares that police should behave in ways no different or demonstrably better than criminals of any race.
An officer holds a shield outside the police headquarters in Berkeley, Calif., on Dec. 8, 2014, as
protesters march against a New York City grand jury decision not to indict an officer in the death of Eric Garner.
(photo: Reuters/Stephen Lam)
If 2014 taught us anything at all, it quite possibly should have been this: Equality and equal justice may rank among America's ideals. But they remain far from real.
A death forecast and caught on tape and facilitated by a banned chokehold can fail to convince a grand jury to even indict police officers. We'll say that again, in another way, for clarity and emphasis. No matter what you think about Eric Garner, his life, his choices, his trade (selling tax-free "loosie" cigarettes on the street) or his girth, he was a human being, a father, a son and an American.
And when he was in the process of dying on a New York city sidewalk at the hands of a police officer who put him in a chokehold the New York City police department itself banned, Garner's declaration that he could not breathe was caught on tape. The life was choked out of the man on a cell phone video. But a grand jury decided that criminal charges against the officers involved weren't even merited.
And if that combination of events does not strike you as at all odd or worthy of lots of careful inquiry, time alone in a quiet room with the U.S. Constitution really may be in order.
Now, there will be those who will insist that the Baltimore mistrial represents a just outcome -- evidence that the system worked or that the prosecutor's burden of proof was fundamentally insurmountable. Maybe, just maybe, some or all of that is true. Perhaps deficiencies in the prosecution's case, absent evidence or fundamental problems with the composition of the jury or its deliberations will become clear in coming days.
But when listening to those proclamations and those who declare events in Baltimore as anything less than significant, there are a few key questions to ask and answer.
Is the person someone who has ever looked at a newborn infant and wondered what combination of smart choices, small miracles and incalculable luck will be required for a long life that expires peacefully, simply because of the color their skin may become? Does this person even know personally or care deeply about anyone who has? Has there been a single case of an unarmed person's death at the hands of police that this person considered at all questionable? Does this person believe that police officers charged with enforcing the law and keeping the peace must abide by the law themselves? Has this person read or thought at all about the many horrific ways and many times that the United States failed Freddie Gray before he died? And, does this person know, understand and acknowledge that American police departments kill and imprison American citizens at a rate that outpaces almost every other developed country?
If the answer to any of the above is no, then understand that this is a person who rests assured their life is formally and officially valued in America -- more than anyone's job, more than any piece of property, more than any police department's ease of operation and public reputation. This is almost certainly a person who faces no real danger if the state of justice in America remains essentially unchanged.
Then, prepare for the ritual shock and bloodless legal pronouncements to crop up again, when some other unarmed black person is killed by police or dies mysteriously in police custody.
 |
|
Saudi Arabia's Execution Spree |
|
|
Thursday, 17 December 2015 15:03 |
|
Excerpt: "Saudi Arabia's justice system has gone into murderous overdrive. More than 150 people have been executed this year, the most since 1995."
President Obama and King Salman meet in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in January. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Saudi Arabia's Execution Spree
By The New York Times | Editorial
17 December 15
 li al-Nimr was sentenced to beheading and crucifixion for participating in a protest at age 17. Raif Badawi was to receive a thousand lashes — a punishment sure to kill — for his blog posts. A Sri Lankan maid, whose name has not been released, was sentenced, on scant evidence, to death by stoning for adultery. These are just some of the people awaiting horrific punishment in Saudi Arabia for things most of the world would not consider serious crimes, or crimes at all. It would be an outrage if their sentences were carried out.
Saudi Arabia’s justice system has gone into murderous overdrive. More than 150 people have been executed this year, the most since 1995. More than 50 people are reported to be scheduled for imminent execution on terrorist charges, though some are citizens whose only crime was protesting against the government. This wave of killing has prompted some to compare Saudi Arabia to the Islamic State: both follow Shariah law.
In Saudi Arabia’s justice system, sentences can be appealed and royal clemency granted. Pressure from foreign governments has helped some of the convicted — Sri Lanka has secured a new hearing for the maid. International protest has helped others, like the blogger Mr. Badawi, whose case drew worldwide condemnation. He has escaped further punishment after his first set of lashes in January but remains imprisoned and is on a hunger strike, his wife said.
READ MORE
|
|
|
A Secret Weapon to Fight Climate Change: Dirt |
|
|
Thursday, 17 December 2015 15:02 |
|
Excerpt: "We think of climate change as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. But a third of the carbon in the atmosphere today used to be in the soil, and modern farming is largely to blame."
The Round Barn Farm, Waitsfield, VT. (photo: Mad River Valley)
A Secret Weapon to Fight Climate Change: Dirt
By Michael Pollan and Debbie Barker, The Washington Post
17 December 15
 hen Will Allen is asked to name the most beautiful part of his Vermont farm, he doesn’t talk about the verdant, rolling hills or easy access to the Connecticut River. Though the space is a picturesque postcard of the agrarian idyll, Allen points down, to the dirt. “This precious resource not only grows food,” he says, “but is one of the best methods we have for sequestering carbon.”
We think of climate change as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. But a third of the carbon in the atmosphere today used to be in the soil, and modern farming is largely to blame. Practices such as the overuse of chemicals, excessive tilling and the use of heavy machinery disturb the soil’s organic matter, exposing carbon molecules to the air, where they combine with oxygen to create carbon dioxide. Put another way: Human activity has turned the living and fertile carbon system in our dirt into a toxic atmospheric gas.
It’s possible to halt and even reverse this process through better agricultural policies and practices. Unfortunately, the world leaders who gathered in Paris this past week have paid little attention to the critical links between climate change and agriculture. That’s a huge mistake and a missed opportunity. Our unsustainable farming methods are a central contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change, quite simply, cannot be halted without fixing agriculture.
The industrialization of farming has allowed farmers to grow more crops more quickly. But modern techniques have also wreaked havoc on the earth, water and atmosphere. Intense plowing, for example, has introduced more oxygen into the soil, boosting the microbes that convert organic matter into carbon dioxide. The quest to wring every last dollar out of fields has put pressure on farmers to rely on chemical fertilizers. This often leaves fields more bare between growing seasons, allowing carbon to escape into the air. Scientists estimate that cultivated soil has lost 50 to 70 percent of its carbon, speeding up climate change.
That loss has significantly degraded soil health, reducing our ability to grow food. Median crop yields are likely to decline by about 2 percent per decade through 2100, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At the same time, the world’s population is projected to jump from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050.
Water availability is also at risk. Currently, 1.6 billion people live in regions facing severe water scarcity; that number is expected to rise to 2.8 billion by 2025. Agriculture accounts for a whopping 70 percent of all water consumption. That’s in large part because degraded soil doesn’t absorb water efficiently. Instead, water sits on top of the ground and runs off (along with farm chemicals) into nearby waterways, creating toxic nitrogen “dead zones.”
Remarkably, though, restoring carbon to the soil is not nearly as complicated as rethinking our transportation systems or replacing coal with renewable energy. Innovative farmers such as Allen already know the recipe.
He and his team place “cover crops” in their fields, planting things like oats, rye and beans between rows of vegetables. This practice keeps carbon, nitrogen and other organic nutrients in the soil. “Keeping as much ground covered with plants as long as possible allows photosynthesis to draw down atmospheric carbon into soils,” Allen says. A bare field, in contrast, represents a waste of photosynthetic potential. Allen also composts, limits plowing and avoids synthetic chemicals like nitrogen fertilizers. In combination, these efforts have increased soil organic matter by 3 to 4 percent in just three years. Allen also sells some of his cover crops, adding farm income.
Allen’s results are not unusual. Studies have shown that cover cropping, crop rotation and no-till farming could restore global soil health while significantly decreasing farms’ carbon footprint. Some scientists project that 75 to 100 parts per million of CO2 could be drawn out of the atmosphere over the next century if existing farms, pastures and forestry systems were managed to maximize carbon sequestration. That’s significant when you consider that CO2 levels passed 400 ppm this spring. Scientists agree that the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 ppm.
Regenerative farming would also increase the fertility of the land, making it more productive and better able to absorb and hold water, a critical function especially in times of climate-related floods and droughts. Carbon-rich fields require less synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and generate more productive crops, cutting farmer expenses.
So why aren’t we instituting policies to encourage this kind of “carbon farming”? For one thing, the science is new and not yet widely disseminated. Additionally, most of the incentives built into America’s agricultural policies are based on maximizing yield, often at the expense of soil health.
Current federal policy, for example, limits the growing season for cover crops on the theory that they waste farmers’ time and resources on products that can’t be sold. Thus, farmers are denied full crop insurance, price supports and subsidies if they grow cover crops beyond a specified period of time. But viewing cover crops as a benefit instead of an impediment to cash crops would be the kind of climate-smart policy we need. And, as farmers such as Allen have learned, some cover crops can also be commercialized.
Giving farmers incentives to switch from synthetic nitrogen fertilizers to organic fertilizers could also lead to healthier soil. Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley working with Marin County ranchers have found that applying a single layer of compost, less than an inch thick, to rangelands stimulates a burst of microbial and plant growth that sequesters dramatic amounts of carbon in the soil — more than 1.5 tons per acre. And research has shown that this happens not just once, but year after year. This is a win-win strategy, both for the climate and the food system, since the additional carbon in the soil means more grass for cattle and more profit for ranchers. If the practice were replicated on half the rangeland area of California, it would sequester enough carbon to offset 42 million metric tons of CO2 emissions.
The possibilities are endless. What if our farmers received federal subsidies not just for bushels per acre, but for carbon sequestered or acres of cover crops planted? Many such changes could be made tomorrow at the agency level; they would not require congressional action. Incentives for carbon farming could also bridge the political chasm between ranchers, farmers and environmentalists. Even those farmers and ranchers who don’t believe in climate change desire healthy soil, high productivity and lush grasslands. There is a rich opportunity here to completely realign the politics of agricultural and environmental policy.
America is not there quite yet, but other countries are pointing the way. This year, the French government launched the 4 Per 1000 initiative, the first international effort to restore carbon to the soil. Under the proposal, nations would commit to increasing the carbon in their cultivated lands by 0.4 percent per year. The French calculate that this would halt the annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Some emerging soil science estimates that we could store 50 to 75 percent of current global carbon emissions in the soil.
In the United States, when the Dust Bowl crisis of the 1930s literally blew soil across the country, our government responded by implementing agriculture policies to ameliorate the problem. With the stakes even higher today, our politicians can once again enact policies to reward practices that rebuild soil carbon.
|
|
FOCUS: How Cliven Bundy Changed Our National Politics |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 17 December 2015 12:18 |
|
Pierce writes: "It was a giant mistake for the federal government to let racist freeloader Cliven Bundy and his gun-toting comrades off lightly for an act of genuine sedition. This was obvious from the moment it happened, but it has become increasingly obvious as time has gone by."
Cliven Bundy stand off. (photo: Reuters)
How Cliven Bundy Changed Our National Politics
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
17 December 15
Things are wild, unhinged, and violent.
 t was a giant mistake for the federal government to let racist freeloader Cliven Bundy and his gun-toting comrades off lightly for an act of genuine sedition. This was obvious from the moment it happened, but it has become increasingly obvious as time has gone by. It has become plain that the Bundy "stand-off" has helped let loose fully upon the country and its politics a strain of wildness that was only barely contained since the power axis of movement conservatism moved south and west from the backyard of the Buckley manse in Connecticut. You can see this in everything from the barely disguised racist refusal to treat the president's election as legitimate, to the hysterical paranoid salesmanship of the NRA, to the stubborn popularity on the stump of He, Trump. And, on its home ground, it's become even worse.
The source told agents that Barbeau — who claims on his Facebook page to be an ex-U.S. Marine — spoke frequently about how "the federal government was not abiding by the principles set forth in the Constitution and that many public servants, such as judges and police officers who had sworn to uphold it, had deviated from their oath of office," according to court documents. Barbeau told the source it was his duty to educate errant public servants and "discussed 'lynching' those he deemed unworthy if necessary," according to a complaint filed under seal Dec. 2. Barbeau and others discussed that they would "physically remove" an unidentified California judge presiding over a misdemeanor-weapons charge Barbeau was facing in that state…Barbeau, on his Facebook page, claims he was a member of the security detail for the family of renegade right-wing rancher Cliven Bundy during a standoff with federal agents at Bundy's ranch in Nevada over grazing fees.
At least they caught this guy before he could kill people the way Bundy acolytes Jerad and Amanda Miller did in Las Vegas. He, Trump is demonstrating to the polite face of the Republican Party what the end result of decades spent playing footsie with an unhinged base can be. Too many conservative Republican politicians—and conservative celebrity media mavens—have worked the spicier end of the Hofstadter buffet with people like Schuyler Barbeau and the Millers. God help us all if somebody like them shows Sean Hannity, or former CNN contributor Dana Loesch, what the end result of that can be.
|
|
uesday night's debate was the first time the GOP field has been on the same stage since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. How did those events change the way the candidates tried to distinguish themselves from each other?
