|
What Does It Mean to Compare Ferguson to Iraq? |
|
|
Friday, 22 August 2014 15:08 |
|
Batuman writes: "'This isn't Iraq - it's Ferguson,' commentators noted, as social and news media were flooded with pictures of the Ferguson police firing tear gas and arresting journalists."
National Guardsmen stand outside a temporary command center in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 20, 2014. (photo: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

What Does It Mean to Compare Ferguson to Iraq?
By Elif Batuman, The New Yorker
22 August 14
rmed violence has been unremitting this summer, the centenary of the First World War. A Malaysian passenger plane was shot down over Donetsk. Thousands of civilians have perished, in Syria, in Ukraine, in Gaza, and now in Iraq, where violence against ethnic minorities has triggered an American military intervention. “I don’t think we’re going to solve this problem in weeks,” President Obama told the press on the morning of August 9th. About an hour later—at some point between the third and the fourth U.S. air strikes of the day in northern Iraq—a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, shot an unarmed black teen-ager named Michael Brown, and the summer of violence came home to America.
“This isn’t Iraq—it’s Ferguson,” commentators noted, as social and news media were flooded with pictures of the Ferguson police firing tear gas and arresting journalists. Given the timing, the association of Ferguson with Iraq—and perhaps with the Middle East in general (“Fergustan”)—was inevitable. But what does the comparison say? What is being asked, when we are invited to consider whether an image of security forces on military-style vehicles is more appropriate to Iraq or Missouri?
The most simplistic, least charitable interpretation is that “Iraq” is shorthand for any unfortunate place, like Beirut was in the eighties, or Sarajevo in the nineties—a dismissive way of invoking another country, and a dissociative way of talking about one’s own. (To say nothing of the fact that the levels of violence are nowhere near commensurate.)
Why, though, should it be either Iraq or Missouri? Why should anywhere look like that? To an extent, these kinds of comparisons are part of the way we see the world. Military violence is more common in Iraq than in America, so when we see images suggesting military violence, we are more prepared to think “Iraq” than to think “America.” That’s how the mind works, by making generalizations from limited experience. But we know to override our generalizations sometimes—to have the sense, for example, that it might be in poor taste to report on one’s misfortune by commenting that this misfortune more frequently befalls other people.
To say that the police action in Ferguson would be “more at home in a 3rd world dictatorship than the US heartland” is to risk implying that repression is “at home” anywhere. It’s to risk implying that anti-civilian violence is “un-American” but not “un-Iraqi,” and that these designations aren’t historically contingent but rather have an essential truth. Comparisons to foreign dictatorships, even when well intentioned or historically grounded, often do open the door to essentialism.
In his useful book “Rise of the Warrior Cop,” the journalist Radley Balko describes a militarized American police force that handles protesters and journalists in a way that “you might envision happening in a Latin American country headed by a junta, or one of the countries of the Soviet bloc”; he notes the seeming irony that “This is how the country that gave the world the First Amendment now handles protest.” Yet the way our police handle protests seems less an ironic development than a built-in contradiction. Isn’t America’s military and economic dominance what enabled it to “give the world” the First Amendment? Enlightened nations aren’t necessarily the ones where people are born with a deeper love of civil liberties. Enlightened nations tend to be the ones that can afford enlightenment, thanks to a certain level of affluence and security. And they got there, often enough, with a legacy of brute force and racial injustice.
We don’t have to look at Iraq for an analogue to Missouri. We can look instead at Missouri. In 1917, the East St. Louis race riots left six thousand black people homeless; the death toll is estimated at between forty and two hundred. The National Guard was called in but did not stem the violence. In 1932, the Washington, D.C., police and the U.S. Army, equipped with tanks, bayonets, and tear gas, forcibly dispersed the so-called Bonus Army, a group of ten thousand veterans of the First World War who were encamped near the Capitol, demanding payment of their service bonuses. The iconic nineteen-sixties photos of fire hoses in Birmingham and National Guardsmen in Watts may look old, but they record events in living memory. And then there are the photos that don’t even look old. This isn’t Gaza, and this isn’t Iraq—they’re both Los Angeles in 1992, during the Rodney King riots.
“Iraq or Missouri?” makes a catchy hook, because the juxtaposition sounds so exotic, so unlikely. How could Iraq and America look the same? But then America played a non-negligible role in making Iraq look like Iraq. Under its Excess Property Program, the Department of Defense has passed along billions of dollars’ worth of equipment from the 2003 Iraq invasion—an action not obviously more morally defensible than the police and National Guard’s handling of Ferguson—to local law-enforcement agencies, including in Missouri. The rhetorical value of “Iraq or Missouri?” is undercut when it becomes possible to show two pictures, taken seven years apart, of the exact same armored vehicle and ask the question literally.
Indeed, one problem with the Iraq-Missouri comparison may be that the ways in which it’s trivial or misleading overshadow the ways in which it might have some truth, or even some profundity. One year ago, I was in Istanbul, packing up an apartment in preparation for my return to the States. In the aftermath of the Gezi protests of June and July, there were still armored vehicles in the streets, pot-banging at night, and the occasional gust of tear gas. Many of last year’s Gezi protesters now tweet about Ferguson, expressing solidarity, sharing advice about how you should wash your eyes with milk after a gassing.
In my brief encounters with protest culture, I have not found it to be free from grandstanding, or from the tendency to lump together every single oppressed person ever as allies in a single “Lord of the Rings”-style showdown. And yet—when people feel solidarity, solidarity is real. I remember seeing American tear-gas canisters rolling around the streets of Istanbul last summer. They were manufactured by NonLethal Technologies, of Homer City, Pennsylvania (which really is named after the author of the Iliad). I remember it made the world seem very small.

|
|
The Ghost of Dred Scott Haunts the Streets of Ferguson |
|
|
Friday, 22 August 2014 15:05 |
|
Goodman writes: "Ferguson is emblematic of deep racial divisions that persist in the United States today. Since the 1980s, the city has shifted from a majority white population to one that is majority black. Yet the mayor is white."
Demonstrators protest the killing of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., on August 12, 2014. (photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

ALSO SEE: Is Southern Conservatism Just Plain Old Racism?
The Ghost of Dred Scott Haunts the Streets of Ferguson
By Amy Goodman, Truthdig
22 August 14
housands have been protesting the police killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed African-American teenager in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson. He was due to start college just days after he was shot dead in broad daylight. Police left his bleeding corpse in the middle of the street for over four hours, behind police tape, as neighbors gathered and looked on in horror. Outraged citizens protested, and police brutally cracked down on them. Clad in paramilitary gear and using armored vehicles, they shot tear gas, rubber-coated steel bullets and flash-bang grenades, aiming automatic weapons at protesters. Scores of peaceful protesters, as well as journalists, have been arrested.
The protests have raged along Ferguson’s West Florissant Avenue. Four miles south of the protest’s ground zero, along the same street, in the quietude of Calvary Cemetery, lies Dred Scott, the man born a slave who famously fought for his freedom in the courts. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 is considered by many to be the worst one in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. It ruled that African-Americans, whether slave or free, could not be citizens, ever. Scott was born into slavery in Virginia around 1799 (the same year noted Virginia slaveholder President George Washington died). Scott’s owner moved from Virginia, taking him to Missouri, a slave state. He was sold to John Emerson, a surgeon in the U.S. Army. In 1847, Scott sued Emerson for his freedom in a St. Louis court. Scott and his family prevailed, winning their freedom, only to have the decision overturned by the Missouri Supreme Court. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice Roger Taney, a supporter of slavery, wrote, “A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.” Thus, the court ruled that all African-Americans, whether slave or free, were not citizens, and never would be.
READ MORE

|
|
|
FOCUS | The Tax Code Is Rigged |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26463"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren for Senate</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 22 August 2014 11:30 |
|
Warren writes: "Huge corporations hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists to create, expand, and protect every last corporate loophole."
Senator Elizabeth Warren says the tax code favors the wealthy. (photo: Reuters)

The Tax Code Is Rigged
By Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren for Senate
22 August 14
uge corporations hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists to create, expand, and protect every last corporate loophole.
That's how we end up with a tax code that makes teachers and bus drivers and small business owners pay, but that allows some huge American corporations to make billions of dollars and not pay a single dime in taxes.
Simply put, the tax code is rigged.
Apparently, even this rigged game doesn't go far enough for some corporations. Those companies are taking advantage of a new move: a loophole that allows them to maintain all their operations in America, but claim foreign citizenship so they can cut their US taxes even further.
That means American companies can hire a bunch of lawyers and Wall Street bankers, fill out some paperwork, and dodge their US taxes.
Tax lawyers call this process a "corporate inversion." But don't let that bland name fool you – these companies are renouncing their American citizenship, turning their backs on this country, simply to boost their profits.
If a person did that, we'd call them a freeloader and insist that they pay their fair share. And that's exactly what our tax laws do for people who renounce their American citizenship. But when corporations do it, they don't suffer any consequences at all.
Forget whether corporations are people – in this corner of the tax code, we're treating corporations better than people.
That's not right. That's why I've teamed up with Senator Levin and more than a dozen of our Democratic colleagues to introduce the Stop Corporate Inversions Act. The bill is simple: it allows American corporations to renounce their citizenship only if they truly give up control of their company to a foreign corporation and truly move their operations overseas.
In Massachusetts and across the country, we invest in public education to produce millions of skilled workers. We invest in infrastructure, in our roads and bridges and ports, making it easier for our companies to move products to market. We invest in scientific and medical research, giving our companies access to the most innovative and cutting-edge technologies.
America is a great place to do business because of the investments we have made together. We invest together to make America a place where any kid will have a chance to come up with an idea and turn it into the next great American company.
The companies that are pursuing these corporate inversions know all of this. That's why they are not actually leaving America behind. They just don't want to pay for it.
Our achievements aren't magic. They didn't simply happen on their own or through dumb luck. America works – our government works – our democracy works – because we all pitch in and do our part to build the things that none of us can build alone. The things that give everyone a chance to succeed.
We've had enough of rich corporations taking whatever they want and expecting everyone else to pick up the pieces. The time for freeloading is over.

|
|
Fighting Words From Rick Perry |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 21 August 2014 15:30 |
|
Borowitz writes: "Texas Governor Rick Perry said on Tuesday that the government had "grossly overstepped its traditional role of mandating transvaginal ultrasounds.""
(photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Fighting Words From Rick Perry
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
21 August 14
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."
ashing out at what he called the “Soviet-style” tactics of the indictments against him, Texas Governor Rick Perry said on Tuesday that the government had “grossly overstepped its traditional role of mandating transvaginal ultrasounds.”
Speaking to supporters in Austin, Perry blasted the indictments and called for a return to an era of limited government that focusses on requiring gynecological procedures.
“We are living in dark days indeed when the state of Texas is spending time and money probing its officials instead of its women,” he said, to thunderous applause.
|
|