RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: The Link Between Domestic Violence and Mass Shootings Print
Monday, 19 June 2017 11:50

Mayer writes: "No one wants to talk policy reform so soon, but there's one that is glaringly necessary, and really ought not to be divisive. Wednesday's shooter, James Hodgkinson, reportedly had a history of domestic violence. Yet he was able to legally obtain an assault rifle."

James Hodgkinson. (photo: Derik Holtmann/AP)
James Hodgkinson. (photo: Derik Holtmann/AP)


The Link Between Domestic Violence and Mass Shootings

By Jane Mayer, The New Yorker

19 June 17

 

ithin hours of the shooting of the House Majority Whip, Steve Scalise, and four others, one couldn’t help but feel tired watching the predictable brief moment of political unity. The country has been through enough horrors to know that political adversaries will soon line up and take their battle stations on Twitter and talk shows as no solutions are found and no lessons are learned. They will blame each other’s political ideologies and rhetoric for the bloodshed. It won’t be long until the conspiracy theorists come along and throw doubt on whether the facts are the facts, or something more sinister.

No one wants to talk policy reform so soon, but there’s one that is glaringly necessary, and really ought not to be divisive. Wednesday’s shooter, James Hodgkinson, reportedly had a history of domestic violence. Yet he was able to legally obtain an assault rifle. These two facts are incompatible with public safety.

The Daily Beast reported, on Wednesday:

In 2006, he was arrested for domestic battery and discharge of a firearm after he stormed into a neighbor's home where his teenage foster daughter was visiting with a friend. In a skirmish, he punched his foster daughter's then 19-year-old friend Aimee Moreland “in the face with a closed fist,” according to a police report reviewed by The Daily Beast. When Moreland's boyfriend walked outside of the residence where Moreland and Hodgkinson's foster daughter were, he allegedly aimed a shotgun at the boyfriend and later fired one round. The Hodgkinsons later lost custody of that foster daughter.

"[Hodgkinson] fired a couple of warning shots and then hit my boyfriend with the butt of the gun," Moreland told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. Hodgkinson was also “observed throwing” his daughter “around the bedroom,” the police report said. After the girl broke free, Hodgkinson followed and “started hitting her arms, pulling her hair, and started grabbing her off the bed.”

In this, Hodgkinson fits a pattern. As Rebecca Traister has written, for New York magazine, “what perpetrators of terrorist attacks turn out to often have in common more than any particular religion or ideology, are histories of domestic violence.” Traister cites Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who drove a truck through a Bastille Day crowd in Nice, last summer, and Omar Mateen, the Pulse night-club shooter. She also cites Robert Lewis Dear, who killed three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, in 2015. According to Traister, “two of his three ex-wives reportedly accused him of domestic abuse, and he had been arrested in 1992 for rape and sexual violence.”

Last year, Amanda Taub also wrote powerfully on this issue in the Times. “Cedric Ford shot 17 people at his Kansas workplace, killing three, only 90 minutes after being served with a restraining order sought by his ex-girlfriend, who said he had abused her,” Taub wrote. “And Man Haron Monis, who holed up with hostages for 17 hours in a cafe in Sydney, Australia, in 2014, an episode that left two people dead and four wounded, had terrorized his ex-wife. He had threatened to harm her if she left him, and was eventually charged with organizing her murder.”

Obviously, not everyone accused of domestic violence becomes a mass shooter. But it’s clear that an alarming number of those who have been accused of domestic abuse pose serious and often a lethal threats, not just to their intimate partners but to society at large.

The statistical correlation between domestic violence and mass shootings has also been documented. As the Times reported:

When Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, analyzed F.B.I. data on mass shootings from 2009 to 2015, it found that 57 percent of the cases included a spouse, former spouse or other family member among the victims — and that 16 percent of the attackers had previously been charged with domestic violence.

In the meantime, many domestic-violence suspects, like Hodgkinson, are arrested only to have the charges dropped later, which leaves them armed and dangerous. The National Rifle Association and its allies have successfully argued that a mere arrest on domestic-violence charges—such as Hodgkinson had—is not sufficient reason to deprive a citizen of his right to bear arms.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, in 2012, an overwhelming majority of Americans favored tighter gun control, including laws that would require background checks for gun purchasers to be extended to sales at private gun shows. Yet a bill proposing that very measure failed to make it through Congress. And as David Cole, then a law professor and now the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote last year, in the New York Review of Books, the clout of the gun lobby is even greater at the local and state level, where, after Sandy Hook, eleven states tightened their gun-control laws but some two dozen made them even looser. The N.R.A., with its yearly budget of three hundred million dollars, has mastered the dark art of substituting money for popular will. By spending strategically and threatening to “primary” any office-holder who deviates from its agenda, it has managed to impose an extremist agenda that seems almost unchallengeable. America now has something like eighty-eight guns per hundred citizens—the highest concentration in the world—yet, inevitably, there will be calls for more tomorrow.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: So, Will President* Trump Just Fire Everyone? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Monday, 19 June 2017 10:28

Pierce writes: "The latest transmission from the bowels of Camp Runamuck leads me to believe that the next step may be for the president* to fire everyone within a five-mile radius of the White House. (Sorry about that, you guys in the food trucks, as well as everyone who plays for the Capitals and the Wizards.)"

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)


So, Will President* Trump Just Fire Everyone?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

19 June 17


Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller are under threat.

he latest transmission from the bowels of Camp Runamuck leads me to believe that the next step may be for the president* to fire everyone within a five-mile radius of the White House. (Sorry about that, you guys in the food trucks, as well as everyone who plays for the Capitals and the Wizards.) After which, he will find himself a lawyer from one of those billboards that line I-75 in Florida.

Been in an accident? Crash a government? Call us immediately – 1-800-IMA-GRFT.

Late Friday morning, Himself got a hold of his phone, leaped onto the electric Twitter machine, and decided that it was time to take a piece out of Rod Rosenstein, even if that meant confirming that, yes, he is being investigated by the FBI.

And, somewhere in the West Wing, an earnest young aide who once had a promising political career reaches into the bottom drawers of their desk for that vintage quart of Kentucky Gentleman that Uncle Dub down in Murfreesboro left in the will.

Meanwhile, back in the world, according to ABC News, Rosenstein may have to join Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III on the bench.

Rosenstein, who authored an extensive and publicly-released memorandum recommending Comey's firing, raised the possibility of his recusal during a recent meeting with Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand, the Justice Department's new third-in-command, according to sources. Although Rosenstein appointed a special counsel to lead the federal probe, he still makes the final decisions about resources, personnel and -- if necessary -- any prosecutions. In the recent meeting with Brand, Rosenstein told her that if he were to recuse himself, she would have to step in and take over those responsibilities. She was sworn-in little more than a month ago.

Here, from the LawFare blog, is some speculation concerning what might happen next. Basically, the whole mess will descend on a lawyer named Rachel Brand, the associate attorney general.

In addition to these regulatory duties, Brand will face the tough task of insulating the investigation from the erratic and inappropriate behavior of President Trump. Such insulation is needed for the integrity of the investigation, so that any decisions it may reach about prosecution or exoneration have credibility. This task will require backbone—and a willingness not to last long in the job.

That sounds like enormous fun. The Tweet of Dumbocles hangs over your head the minute you walk in the door.

As if this weren't enough, and it never is, NBC's Katy Tur tweets that Michael Cohen, the president*'s personal lawyer, has hired one of his own, probably to prepare to testify before the House Intelligence Committee in September. The lawyers now need their own lawyers. This is in no way promising.

It's on days like this where you wonder most acutely whether or not this president* has it all together above the shoulders. Picking a fight with Rosenstein—who, just a day earlier, had contributed a bizarre warning about anonymous sources to the gathering chaos—makes as little sense as firing James Comey did, and admitting that the FBI is on your trail for having done so is tantamount to double-dog-daring the Feds to run you to ground. The idea that he wouldn't fire both Robert Mueller and Rosenstein before breakfast some morning because Brian Kilmeade said he should do it is more than plausible. It's now likely.

To gain some perspective, let's listen in to a White House conversation from June 21, 1972, via The New York Times. The president at the time was concerned about some law-enforcement activities. His chief of staff was called upon to explain matters.

The problem is that there are all kinds of other involvements and if they started a fishing expedition on this they're going to start picking up tracks. . . . The only tie they've got to the White House is that this guy's name was in their books, Howard Hunt, and that Hunt used to be a consultant ---- to Colson at the White House. . . . You've got to be careful of pushing that too hard, because he was working on a lot of stuff. . . . It leads to other things.

It's always something.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Will New Jim Crow Scam Tip Georgia's Ossoff-Handel Congressional Race? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27607"><span class="small">Greg Palast, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 19 June 2017 08:23

Palast writes: "I don't want compensation, I don't want to press charges. I want an answer to the question: Who will decide the race in the Sixth - the voters or Jim Crow?"

Jon Ossoff and Karen Handel. (photo: AJC)
Jon Ossoff and Karen Handel. (photo: AJC)


ALSO SEE: Georgia’s Extra-Special Election Enters the Final Stretch

Will New Jim Crow Scam Tip Georgia's Ossoff-Handel Congressional Race?

By Greg Palast, Reader Supported News

19 June 17


GOP goons grab reporter when he asks how 40,000 minority voter registrations vanished

aren Handel took a break from beating up Democrat John Ossoff to attack a reporter: me.  In the televised debate between the two candidates vying for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, Republican Handel claimed, “a reporter supposedly representing some very liberal Democratic organization almost literally accosted me.”


Handel's handlers trying to prevent Greg Palast from asking a tough question

In fact, is was a trio of galoots working for Handel who accosted me.

But who accosted whom is less important than Handel promoting the dangerous new trend of attacking the press, sometimes physically, when questions are uncomfortable or challenging.

Handel is afraid I’ll report what I began uncovering in my investigations in Georgia’s 6th.  I first came here in 2014 for Al Jazeera, when I interviewed an enthusiastic group of Korean-Americans based in the 6th, the Asian-American Legal Advocacy Center. When I returned to cover the current race, I found the Asian-American voting rights office shuttered and empty.

Apparently, the group which had launched a “10,000 Korean Votes” registration drive discovered that many of their registrants simply never appeared on voter rolls. Their lawyers’ query about missing voters to the Secretary of State resulted in a raid by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and a threat of criminal charges.

Voting rights attorney Nse Ufot told me what happened:

They were doing a campaign to register 10,000 Korean-Americans to vote, and had quite a bit of success. At some point during the campaign, they noticed that many of the folks that they were registering were not showing up on the voter rolls. So, they reached out to the Secretary of State to say, "Hey, where are our folks? Why aren't they showing up on the rolls?"  They never got an official response.  What they did get was the GBI kicking in the door and requesting all of their files.”

While no charges were brought, the terrifying raid, was enough to put the Korean voter group out of business.
And Ufot’s own group, New Georgia Project has seen the registrations of new voters of color suspiciously…vanish.

Ufot told me, ‘We submitted 86,419 voter registration forms.  There are 46,000 of the folks that we've registered who have made it, and 40,000 of them are missing.’

So New Georgia Project contacted the Republican Secretary of State’s office.

“You know what they told us? ‘We don't know what you're talking about. What forms?’  They did not disappear. We intentionally registered voters on paper forms so that we could make copies. We knew who they were. They were not on the voter rolls.

When African-American activists raised a ruckus over the disappearance, they got the same treatment as the Korean-Americans: a Gestapo-style raid on their offices, threats of criminal charges and jail term.

But the African-American organizers had long faced down Jim Crow intimidation tactics.
I wanted Handel’s story—and not just as a candidate.  She herself was Secretary of State, and up to her chin in these vote suppression games.

I started out by asking if the Democrats were stealing the election, and she was pleased to say, “They’re pulling out all stops!”

But when I got to the subject of her office purging voters, one of her henchmen jumped in front of me, slammed me backwards and while two others grabbed and muscled me away.  She refused to answer to a question about the raids on voter registration groups, but the crowd answered for her, chanting “U! S! A! U! S! A!” – as if a journalist asking a question is the new enemy of America. And that’s frightening. Not the clowns who assaulted me. They were more buffoonish than threatening.

I don’t want compensation, I don’t want to press charges. I want an answer to the question: Who will decide the race in the Sixth—the voters or Jim Crow?



Greg Palast has been called the "most important investigative reporter of our time - up there with Woodward and Bernstein" (The Guardian). Palast has broken front-page stories for BBC Television Newsnight, The Guardian, The Nation Magazine, Rolling Stone, and Harper's Magazine. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers Billionaires & Ballot Bandits, Armed Madhouse, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, and the highly acclaimed Vultures' Picnic, named Book of the Year 2012 on BBC Newsnight Review. His books have been translated into two dozen languages. His brand new film of his documentary reports for BBC Newsnight and Democracy Now! is called Vultures and Vote Rustlers.

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
 
Life and Death in Apple's Forbidden City Print
Monday, 19 June 2017 08:17

Merchant writes: "Foxconn's enormous Longhua plant is a major manufacturer of Apple products. It might be the best-known factory in the world; it might also might be among the most secretive and sealed-off. Security guards man each of the entry points. Employees can't get in without swiping an ID card; drivers entering with delivery trucks are subject to fingerprint scans."

An assembly bench in Foxconn's Longhua complex in Shenzhen, China, where iPhones are manufactured. (photo: Tony Law/Redux/eyevine)
An assembly bench in Foxconn's Longhua complex in Shenzhen, China, where iPhones are manufactured. (photo: Tony Law/Redux/eyevine)


Life and Death in Apple's Forbidden City

By Brian Merchant, Guardian UK

19 June 17


In an extract from his new book, Brian Merchant reveals how he gained access to Longhua, the vast complex where iPhones are made and where, in 2010, unhappy workers started killing themselves

he sprawling factory compound, all grey dormitories and weather-beaten warehouses, blends seamlessly into the outskirts of the Shenzhen megalopolis. Foxconn’s enormous Longhua plant is a major manufacturer of Apple products. It might be the best-known factory in the world; it might also might be among the most secretive and sealed-off. Security guards man each of the entry points. Employees can’t get in without swiping an ID card; drivers entering with delivery trucks are subject to fingerprint scans. A Reuters journalist was once dragged out of a car and beaten for taking photos from outside the factory walls. The warning signs outside – “This factory area is legally established with state approval. Unauthorised trespassing is prohibited. Offenders will be sent to police for prosecution!” – are more aggressive than those outside many Chinese military compounds.

But it turns out that there’s a secret way into the heart of the infamous operation: use the bathroom. I couldn’t believe it. Thanks to a simple twist of fate and some clever perseverance by my fixer, I’d found myself deep inside so-called Foxconn City.

It’s printed on the back of every iPhone: “Designed by Apple in California Assembled in China”. US law dictates that products manufactured in China must be labelled as such and Apple’s inclusion of the phrase renders the statement uniquely illustrative of one of the planet’s starkest economic divides – the cutting edge is conceived and designed in Silicon Valley, but it is assembled by hand in China.

The vast majority of plants that produce the iPhone’s component parts and carry out the device’s final assembly are based here, in the People’s Republic, where low labour costs and a massive, highly skilled workforce have made the nation the ideal place to manufacture iPhones (and just about every other gadget). The country’s vast, unprecedented production capabilities – the US Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that as of 2009 there were 99 million factory workers in China – have helped the nation become the world’s second largest economy. And since the first iPhone shipped, the company doing the lion’s share of the manufacturing is the Taiwanese Hon Hai Precision Industry Co, Ltd, better known by its trade name, Foxconn.

Foxconn is the single largest employer in mainland China; there are 1.3 million people on its payroll. Worldwide, among corporations, only Walmart and McDonald’s employ more. As many people work for Foxconn as live in Estonia.

Today, the iPhone is made at a number of different factories around China, but for years, as it became the bestselling product in the world, it was largely assembled at Foxconn’s 1.4 square-mile flagship plant, just outside Shenzhen. The sprawling factory was once home to an estimated 450,000 workers. Today, that number is believed to be smaller, but it remains one of the biggest such operations in the world. If you know of Foxconn, there’s a good chance it’s because you’ve heard of the suicides. In 2010, Longhua assembly-line workers began killing themselves. Worker after worker threw themselves off the towering dorm buildings, sometimes in broad daylight, in tragic displays of desperation – and in protest at the work conditions inside. There were 18 reported suicide attempts that year alone and 14 confirmed deaths. Twenty more workers were talked down by Foxconn officials.

The epidemic caused a media sensation – suicides and sweatshop conditions in the House of iPhone. Suicide notes and survivors told of immense stress, long workdays and harsh managers who were prone to humiliate workers for mistakes, of unfair fines and unkept promises of benefits.

The corporate response spurred further unease: Foxconn CEO, Terry Gou, had large nets installed outside many of the buildings to catch falling bodies. The company hired counsellors and workers were made to sign pledges stating they would not attempt to kill themselves.

Steve Jobs, for his part, declared: “We’re all over that” when asked about the spate of deaths and he pointed out that the rate of suicides at Foxconn was within the national average. Critics pounced on the comment as callous, though he wasn’t technically wrong. Foxconn Longhua was so massive that it could be its own nation-state, and the suicide rate was comparable to its host country’s. The difference is that Foxconn City is a nation-state governed entirely by a corporation and one that happened to be producing one of the most profitable products on the planet.

A cab driver lets us out in front of the factory; boxy blue letters spell out Foxconn next to the entrance. The security guards eye us, half bored, half suspicious. My fixer, a journalist from Shanghai whom I’ll call Wang Yang, and I decide to walk the premises first and talk to workers, to see if there might be a way to get inside.

The first people we stop turn out to be a pair of former Foxconn workers.

“It’s not a good place for human beings,” says one of the young men, who goes by the name Xu. He’d worked in Longhua for about a year, until a couple of months ago, and he says the conditions inside are as bad as ever. “There is no improvement since the media coverage,” Xu says. The work is very high pressure and he and his colleagues regularly logged 12-hour shifts. Management is both aggressive and duplicitous, publicly scolding workers for being too slow and making them promises they don’t keep, he says. His friend, who worked at the factory for two years and chooses to stay anonymous, says he was promised double pay for overtime hours but got only regular pay. They paint a bleak picture of a high-pressure working environment where exploitation is routine and where depression and suicide have become normalised.

“It wouldn’t be Foxconn without people dying,” Xu says. “Every year people kill themselves. They take it as a normal thing.”

Over several visits to different iPhone assembly factories in Shenzhen and Shanghai, we interviewed dozens of workers like these. Let’s be honest: to get a truly representative sample of life at an iPhone factory would require a massive canvassing effort and the systematic and clandestine interviewing of thousands of employees. So take this for what it is: efforts to talk to often skittish, often wary and often bored workers who were coming out of the factory gates, taking a lunch break or congregating after their shifts.

The vision of life inside an iPhone factory that emerged was varied. Some found the work tolerable; others were scathing in their criticisms; some had experienced the despair Foxconn was known for; still others had taken a job just to try to find a girlfriend. Most knew of the reports of poor conditions before joining, but they either needed the work or it didn’t bother them. Almost everywhere, people said the workforce was young and turnover was high. “Most employees last only a year,” was a common refrain. Perhaps that’s because the pace of work is widely agreed to be relentless, and the management culture is often described as cruel.

Since the iPhone is such a compact, complex machine, putting one together correctly requires sprawling assembly lines of hundreds of people who build, inspect, test and package each device. One worker said 1,700 iPhones passed through her hands every day; she was in charge of wiping a special polish on the display. That works out at about three screens a minute for 12 hours a day.

More meticulous work, like fastening chip boards and assembling back covers, was slower; these workers have a minute apiece for each iPhone. That’s still 600 to 700 iPhones a day. Failing to meet a quota or making a mistake can draw public condemnation from superiors. Workers are often expected to stay silent and may draw rebukes from their bosses for asking to use the restroom.

Xu and his friend were both walk-on recruits, though not necessarily willing ones. “They call Foxconn a fox trap,” he says. “Because it tricks a lot of people.” He says Foxconn promised them free housing but then forced them to pay exorbitantly high bills for electricity and water. The current dorms sleep eight to a room and he says they used to be 12 to a room. But Foxconn would shirk social insurance and be late or fail to pay bonuses. And many workers sign contracts that subtract a hefty penalty from their pay if they quit before a three-month introductory period.

On top of that, the work is gruelling. “You have to have mental management,” says Xu, otherwise you can get scolded by bosses in front of your peers. Instead of discussing performance privately or face to face on the line, managers would stockpile complaints until later. “When the boss comes down to inspect the work,” Xu’s friend says, “if they find any problems, they won’t scold you then. They will scold you in front of everyone in a meeting later.”

“It’s insulting and humiliating to people all the time,” his friend says. “Punish someone to make an example for everyone else. It’s systematic,” he adds. In certain cases, if a manager decides that a worker has made an especially costly mistake, the worker has to prepare a formal apology. “They must read a promise letter aloud – ‘I won’t make this mistake again’– to everyone.”

This culture of high-stress work, anxiety and humiliation contributes to widespread depression. Xu says there was another suicide a few months ago. He saw it himself. The man was a student who worked on the iPhone assembly line. “Somebody I knew, somebody I saw around the cafeteria,” he says. After being publicly scolded by a manager, he got into a quarrel. Company officials called the police, though the worker hadn’t been violent, just angry.

“He took it very personally,” Xu says, “and he couldn’t get through it.” Three days later, he jumped out of a ninth-storey window.

So why didn’t the incident get any media coverage? I ask. Xu and his friend look at each other and shrug. “Here someone dies, one day later the whole thing doesn’t exist,” his friend says. “You forget about it.”

‘We look at everything at these companies,” Steve Jobs said after news of the suicides broke. “Foxconn is not a sweatshop. It’s a factory – but my gosh, they have restaurants and movie theatres… but it’s a factory. But they’ve had some suicides and attempted suicides – and they have 400,000 people there. The rate is under what the US rate is, but it’s still troubling.” Apple CEO, Tim Cook, visited Longhua in 2011 and reportedly met suicide-prevention experts and top management to discuss the epidemic.

In 2012, 150 workers gathered on a rooftop and threatened to jump. They were promised improvements and talked down by management; they had, essentially, wielded the threat of killing themselves as a bargaining tool. In 2016, a smaller group did it again. Just a month before we spoke, Xu says, seven or eight workers gathered on a rooftop and threatened to jump unless they were paid the wages they were due, which had apparently been withheld. Eventually, Xu says, Foxconn agreed to pay the wages and the workers were talked down.

When I ask Xu about Apple and the iPhone, his response is swift: “We don’t blame Apple. We blame Foxconn.” When I ask the men if they would consider working at Foxconn again if the conditions improved, the response is equally blunt. “You can’t change anything,” Xu says. “It will never change.”

Wang and I set off for the main worker entrance. We wind around the perimeter, which stretches on and on – we have no idea this is barely a fraction of the factory at this point.

After walking along the perimeter for 20 minutes or so, we come to another entrance, another security checkpoint. That’s when it hits me. I have to use the bathroom. Desperately. And that gives me an idea.

There’s a bathroom in there, just a few hundred feet down a stairwell by the security point. I see the universal stick-man signage and I gesture to it. This checkpoint is much smaller, much more informal. There’s only one guard, a young man who looks bored. Wang asks something a little pleadingly in Chinese. The guard slowly shakes his head no, looks at me. The strain on my face is very, very real. She asks again – he falters for a second, then another no.

We’ll be right back, she insists, and now we’re clearly making him uncomfortable. Mostly me. He doesn’t want to deal with this. Come right back, he says. Of course, we don’t.

To my knowledge, no American journalist has been inside a Foxconn plant without permission and a tour guide, without a carefully curated visit to selected parts of the factory to demonstrate how OK things really are.

Maybe the most striking thing, beyond its size – it would take us nearly an hour to briskly walk across Longhua – is how radically different one end is from the other. It’s like a gentrified city in that regard. On the outskirts, let’s call them, there are spilt chemicals, rusting facilities and poorly overseen industrial labour. The closer you get to the city centre – remember, this is a factory – the more the quality of life, or at least the amenities and the infrastructure, improves.

As we get deeper in, surrounded by more and more people, it feels like we’re getting noticed less. The barrage of stares mutates into disinterested glances. My working theory: the plant is so vast, security so tight, that if we are inside just walking around, we must have been allowed to do so. That or nobody really gives a shit. We start trying to make our way to the G2 factory block, where we’ve been told iPhones are made. After leaving “downtown”, we begin seeing towering, monolithic factory blocks – C16, E7 and so on, many surrounded by crowds of workers.

I worry about getting too cavalier and remind myself not to push it; we’ve been inside Foxconn for almost an hour now. The crowds have been thinning out the farther away from the centre we get. Then there it is: G2. It’s identical to the factory blocks that cluster around it, that threaten to fade into the background of the smoggy static sky.

G2 looks deserted, though. A row of impossibly rusted lockers runs outside the building. No one’s around. The door is open, so we go in. To the left, there’s an entry to a massive, darkened space; we’re heading for that when someone calls out. A floor manager has just come down the stairs and he asks us what we’re doing. My translator stammers something about a meeting and the man looks confused; then he shows us the computer monitoring system he uses to oversee production on the floor. There’s no shift right now, he says, but this is how they watch.

No sign of iPhones, though. We keep walking. Outside G3, teetering stacks of black gadgets wrapped in plastic sit in front of what looks like another loading zone. A couple of workers on smartphones drift by us. We get close enough to see the gadgets through the plastic and, nope, not iPhones either. They look like Apple TVs, minus the company logo. There are probably thousands stacked here, awaiting the next step in the assembly line.

If this is indeed where iPhones and Apple TVs are made, it’s a fairly aggressively shitty place to spend long days, unless you have a penchant for damp concrete and rust. The blocks keep coming, so we keep walking. Longhua starts to feel like the dull middle of a dystopian novel, where the dread sustains but the plot doesn’t.

We could keep going, but to our left, we see what look like large housing complexes, probably the dormitories, complete with cagelike fences built out over the roof and the windows, and so we head in that direction. The closer we get to the dorms, the thicker the crowds get and the more lanyards and black glasses and faded jeans and sneakers we see. College-age kids are gathered, smoking cigarettes, crowded around picnic tables, sitting on kerbs.

And, yes, the body-catching nets are still there. Limp and sagging, they give the impression of tarps that have half blown off the things they’re supposed to cover. I think of Xu, who said: “The nets are pointless. If somebody wants to commit suicide, they will do it.”

We are drawing stares again – away from the factories, maybe folks have more time and reason to indulge their curiosity. In any case, we’ve been inside Foxconn for an hour. I have no idea if the guard put out an alert when we didn’t come back from the bathroom or if anyone is looking for us or what. The sense that it’s probably best not to push it prevails, even though we haven’t made it on to a working assembly line.

We head back the way we came. Before long, we find an exit. It’s pushing evening as we join a river of thousands and, heads down, shuffle through the security checkpoint. Nobody says a word. Getting out of the haunting megafactory is a relief, but the mood sticks. No, there were no child labourers with bleeding hands pleading at the windows. There were a number of things that would surely violate the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration code – unprotected construction workers, open chemical spillage, decaying, rusted structures, and so on – but there are probably a lot of things at US factories that would violate OSHA code too. Apple may well be right when it argues that these facilities are nicer than others out there. Foxconn was not our stereotypical conception of a sweatshop. But there was a different kind of ugliness. For whatever reason – the rules imposing silence on the factory floors, its pervasive reputation for tragedy or the general feeling of unpleasantness the environment itself imparts – Longhua felt heavy, even oppressively subdued.

When I look back at the photos I snapped, I can’t find one that has someone smiling in it. It does not seem like a surprise that people subjected to long hours, repetitive work and harsh management might develop psychological issues. That unease is palpable – it’s worked into the environment itself. As Xu said: “It’s not a good place for human beings.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Dispiriting but Unsurprising Failure to Convict Bill Cosby Print
Sunday, 18 June 2017 12:46

Tolentino writes: "Rape has a foul way of defying adjudication: it is a crime that generally occurs without witnesses, and it traumatizes the victim in a way that can affect memory and lead to behavior that a jury might find questionable."

Bill Cosby arrives Friday at the Montgomery County Courthouse during his sexual assault trial. (photo: Matt Slocum/AP)
Bill Cosby arrives Friday at the Montgomery County Courthouse during his sexual assault trial. (photo: Matt Slocum/AP)


The Dispiriting but Unsurprising Failure to Convict Bill Cosby

By Jia Tolentino, The New Yorker

18 June 17

 

ith Judge Steven T. O’Neill declaring a mistrial on Saturday morning, Bill Cosby’s criminal sexual-assault trial has officially ended in limbo. The twelve-person jury had been deliberating since late Monday, working morning to night; they asked twelve questions, revisited large portions of the evidence, and reported themselves deadlocked on Thursday, only to be ordered back into deliberations by the judge. Finally, after fifty-two hours of debate—their discussions ended up stretching longer than the presentation of evidence in the case—they declared again that they would be unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Judge O’Neill accepted the defense’s motion for a mistrial, telling the court that this outcome represented “neither a vindication or a victory” for either side.

Effectively, however, the mistrial immediately came to represent a victory—even if a temporary one—for Cosby. “Mr. Cosby’s power is back,” announced his spokesperson Andrew Wyatt, triumphantly, outside the courtroom. “The legacy didn’t go anywhere. It has been restored.” This is a reach, but it does seem, both to Cosby’s supporters and to detractors, as if the seventy-nine-year-old comedian has somehow won.

Cosby had been charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault against Andrea Constand: penetration while she was unconscious, penetration without her consent, and penetration after intoxicating her without her knowledge. Each count could have put him in prison for ten years, and each accusation was corroborated, to varying degrees, by both Cosby and Constand’s testimonies. The two parties agree that on a night early in 2004, Constand came to Cosby’s house, where he gave her three pills that he identified only as “friends.” They agree that Constand, who is thirty-five years younger than Cosby, became very sleepy soon afterward. They agree that Cosby took her to the couch, digitally penetrated her, and then left her there, unconscious, her clothes in disarray.

To an outside observer, it feels as though Cosby has been on trial for all of the many horrific things that he has been accused of—for the accusations of drugging and assault levelled against him by nearly sixty women, stories that span four decades of his life. But, as far as the trial in Montgomery County was concerned, he was on trial for the incident involving Constand alone. The overwhelming amount of testimony against Cosby that people have read in the press and on social media could not convict him inside the courtroom. The prosecution put forth thirteen accusers as potential witnesses but only one was permitted to testify: Kelly Johnson, whose story about a 1996 incident is strikingly similar to Constand’s own.

And so the mistrial is not exactly surprising. Even acquittal, I suspect, would not have surprised many of those present at the trial. As I wrote earlier in the proceedings, rape has a foul way of defying adjudication: it is a crime that generally occurs without witnesses, and it traumatizes the victim in a way that can affect memory and lead to behavior that a jury might find questionable. (The more you personally know about rape and its consequences, the more likely it is that you will be kept from serving on a jury in a rape trial—another systematic cruelty of this crime.)

In defending their client, Cosby’s lawyers have invoked the changing public discussion around sexual assault to imply that the deck is stacked against him—to imply that female accusers have developed an unfair, outsized power against men. “It’s sickening, what they did here,” spat the defense attorney Brian McMonagle in his closing argument, gesturing toward the prosecution and the story that they stood for. And it’s true that Cosby’s case was reopened partly because the climate has been changing; the shift in the way we speak about sexual assault is part of what made it possible for so many women to come forward with their stories, and to find a meaningful measure of support. The discourse has changed enough, I think, that a man repeatedly accused of assault seems fundamentally untrustworthy. But this has not tipped the scales in the opposite direction. To many people—to an average group of people containing seven men and five women, say—the female accuser still seems implicitly untrustworthy, too.

And so we find ourselves in a situation where making Cosby look credible would be an uphill battle but making his accuser seem vaguely dubious could be done in a snap. That was the defense’s tactic—to position Constand, who was a bright and earnest presence in the courtroom, as the kind of woman who might just possibly be lying as she recounted an event that made her shake and cry on the witness stand, a humiliating account that she has told over and over again, to her mother, her brother-in-law, two police departments, her lawyers, her alleged rapist, the courtroom, the world.

It was easy for them to argue that her sexual contact with Cosby was romantic and consensual rather than ghastly and forced; they just had to mention a fire and some presents to remind the jury that she had maintained contact with Cosby after it happened, to revisit a few inconsistencies in her previous accounts. In the courtroom, the air seemed to tighten when someone with a familiar kind of cultural authority was speaking: the stern judge, the no-nonsense police officer, the sweet and impassioned mother. Though Constand was remarkable as a witness, calm and clear, the room felt different when she was giving her account. She was speaking as a victim, and the climate in our culture has not changed enough to make the average American view an alleged rape victim’s position as authoritative. Or at least that is what this mistrial suggests.

I have worried about my own reactions while covering the Cosby trial. At moments, I have felt fatigued in an ugly way that is unique to rape cases; this sense of being exhausted by, averse to, and, nevertheless, invested in the prevalence of sexual-assault stories in our culture is a place where feminists and misogynists meet. I have also felt quite sure, on many occasions, that I simply wouldn’t expect (and perhaps would not be courageous enough to seek) justice in a criminal court if someone famous were to rape me. And, most of all, I have found it impossible to imagine how Cosby could either be presumed innocent >or found guilty by the jury. How could anyone really ignore the fact that nearly sixty women have echoed Constand’s harrowing testimony against Cosby? And how could anyone fully shed the lingering effects of centuries of history, up to the very recent past, in which women were legally subjugated and rape was not treated as a crime? After Judge O’Neill declared the mistrial, the Montgomery County District Attorney, Kevin R. Steele, announced that he would retry the case. A year remains for Constand’s case to fall within the statute of limitations. A part of me will always be hopeful. A part of me will always worry about what awaits women who come forward with these stories in a room where the man they’re accusing possesses, not only legally but culturally, the benefit of the doubt.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 Next > End >>

Page 1609 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