Agathangelou, Power and the Law, and Labor

Hey all,

Today I was working on history research and I was reminded of our class discussion on Agathangelou.  I didn’t get the chance to read Agathangelou’s piece, but I remember discussing how oppressed groups might desire power within an oppressive system, leading them to endorse laws that enact “revenge.”  This revenge is the only way for them to feel power, and in a way it is a distraction by the ruling class, which will grant them some legal rights to revenge, instead of sweeping reform that eliminates the need for those types of laws.

My history research is on anti-labor violence in the early twentieth century, and in researching this I came across a parallel idea.  In the Introduction to the book The Day Wall Street Exploded, about the 1920 bombing of Wall Street, Beverly Gage writes, “As late as the early 1930s, the significance of ‘class violence’ in shping the nation’s economic and political development seemed self-evident to many observers.  ‘To me,’ the social critic Louis Adamic wrote in his 1931 book Dynamite, ‘ it appears to be an inevitable result of the chaotic, brutalizing conditions in American industry, a phase of the dynamic drive of economic evolution in the United States.’  Adamic’s book was the first major work to survey the use of violence, especially terrorism, by the ‘have-nots against the haves.’ It was also the last.  Within a few years, as federal legislation reduced the level of violence in labor conflicts, the issue of bombings and assassinations began to lose some of its currency.” (*the bolding is mine)

Basically, the history of labor struggle in this country is pretty violent.  Because of the violently oppressive conditions of labor–for example, deaths in coal mines, injuries in factories–more radical workers turned towards violent methods to try to gain power.  There were assassinations of political or corporation leaders; there were bombings.  However, legislation (like the New Deal) that granted workers the right to joining a union or collective bargaining gave workers SOME legal support, eliminating the need for direct violence, but did nothing to reform the system.

Anyway, hope that makes sense! Just some thoughts that I connected from an American labor history context to ideas of power and the law, from our Agathagelou class discussion.

Crenshaw and Coates comment on recent events

Hey all,

Came across these two articles, one by Kimberlé Crenshaw about the legality of excessive force and broken windows policing, and one by Ta-Nehisi Coates about the use of violent and nonviolent tactics.  They are both really, really great reads. Crenshaw’s was definitely difficult for me to understand at times because of the legal stuff, but it’s really great how she lays how the interplay of legality and politics, and how that leads to a denial of justice within the legal system.  Coates’ was a little easier to understand because he is direcly reflecting what’s happening right now.  For example, he addresses President Obama’s vague and complacent language.  He also discusses how we view violence and nonviolence in our society, and how these tactics have been used, not just by protestors, but by the government.  Here’s a quote that I liked and felt resonated with our reading of Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: “What cannot be said is that America does not really believe in nonviolence—Barack Obama has said as much—so much as it believes in order. What cannot be said is that there are very convincing reasons for black people in Ferguson to be nonviolent. But those reasons emanate from an intelligent fear of the law, not a benevolent respect for the law.”

Here are the links to the articles, hope you get the chance to read them!

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/05/some_of_the_worst_racist_tragedies_in_history_have_been_perfectly_legal_kimberle_crenshaw_on_eric_garner_broken_windows_and_police_impunity/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/barack-obama-ferguson-and-the-evidence-of-things-unsaid/383212/

Indictment…of Ramsey Orta

Hey all,

Just found this and remembered we were trying to figure out, earlier in class, what happened to the man who filmed Eric Garner’s murder.  The guy’s name is Ramsey Orta and he was indicted by a Staten Island grand jury on firearm possession charges.  I believe his wife was also arrested around the same time but I can’t remember for what. This is supposedly “unrelated” to his filming of Garner’s murder, but he and his wife don’t think so.  It’s ridiculous what they choose to indict.  Anyway, for more info just click the link below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ramsey-orta-indictment-eric-garner_n_6264746.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000021

That’s so Gay

Hey guys, so in the book “Covering” Yoshino talks about how being gay was being succumbed to more a performance rather than a life choice. He discusses how “gays that act straight” are more likely to be accepted and how being gay becomes more of a role rather than a personal decision. He mentions how being gay, comes with a whole set of stigmas and characteristics that are attributed with it, and anyone who doesn’t adhere to those “norms” are ostracized and treated differently. He also discusses that when you come out as gay, you are expected to adhere to societal norms and conform to the roles placed on by society.

After reading this part, I immediately thought of the phrase “That’s so gay”, as a way of expressing dislike and dissatisfaction with something. For example, many will call something that they dislike “Gay”, in a negative connotation which is related to what Yoshino is saying. By calling something gay, you are making a whole group of people inferior and stereotyping certain behaviors and practices to them. This is wrong because you are essentially creating and promoting a stereotype and verbally abusing others, even if that is not your intention. This commercial displays the harms of calling something “gay” to express dislike and it promotes awareness of thinking before speaking.

Basically by calling something gay, you are attaching someone’s being to a physical role that is often stereotyped and created by society and media. You are contributing to the “character of being gay”, rather than someone establishing their sexual orientation, so this is one example of how Yoshino mentions that when one came out as gay, they were often stigmatized and grouped into one category of people.

http://www.thinkb4youspeak.com/GetInformed/

The Fergueson Injustice

Hey everyone, as you all know tonight was a much anticipated night, as it held the decision for the Michael Brown case. The Jury declared that Police Officer Wilson will not be indicted for any crimes related to the shooting of brown. This was extremely horrifying news, but honestly I don’t find it shocking. I believe that the contents of this case and the results, hold extreme relevance to the topics discussed in class as well as the readings. This is just another example of how, a clearly guilty officer is not charged with any crime, even though he shot and killed a man. I believe this goes back to Alexander’s argument, that justice is only served when a white man is the one who had a crime committed against. This NPR publishing shows the timeline of events leading up to the current trial and the results

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/24/364103735/ferguson-timeline-grief-anger-and-tension

This timeline is extremely helpful because it breaks down the events leading to the trial, and it really explains how tainted this whole situation is.

This case caused severe uproar and various protests ignited across the country, but it still seems that justice was left unserved. We can easily relate this back to the issue, that because it was not a white man who was killed, it was not taken seriously. This goes back to the whole idea that the law system serves as a method of power, in order to control the population and keep certain races in control while others are deprived of life chances, and in this case, human rights. It is disheartening to think that in the 21st century, a man is unsafe just because the color of their skin, and inherently that the law works against them. There isn’t a great disparity between the number of white people and black people that commit crime, but why is it that white people have greater protection under the law? Why is their life valued more? This is beyond a power struggle, and I believe it is a form of “preservation” that Alexander mentioned in The New Jim Crow. Though the Jim Crow laws are not enacted, they are still carried out through the skewed justice system and the disadvantages and setbacks that are facing African Americans.

What do you guys think?

Know Your Rights

Hey all,

I’ve been meaning to post this for a while.  Early in her book, The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander addresses “consensual” searches, during which a police officer will stop a person either in a car, in a bus, or on foot, and “ask” to conduct a search.  If the person agrees–which they do, because of the implied power dynamic–and any evidence is found, this evidence is admissible because the search was “legal,” although there was no warrant.  Agreeing to a consensual search waives your right to a warranted search, for which the standards of proof to obtain a warrant are a little higher than in police simply decided to “ask” you to search you or your belongings.  Anyway, this reminded me of an infographic that a friend posted a while ago.  I’ve been trying to find it, but I came across some other stuff in the meantime.

So for instance, here’s a know your rights infographic.  Gives you an idea of what you have the legal right to do if stopped.  The best part is the common police tricks questions…you don’t actually have to answer these (I didn’t know that!). But of course, be really careful. Always keep hands visible and be respectful…make it clear that you would like to leave and ask questions, but don’t make sudden movements or anything.  As me, Jeffery, and Mariana discussed in our project, its unfortunately clear who always has the last word in these things.

Source: http://www.copblock.org/41612/know-your-rights-an-infographic/

I couldn’t find the original infographic that was going around.  Basically, it showed you a driver and a pedestrian and laid out for you what your rights are in either situation–they are slightly different.  Anyway, here’s another site I came across, with some pictures to illustrate possible encounters and tactics used by law enforcement to coerce people: http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=10

What I got from this is, clearly state that you do not consent to a search, and establish the type of stop by asking if you are free to go.  Again, please always use caution when doing this.  Share it with friends and family, as these consensual searches are too often taken to be the norm, but we need to be informed about our rights.  Hope this info helps, but I also hope you never have to use it!

Labor Market Discrimination

Hello everyone! I found something interesting regarding the labor market. Did you know that your name can have a huge impact on your opportunity for an interview?

I provided a link of an example regarding labor market discrimination. José Zamora had been job hunting for long months, sending out close to 100 resumes a day, and never got any offer to an interview until he dropped a letter off his name. He went from José Zamora to Joe Zamora. The effect was immediate as the offers began to pour in through his inbox all because he “whitewash it.”

Jose Zamora wasn’t the only victim of labor market discrimination. The New York Times reveal the story of Tahani Tompkins who also had to “Whiten” her resume to get offers from jobs. New York Times reported that employers may consciously or subconsciously discriminate against names that sounds as if they belong to certain race.

Equal opportunities or life chances? Apparently not! Latinos, African Americans, and other minority groups will benefit little from improving their resume credentials or experiences when applying for a job because of labor market discrimination.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/jose-joe-job-discrimination_n_5753880.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06Luo.html?_r=1&

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/pdf/bertrand.pdf

-Amy

I just thought this might be interesting for our discussions. Why?

Here are also some problems linked with marijuana use:

Addiction—that is an obvious one. In addition, it can cause uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms in people who discontinue use.

Anxiety and Paranoia—In high doses or in sensitive individuals, marijuana can cause anxiety and paranoia.

Memory Impairment—As anyone who’s ever talked to someone who is high knows, memory impairment is common.

Mind-Altering Effects—This is particularly evident among people who haven’t used it before as well as many young people.

Heart Attack—One study found an increased risk of heart attack within the first hour of smoking marijuana.

10 Health Benefits of Marijuana

Alzheimer’s—Marijuana may be able to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, according to research by the Scripps Research Institute and published in Molecular Pharmaceutics.

Anxiety—Harvard Medical School found that marijuana may have anti-anxiety effects. Of course, keep in mind that high doses may increase anxiety and paranoia.

Arthritis—Marijuana can alleviate pain and inflammation linked to arthritis.

Cancer—Research in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics found that cannabidiol found in marijuana, turns off a gene called “Id-1,” which cancer cells use to spread.

Epilepsy—Marijuana has been shown in studies by Virginia Commonwealth University, to stop seizures in the school’s animal studies.

Glaucoma—Researchers are working on developing new drugs based on cannabis to treat glaucoma pain after learning its effectiveness for treating the condition. Glaucoma is a condition that increases pressure inside the eyeball and can lead to vision loss.

Improves Lung Health—Research in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that marijuana can increase lung capacity, not decrease it as many people have long believed.

Multiple Sclerosis—A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that cannabinoids found in marijuana significantly reduced multiple sclerosis pain.

Nausea—Marijuana contains a minimum of 60 chemicals known as cannabinoids, of which THC is the primary one associated with its mind-altering effects.  THC has been used in the treatment of nausea, including drug- or chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Parkinson’s Disease—Research published in MedPage Today found that marijuana use eased tremors and improved fine motor skills in patients with Parkinson’s disease.

However, marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, which are legal. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. Most people who overdose are under the influence of more than one drug. In 2003, the Drug Abuse Warning Network reported an average of 2.7 drugs in fatal overdose cases. Importantly, in these cases, no single drug is usually present at a lethal dose. Rather it is the synergistic effects of combining the drugs that are lethal. For example, a combination of heroin and alcohol can be especially dangerous. Heroin and alcohol both suppress breathing, but by different mechanisms. Heroin is the cause for more deaths by overdose than any other single drug. The majority of these deaths ultimately result from respiratory failure. A toxic dose of heroin increases the inhibitory effect of GABA, which causes breathing to slow and eventually stop. Alcohol overdoses occur predominantly in two ways. First, by decreasing the excitatory effect of glutamate, alcohol causes unconsciousness. At high levels, it can also cause breathing to slow or cease. Second, the body tries to rid itself of unabsorbed alcohol by emptying the stomach. If a person vomits while they are unconscious, they may inhale the vomit and compromise their breathing or even drown.

Websites used:

• http://norml.org/
• http://www.care2.com/greenliving/shocking-health-benefits-of-marijuana.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis

Tax Breaks for Employers Who Hire Felons

Alexander educates us about the stigma and the discriminations that felons face after they are released from prison. She explains how hard it is for them to get situated back into life, especially getting a job. Employers obviously would rather hire someone that is “qualified,” rather then someone who just got out of jail for “breaking the law.”

There is this article that I read online which tells its readers about what the Work Opportunity Tax Credit program can do for businesses. This program is designed to give certain less-fortunate individuals jobs (SSI recipients, veterns, welfare recipients, ex-felons), in return for a tax reduction for the business .”It offers tax breaks to buisnesses that give a second chance to those recently released from prison…Many times criminal offenders find it difficult to find employment due to their past convictions. This arrangement is a win-win for everyone.”

I am not exactly sure how I feel about this program. Although I believe their goals are set in a right direction, giving people second chances in the work force, like ex-felons which we have seen how difficult it is for them to jump back into their lives after prison. It is also unfortunate that companies will only do this for their advantage, which of course is to save money in their pocket.

I was wondering what you guys thought about this program? Do you think it purely has the right intentions to help these people who have difficultly getting a job? Or is this set up primarily for businesses to make even more money? Is this the only way in which ex-felons can easily get a job? Do you guys have any other alternatives that would help ex-felons to get a job, instead of basically bribing business companies with money?

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/tax-breaks-employers-hire-felons-14421.html

Congressmen caught with Cocaine

Although this article was published in 2013, I believe that it holds great relevance to the topics that we discussed in class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/trey-radel-drug-testing_n_4305348.html

Representative Trey Radel voted that all food stamp beneficiaries have to take drug tests in order to receive food stamps, however in October of 2013, Radel himself was caught in the possession of cocaine which is extremely ironic and hypocritical. During the passing of these restrictions on the food stamp, Democrats argued that if receivers of tax-benefits should be tested for drugs, shouldn’t lawmakers be tested as well? That is exactly what happened, one of the people who was advocating for drug tests for food stamp beneficiaries, was charged for drug possession.

This is just one example of how lower class income people are being scrutinized and constrained by the government, whereas lawmakers and officials can get away with these sort of things. Radel was simply charged with a misdemeanor, whereas I don’t believe a lower class person would receive the same sort of treatment under the law. I don’t believe that most people would want to resort to food stamps as a source of nourishment for their families and themselves, so why put even more restrictions on them by drug testing them? Is drug testing a method of proving that they are not in need? Trey Radel was just one official who happened to be caught and convicted, what about all of the other officials who can easily get away from these charges or escape this kind of public scrutiny and restrictions placed on the government? This simply promotes the idea that wealthier people and higher status people, can afford to do drugs in their own privacy and that poorer people don’t have that opportunity, so they are condemned at a significantly higher rate.

What is your opinion on the case?