Category: Uncategorized

You may not know who Rachel Carson is. But she changed the air you breathe and the food you eat.

No, Rachel Carson was not a yogi or breathing guru, or nutritionist or a fad diet endorser.  Carson was a marine biologist, conservationist, and writer whose book Silent Spring helped launch the global environmental movement. We have Carson to thank (or hate on, if you’re Rick Perry) for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the ban on DDT, a pesticide which targeted insects but had deleterious effects on other species and contains carcinogens. Carson’s raised people’s awareness through her ground-breaking book Silent Spring, which was first published serially in four additions of The New Yorker in 1962.

Not surprisingly, the pesticide industry responded with a campaign of disinformation and sexism. As Mark Stoll details in a remarkable multimedia history, Carson’s gender, looks and un-married status were all seized upon by her critics, who called her a “hysterical woman,” a “priestess of nature” and a “spinster.”  An executive of the American Cyanamid Company warned, “If man were to faithfully follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.” And one scientist wrote an article entitled “Silence, Miss Carson.” An agricultural “expert” told a reporter, “You’re never going to satisfy organic farmers or emotional women in garden clubs.” And in a letter to President Eisenhower, Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson asked why a “spinster was so worried about genetics.” Because some things never change, Monsanto got in on the fun and printed a brochure parodying the book.

Luckily, Carson was prepared for these attacks. Born in Pennsylvania in 1907, Carson was told as young science student that “there was no future for women in science apart from teaching in high schools or obscure colleges” and that “science was too rigorous a field for women.” Yet by the time she wrote Silent Spring, Carson was an accomplished scientist and successful writer. In addition to penning several articles, Carson had written three best-sellers, The Sea Around Us, The Edge of the Sea, and Under the Sea Wind.

Carson continued to work on the issue of pesticides and testified before congress. The fact that she was battling multiple illnesses, including arthritis, an ulcer, staphylococcus infections, and cancer, makes her that much more impressive. She died of breast cancer in 1964. Learn more about Rachel Carson and how her legacy lives on.

Last week, a jury convicted Cecily McMillan of getting her breast grabbed and bruised by an NYPD officer, getting shoved by the officer and then having the nerve to have a seizure in front of several police officers, who responded by doing absolutely nothing for several minutes (link is to a pdf). The conviction has drawn criticism and outcry. Formerly incarcerated Pussy Riot* members are speaking out on behalf of McMillan, with whom they identify and whom they visited in jail over the weekend. Yesterday, New York residents and elected officials held a protest against McMillan’s conviction. But what is much more surprising, and revealing, is the fact that the very jury which found McMillan guilty is outraged and remorseful. 

Of course, Cecily McMillan, a 25-year-old graduate student and Occupy organizer, wasn’t officially convicted for being assaulted. She was convicted of Second Degree Assault, specifically of intentionally assaulting Police Officer Grantley Bovell in order to “prevent him from performing his lawful duty.” She was convicted despite the existence of overwhelming evidence exculpating McMillan and incriminating the officer: videotape footage of her seizing on the pavement, photographs of a bruise on her breast in the shape of a hand print, and a record of violence on the part of the police officer.

So, how did this happen? As Kathryn Funkhouser explains in her article at The Nation, the case was extremely misrepresented by an overzealous and either dishonest or willfully ignorant prosecutor and the incredibly biased judge. The prosecution claimed that McMillan faked the seizure, inflicted the injury which caused a hand-shaped bruise on her right breast (which seems pretty hard to do), and intentionally elbowed the officer without being provoked. But no claims or evidence relevant to Bovell’s record were allowed. In fact, the Judge, Ronald Zweibel, ordered that the officer’s files be sealed. He excluded, for example, Bovell’s involvement in running a teenage boy on a dirt bike off the road and kicking a suspect in the face while the suspect was lying on the ground. He barred the testimony, or even mention, of Austin Guest, another Occupy protester arrested the same day as McMillan, who said that Bovell and another officer lifted him up and slammed him head-first into each row of seats on a bus which transported prisoners. There were two eyewitnesses to this abuse. But the judge dismissed the claim and blamed the victim, saying (out loud!) “He must have been resisting!” The judge also, conveniently, excluded the majority of the video footage and only allowed a select clip without sound to be played for the jury. In case that wasn’t enough to make the judge’s position clear, Zweibel imposed a gag order on McMillan’s attorneys and refused bail.

On top of being given a very one-sided version of the evidence (their only view of the case since juries aren’t allowed to do independent research), the jury wasn’t told of the draconian sentence — of up to seven years in prison — McMillan was facing. When they found out, they were shocked. Nine out of 12 members of the jury wrote this letter asking for leniency:

We the jury petition the court for leniency in the sentencing of Cecily McMillan. We would ask the court to consider probation with community service. We feel that the felony mark on Cecily’s record is punishment enough for this case and that it serves no purpose to Cecily or to society to incarcerate her for any amount of time.

Zweibel will sentence McMillan on May 19th. But I’m not holding my breath. Neither is McMillan’s legal team, which is already planning an appeal.

 

*This deserves a post in itself. The last time I wrote about Pussy Riot, people commented that Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova were no longer part of the collective. Six anonymous members of Pussy Riot did disown the two in an open letter, stating that their institutionalized activism  and “advocacy is hardly compatible with radical political statements and provocative works of art – just as gender conformity is not compatible with radical feminism.” Alyokhina and Tolokonnikova, however, maintain that they never left the group, saying, “Pussy Riot can be anyone, and no one can excluded from Pussy Riot… Pussy Riot can only grow.”

What would Jesus do? Remind everyone they’re going to hell, clearly.

Image via Christian Pundit

Apparently, when some conservative Christians ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” the answer they come up with is, “Put up absurd, offensive billboards, preferably reminding passersby they’re going to hell.”

We’ve rounded up some of the more controversial billboards that have grabbed headlines lately.

 

What was strange about the racism in Spain was that it came from progressives.

When I heard about the Spanish soccer fan that recently threw a banana at the Brazilian soccer player, Dani Alves, I actually wasn’t surprised. And when, even more recently, after weeks of media and social media discussion about Spanish racism toward athletes, Senegalese midfielder for Levante, Papakouly Diop, complained about Spanish fans (yet again) making monkey noises during a game, I still wasn’t surprised.

I mean, I had certainly hoped that Spain could go two weeks without a monkey-based sports-related racist incident, but I wasn’t holding my breath.

I do have to admit, though, to being taken aback by the rally in support of David Campayo, the man who threw the banana. According to Campayo’s relatives and the nearly 800 people who have rallied to support him, Campayo is the real victim. His father says that the banana toss had nothing to do with racism.

Campayo senior claims David’s mother had given her son the banana to eat. David’s girlfriend was annoying him. David threw the banana onto the field in anger at his girlfriend. Meanwhile, David’s aunt says that what they’ve done to David “is really bad… He´s a good person and he´s working.” Other supporters carried signs saying, “Turn off your television. Turn on your mind.” For his own part, Campayo has described the whole response as, wait for it … “a public media lynching.”

I am neither a sports fan, nor Brazilian, nor Senegalese, nor Spanish. But I have spent enough time in Spain and engaged in enough conversations to know that this was not an atypical instance of Spanish racism, which is simultaneously overt and denied.

I studied abroad in Madrid and went back to make a documentary about Spanish historical memory, which I would later tour around Spain with. So my personal observation is not a social science study, it is purely anecdotal. And though some may accuse me of generalizing or of generally talking out of my ass, given that I’m going to be writing as a white person from the U.S. about white people from Spain, I’m OK with that.

The recent stadium-based racism reminded me of conversations I’d had with Spaniards who I otherwise liked. What was so strange about the racism I encountered there was that it wasn’t from conservatives or even the fascists I met while working on my documentary (who were racist, but that wasn’t as shocking to me) –- it was from educated, cosmopolitan, socialists and progressives, the type of people who, for the most part, in the States are more sensitive to racism, or at least more strategic at hiding it.

These were Spaniards who confided in me about “the Jews” after learning that I was Jewish. Manuel, for example, one of my favorite people I met in Spain, was a sociology graduate student at the time. He was a critical, generally brilliant, militant atheist. So, when he asked me if I was Catholic or Protestant and I explained that I was technically an agnostic from an equally secular Jewish family, his response stunned me: “Oh! You guys are really good at classical music. You guys run the classical music scene in New York City.”

Manuel went on to explain that his friend’s brother, a talented musician in his own right, but sadly, not Jewish, had applied for a scholarship in New York. Knowing about the infamous Jewish control of the musical genre, he tried to sneak under the radar by adding a “Vitch” to his last name. I thought Vitch was Russian and that Perezvitch would sound suspect.

But, Manuel insisted, it worked and the Jewish classical music mafia accepted him. Once the gentile musician arrived in New York, however, the Jews realized he wasn’t Jewish, they rescinded the offer. I couldn’t believe that someone as sharp as Manuel would believe such an elaborate story concocted, it seemed obvious to me, as a way to explain away an unsuccessful music career.

This story paled in comparison to the things Spaniards said to me about other groups of which I was not a member. I remember, for example, being at a party and remarking to Raquel, a punk, anarchist, neuroscientist, that I had just seen the story about the Spanish basketball players who pulled back the corners of their eyes while posing for a team picture during the 2008 summer Olympics held in Beijing. “Oh yeah,” said Raquel. “That! That’s not a big deal.” Her friend Rosa chimed in to explain to me, “You people make such a big deal about it. That is because of your racist history. It’s different in Spain. You don’t get it.”

Probably the most unexpected response came when I related this exchange and more to my friend Pablo, a mathematician with whom I saw eye to eye on all issues relating to gender, sexuality, class and humor. When I told him that at a party of around 30 people, all but one had insisted that the Spanish basketball team was misinterpreted, I expected at least an eye roll of solidarity.

Instead, Pablo explained: “It’s true. They were misunderstood. You don’t get it because of your own racist history. In Spain, it is fine for people to go to race car competitions and show up in black face.” (This actually happened.) “Racist is when you walk onto the field with black athletes and make monkey noises.” (This also happened and happens.) “Because monkeys aren’t even human. So I’ll give you that.” So that was our point of consensus.

I’m not writing this to congratulate the U.S. or claim some kind of American exceptionalism. As Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling recently proved, in the U.S. you can be an undeniable racist and still deny your racism, too.

Anyone who lives anywhere outside of a bubble of denial, oblivion and/or privilege knows that racism is a thriving practice and industry, and an intrinsic part — whether de facto or de jure — of our criminal justice system.

The Spanish tradition of racism, replete with its own history of mass genocide and exploitation, not to mention caste and an entire genre of caste paintings, is no longer fed by empire or a fascist-dictatorship-backed official ideology of racial superiority. But, thanks, in part, to the fact that Spain only emerged from forty years of dictatorship and closed borders in 1975, Spanish racism remains shockingly out in the open.

Countless towns are still named Matamoros (Moor-killer). Although, in a sign of progress, a town called Matajudios (Jew-killer) is voting on a potential name change. Only 500 years later! I’ll be watching to see how that turns out, just as I will be watching to see the fate of the allegedly maligned David Campayo.

Students at a California school are using an NFL-style drafting system to rank and acquire prom dates.
How does it work? Well, it’s the classic story of boy likes girl, boy participates in NFL-style draft, boy gets random number, but can pay to get a better number that gives him a better shot at asking the girl of his choice to prom. This is how it all goes down at Corona del Mar High School, located in Newport Beach, California. A twitter account, which has since been removed, announced that the draft was on and encouraged female students to dress accordingly: “many drafters on the prowl tomorrow for #freeagents so dress nice ladies.” The account also announced rules like ”sophomores can be drafted” and ranked girls, posting pictures of football jerseys bearing their last names.

According to a male student participating in the draft (who spoke anonymously to avoid getting into trouble), boys can pay for a better number. One student spent $140 on a good pick: “It’s awkward because he spent a large amount of money to go with someone he doesn’t talk to… And she finds it awkward that he chose her.” Does anyone find it awkward that they are, you know, paying for prom dates? Not really, according to the same student, who claims that “a lot of the girls respect the draft and stick with those dates.” Indeed, sophomore Jessie Harris, who was one of the girls lucky enough to be drafted insists there is nothing wrong with this practice: “I am part of the draft and am friends with many girls in the draft and yes, in some instances girls can be picked by appearance… It is all just a fun way to decide who you will be going to prom with. It is not meant to harm those who are picked and I do not believe that it does. It is not, was never, and will never ever be used to objectify the girls at our school.”

Not everyone has such a peachy keen view of the draft. One father whose daughter goes to another school in the area said, “Now your daughter is a commodity, she’s no longer a person anymore… She’s being ranked and sold like an NFL player. It’s outrageous to think of.” The co-president of the Feminists United student group at a neighboring school wrote, “Prom should be about having a fun time with your peers and celebrating the end of a successful academic year…. These boys must be very confused about the time we live in if they think that being asked to prom is such a high honor.”

Over the weekend, school principal Kathy Scott e-mailed school parents with concern and even threatened to cancel the prom: “It is not OK for any student to be objectified or judged in any way…. I urge you to talk with your student(s) and discuss the seriousness of this type of activity…. Prom is an important event in the lives of our students and I would hate to have to cancel it or any other important student related activity due to the negative actions of a few.”

Scott should be commended for taking this seriously — especially since in the past the school has been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union for condoning problematic sexist and homophobic student behavior, as well as its own alleged homophobia. The school had decided to “ignore obvious signs of a school culture gone awry,” the suit claimed. The administration canceled the school production of Rent, allegedly over the gay characters, coaches were accused of using homophobic slurs, and the school failed miserably in its response (or lack thereof) to a video in which three football players threatened to rape and kill a female classmate.

Hopefully, the draft will be canceled and the prom will go on. Or, you know, proms and all adolescent hierarchical popularity contests will just be abolished altogether. A girl can dream!

So, Clippers owner Donald Sterling may have told his girlfriend to stop posting photos of herself with Black people. And he may have been accused of sexual harassment. And as a real estate mogul, Sterling may have been so racist that the Justice Department sued him for bias. But in the scheme of things, this guy is the victim. And the real culprit is his so-called “girlfriend from hell.” At least that’s what people ranging from Donald Trump to Fox News hosts and viewers are saying. 

Before we get into the tragic story of Donald Sterling being victimized by his girlfriend, let’s review some history about the philandering billionaire. As most people know, it has been alleged that Sterling made some bizarre and racist comments in a recorded conversation with his girlfriend, V. Stiffiano, who happens to be Black and Mexican, by the way.

Why are you taking pictures with minorities? Why? It’s like talking to an enemy. Hispanics feel certain things towards blacks. It bothers me a lot that you’re associating with black people. […] You’re supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl. […] You don’t have to have yourself walking with black people.

But we would be remiss if we presented this as an isolated incident. Sterling has said several racist things in the past like, “I wanna know why you think you can coach these n******”; and “all the blacks in this building, they smell, they’re not clean”; and “Is she one of those black people that stink? […] Just evict the bitch”; and “all of the Mexicans that just sit around and smoke and drink all day.”

But we would also be remiss if we presented Sterling as merely rhetorically racist. Sterling is a man of actions, not just words. And he puts his money where racist mouth is. The Justice Department sued him for refusing to rent his apartments to African American and Latino people. He wound up paying the largest housing discrimination settlement in Justice Department history.

But we would also be remiss if we presented Sterling as only racist, when he is so much more. He is a renaissance man of hatred and exploitation. He also settled with a former employee who accused him of sexual harassment. And in a trial against a former girlfriend, Alexandra Castro, Sterling testified that “the woman wanted sex everywhere… In the alley, in her car, in the elevator, in the upstairs seventh floor, in the bathroom… Every time she provided sex she got $500… When you pay a woman for sex, you are not together with her… You’re paying her for a few moments to use her body for sex. Is it clear? Is it clear?”

OK. Phew. Still with me? So, not so surprisingly, Sterling uses delusions of grandeur and martyrdom to deflects charges of racism. In the tape, when Stiffiano reminds him that he has Black players on his team, Sterling responds, “I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I have—Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?”

In some ways, Sterling’s distortion of reality is to be expected. After all, a lifetime of not mere white privilege and financial success but exploitative, racist, and misogynist behavior — which is enabled by the NBA — can, actually, result in the creation of alternate and convenient realities. But what is somewhat shocking is that other people have such a warped vision of who Donald Sterling is.

Of course Alex “Because there is a war on for your mind” Jones, defended Sterling, but that’s neither surprising nor interesting. Rush Limbaugh did too, though that’s even less surprising because he is a fellow persecuted white billionaire. Speaking of persecuted white billionaires named Donald, on Monday, Trump portrayed Sterling as a powerless victim, who had been manipulated by an evil woman. When Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade explained that many viewers calling into the show were sympathetic towards Sterling because “it’s a private conversation… clearly she was baiting him,” Trump couldn’t have agreed more:

It’s terrible, he got set up by a very bad girlfriend She was baiting him and she’s a terrible human being. It’s terrible, he got set up by a very bad girlfriend… the girlfriend from hell.

Wow, Trump. Project much? Was Sterling also “baited” by the African American and Latino people he refused to rent apartments to? Was he baited by the countless people who have testified that they witnessed racist behavior from Sterling? This guy has the worst luck ever!

But Trump, Jones, and Rush look like total Sterlingphobes next to conservative blogger and big Shakespeare fan John Hinderaker, who sees a certain tragic figure in Sterling.

So Donald Sterling emerges as a pathetic figure: a reverse image of Othello, a doddering old man with a young black mistress who cheats on him. So an 80-year-old man with a much younger, mixed-race girlfriend is sexually insecure–go figure! He has a friend, a negative-image Iago [someone’s really committed to this Othello simile], who plays on his insecurity and teases him when the mistress posts pictures with black men, however innocent they may be. So the old man asks her not to do it.

But the young woman already has one foot out the door, and she illegally records her conversation with the old man, and then turns it over to two of the most disreputable gossip sites on the internet.

This sad domestic drama has become the best evidence the Left can come up with of the ongoing legacy of slavery and discrimination. It merits denunciation by the President of the United States, who locates the old man’s sad story in the grand sweep of history.

Hinderaker also offers this gem in defense of Sterling: “On the tape, Donald Sterling says, ‘I love the black people’.” Interestingly, Donald Trump has boasted, ”I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.” In the white privileged, out-of-touch spaces these men inhibit, they don’t even get that calling Black people “the blacks” is a good indication that you neither “love” or “have a great relationship with” them.

Related:
Watch: Jay Smooth on the Donald Sterling tapes and the psychology of racism and sexism

In a hilarious painfully awkward campaign ad, Michigan senate candidate Terri Lynn Land argues that her simultaneous female and Republican identities disprove the claim that she’s engaged in a “war on women.” But her whole opposition to the equal pay thing reveals that she is definitely a soldier and she’s definitely not fighting for equality.

While there are problems with the “war on women” framing, there’s no question that the Republican party opposes many policies — from pay equity to reproductive freedom — that are important to gender equality. But Land argues that the claim that she’s involved in a war on women is so off it’s almost funny. Because, hey, she’s a woman and that fact alone makes it impossible for her to be anti-woman:

I’m Terry Lynn Land. [Democratic opponent] Congressman Peters and his buddies want YOU to believe I’m waging a war on women. REALLY? Think about that for a moment. [Kitch elevator cha cha music plays while Land sips from a coffee cup with impeccable comedic timing for a few moments.] I’m Terry Lyn Land [in case we’ve forgotten from 3 seconds ago] and I approve of this message because as a woman,  I might know a little bit more about women than Gary Peters.

Now, before getting to what Land actually thinks and knows about women, let’s look at the theoretical problems with her argument. If it were a logical proof it would look like this: I am a woman. Therefore I can’t have views that are anti-woman. Apparently, Land has never heard of Phyllis Schlaffly. Nor has she read Ann Friedman, who has explained that ”a woman candidate is not the same thing as a woman’s candidate.”

But, lucky for us there’s no need for a theoretical conversation. We have concrete, real world evidence of Land fighting the war on women WBW (while being a woman.) Check out the video below of Land speaking at a 2010 Senior Women’s Club event:

Well, we all like to be paid more and that’s great, but the reality is that women have a different lifestyle… They have kids. They have to take them to get dentist appointments, doctors appointments, all those kinds of things. And they’re more interested in flexibility in a job than pay.

Here’s some easy logic: opposing equal pay legislation = opposing very basic fairness and equality = fighting a war on women. Land, and the GOP as a whole, oppose equal pay legislation. Therefore, regardless of her gender, Land and the party she represents are fighting a very real war on women.

(Transcript at DemocracyNow!)

This was a big week in the trial against Cecily McMillan. You may have heard about this case before: A cop grabbed the Occupier’s breast hard enough to leave a hand print and then shoved her strongly enough to leave her in a seizure for which she would be hospitalized. And she, not the police officer, is the one on trial.

This morning, NYPD officer Grantley Bovell wrapped up his week-long testimony against McMillan. McMillan, now 25, an Occupy Wall Street activist committed to non-violence, is on trial for assaulting Bovell on March 17, 2012 as he and other police forced protesters out of the square. Bovell and the prosecution consider the officer to be the victim and McMillan the aggressor: according to their version, McMillan elbowed Bovell near the eye, causing the officer pain and swelling. McMillan claims she did indeed elbow Bovell, but as a reflex after he grabbed her right breast and lifted her off the ground.

Over the course of his testimony this week, Bovell revealed that though he couldn’t recall several important details he was positive McMillan was faking her seizure.

“I remember her asking me why she was arrested and I told her for assaulting a police officer…. At that time she told me that she couldn’t breathe, she couldn’t breathe. I remember telling her, ‘If you can speak to me you can breathe.’” According to union organizer Stan Williams’ twitter feed McMillan met Bovel’s “diagnosis” of a fake seizure with a simple question: “Where did you go to med school?”

There are whole bunch of reasons to doubt Bovel’s accout beyond his lack of expertise:

1. A video taken by bystanders demonstrates Cecily convulsing on the ground. You can see her seizing at 7:10 in the video below.

2. A photo taken when McMillan was finally allowed to go to the hospital reveals several bruises, including a hand-shaped one on her right breast.

3. As Michelle Goldberg writes at The Nation, McMilan’s “story is more convincing for a number of reasons:”

McMillan, a veteran of the anti–Scott Walker protests in Wisconsin, was a dedicated pacifist; in Dissent, her masters thesis adviser Maurice Isserman writes about the “many and long discussions Cecily and I have had about nonviolence.” Her injuries, which you can see in this Democracy Now! piece, are indisputable, particularly the hand-shaped bruise on her right breast.

Meanwhile, The Guardian, which has covered McMillan’s case closely, reports that Bovell has twice been investigated by Internal Affairs, including for one incident in which he and his partner were alleged to have run down a 17-year-old on a dirt bike. He received a “command discipline” for failing to radio that they were in pursuit. In another case, he was filmed kicking a suspect on the floor of a Bronx bodega. (Unfortunately, the judge in McMillan’s case has ruled against turning Bovell’s internal disciplinary file over to the defense.) Austin Guest, a protester who was arrested the same day as McMillan, is currently suing him, claiming that Bovell purposefully bashed his head into the seats of a police bus as he was dragged down the aisle.

We’ll keep you updated as the trial moves forward.