Saturday, March 4, 2017

The Immorality of Strict Values

Image result for antifa



Many belief systems advocate for a form of deontological ethics, the philosophy that actions should be judged based solely on strict moral rules, not the effects of those actions. Kant outlines this concept in his first work on ethics, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals [1]. We see this philosophy manifest in politics frequently, especially in the realm of liberal thought.

Recently, many have been critiquing the actions of Antifa groups. Antifa is short for Antifaschistische Aktion, or in english, Anti-Fascist Action. Currently Antifa groups are primarily composed of anarchist or communist groups, as shown by their red and black symbols and flags. Eventually I'll do a piece discussing Antifa and anarchism in more depth, but for now suffice it to say that they are radical leftist groups that oppose Trump and fascism. Antifa groups have staged a number of violent protest events, from their actions near the Trump inauguration [2] to shutting Milo Yannopolous out of UC Berkley [3]. The 'violence' referred to in the media primarily consists of damage to private property, something I would not generally consider violence. There have also been some situations where protesters have been involved in physical altercations with Trump supporters or neo-nazis, most notably with Richard Spencer [4].

Liberal columnists furiously attacked these situations, claiming that protests should never be violent, and that we must protect even neo-nazis' free speech. To return to my first paragraph, these individuals are establishing ethical rules, and thus following a philosophy of deontological ethics. This ends up being a weak position for a number of reasons. Deontological ethics always suffers from the question of how specific these moral laws can be- for instance, liberals who support wars certainly aren't claiming that violence is never acceptable. But then how do you differentiate- is it only acceptable when a state declares war? Then obviously you can't support the Germans resisting the Nazis from within before Ally involvement. This conversation often ends up at the conclusion that violence is only acceptable in self-defense, in a response to violence imposed on you. We'll come back to the specific example in a bit, I want to first explore this issue with deontological ethics further.

The primary alternative to deontological analysis is utilitarianism, or as Mill outlines in his formative work on the topic, the belief that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By ‘happiness’ is meant pleasure and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness’ is meant pain and the lack of pleasure" [5].

The disagreement between these two philosophies relates to the old trolley problem, first devised by Phillipa Foot in 1967 [6]. Say a trolley is hurdling down a track at 1000 people and your only recourse is to switch the track so the train hits another person. Most people would agree the more ethical action would be to switch the track, killing one man over 1000. However, when you make the two choices closer, say one person to save two, many people begin to question the righteousness of switching the track. The deontologist would come up with a moral maxim- that could something as broad as you should never directly lead to the death of a human. If that was the case the numbers wouldn't matter- you should never pull the switch. But of course that might not be the rule the deontologist settles on. I think most rational people would agree that killing people through inaction still carries a moral responsibility. Pete Singer outlines this (and much more) in a short story- virtually everyone would agree that, in passing a drowning child, there is a moral obligation to help that child [7].

The deontologist might create a rule such as "you may take the life of another human only if you save the lives of more". This rule takes us to an interesting point in this discussion. That rule sounds like a derivation of a utilitarian philosophy, which would of course call for switching the track if it did more good. This seems to be the problem that deontologists run into- if their rules are too broad, they create some very immoral actions, but when they get specific they become virtually indistinguishable from a utilitarian view. This is because most ascribing to deontological views use utilitarianism to determine their rules.

How does this relate to our debate between antifa and liberals? It really comes down to a discussion of means and ends. If we go back to the rule of violence only being acceptable in self-defense, I think that's still a problematic argument. It gives some sort of importance to the timing of events. If you could stop the murder of MLK by preemptively killing his future murderer, is that unacceptable? According to the self-defense rule, it is, as the violence hasn't occurred yet. I think a better rule would expand the definition of self defense to defense against future actions. But now haven't we just arrived at a utilitarian analysis again?

In Saul Alinsky's famous book Rules for Radicals, he lays out a set of 11 ethical rules of 'means and ends'. These emphasize the importance of often being flexible in the morality of means in an attempt to achieve a more important end. I tend to agree with this analysis. If the end you want to achieve is something as important as stopping cryptofascists from harming and subjugating the vulnerable, I think we must use whatever means will be effective. As Malcolm X said in his famous 1964 speech, "We want freedom by any means necessary. We want justice by any means necessary. We want equality by any means necessary" [8]. Note the phrasing Malcolm uses. Necessary. He isn't advocating for violence as a punishment towards the oppressors, or flagrant use of immoral tactics. He's advocating for doing what is justifiable by the high moral ground of the ends. You can argue about Antifa's effectiveness all you want (that's another discussion), but to condemn them solely on the morality of their tactics demonstrates a lack of philosophical thought.

[1]: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (Kant)
[2]: Majority of 230 protesters arrested on Inauguration Day will face 10 years in prison and $25k fine as US attorney says they will be charged with felony rioting (daily mail)
[3]: ‘Black bloc’ protests return for Trump era, leaving flames, broken windows from D.C. to Berkeley (cnn)
[4]: White nationalist Richard Spencer punched in the face camera while doing interview (youtube)
[5]: Utilitarianism (Mill)
[6]: The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect (Foot)
[7]: The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle (Singer)
[8]: Malcolm X’s Speech at the Founding Rally of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (1964)

Monday, January 16, 2017

Whitewashing MLK



The Washington Post came out with a piece today labeling Martin Luther King a 'true conservative'. This affront to King's memory is not an isolated phenomenon, as many writers attempt to downplay his radicalism.

From the Washington Post article:
"But in his way, Dr. King did a lot to preserve, protect and defend the best of our principles and values... Dr. King worked to turn back extremism, violence and racial nationalism at the height of the civil rights movement, and to keep the cause of essential and long-overdue change in the American mainstream." [1]

Dr. King did not "[work] to turn back extremism", he was an extremist. The definition of extremism is generally built around the current status quo of society, and King's message was completely antithetical to the fundamentals of society in the '50s and '60s. The FBI developed an extensive file on King, and even attempted to blackmail him into killing himself [2]. 

King is often used to attack more radical groups like the Black Panthers or the Weathermen, and more recently many have attacked Black Lives Matter protesters, claiming that King would be ashamed of or disgusted by them. King did advocate for non-violence, but he never saw those rioting or pursuing justice by more violent means as evil. 

The third form of whitewashing I've seen is a separation of King from class justice. If King was purely involved with identity politics with no regard for class, it is far easier for the right to claim him, as the fundamentals of our political spectrum revolve around economics. King of course did not separate class from racial justice, and was a radical in that area too.

I think the best way to respond to the whitewashing of King is through his own words.

King on riots:
"But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity." (The Other America, 1968)

King on capitalism (1):
"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered." (Beyond Vietnam, 1967)

King on Capitalism (2):
"The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” (Southern Christian Leadership Conference Speech, 1967)

King on the American Dream:
"Again we have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad." (The Three Evils of Society, 1967)

King on Moderates:
"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." (Letter From a Birmingham Jail, 1963)

King on the Necessity of Radical Solutions:
"The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.” (The Three Evils of Society, 1967)

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Classism in the 'Justice' System part 1: Fines

In the sixth century, the Scythian philosopher Anacharsis said that Roman laws were "like spiders’ webs, and would catch the weak and poor, but easily be broken by the mighty and rich" [1]. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a 19th century political philosopher expanded on this sentiment, saying "Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government" [2]. While I am in no way a libertarian in the modern right-wing sense, the justice system in the US is incredibly unfair. I believe laws to be necessary in a capitalist system- a central government must be used to limit the injustices committed mostly in the name of wealth. This is not what laws in this country are intended to do.

I want to specifically look at a few instances where laws have failed to promote equality. First, in this piece I will examine the fundamental injustice of flat fines. I'll then write two more articles, examining the issues of laws aimed at the lower class, and the difference in legal representation based on wealth.

I touched on the issue of fines in my last post on the marijuana legalization movement. Fines are primarily imposed on either individuals or corporations/businesses, and there are major problems with each kind. I'm using fine to refer to any monetary legal punishment or restitution. Fines as punishment are generally intended to discourage that act, fines as restitution are generally intended to fix the damages caused by the act. I'll assume those intentions going forward.

The vast majority of fines in the US are flat-rate, that is they are independent on income, and solely based on the offense. The only exception to this I could find was the Affordable Care Act uninsured fine, which partially scales with income [3]. Flat rate fines hit the lower class much harder than the wealthy, as it is a more sizable chunk of their income.

For poor people, even a speeding ticket can present serious financial challenges. The lower class spends a far higher percentage of income on necessities, and thus does not have a large budget to spare for fines [4]. This creates an injustice- since wealthy individuals barely suffer from the penalties, by applying a flat rate fine the government is punishing the poor more harshly. Since the law is supposed to be blind, and treat everyone the same, a harsher punishment should not occur for the same offense. Thus, fines make being poor punishable. Sometimes these unjust financial penalties can lead to jail time as well, making being poor an offense punishable by prison [5]. Some countries have adopted a more progressive method. In Finland tickets are based on income level minus necessary expenses and dependents [6].

Corporate violations of laws are often a calculated decision to maximize profits. If m = money saved through the violation, c = chance of getting caught, and f = cost of the fine, as long as m > cf the corporation is better off violating the law. This is often the case, due to small fines, low chances of getting caught, and massive corporate profits.

Regulatory agencies often don't even have the ability to impose strong enough penalties.Take, for example, OSHA. OSHA regulates workplace conditions, and imposes fines for dangerous conditions for employees. This year OSHA's fining capabilities increased 78 percent, with the highest penalty for a serious infraction jumping from $7,000 a day to $12,471 [7]. That doesn't even register in many corporate budgets- profits from the top 10 corporations totaled around 210 billion in 2014 [8]. And corporations aren't well deterred from repeat infractions- violations determined to be willful or repeated still only have a maximum fine of $124,709 [7].

These fines become even more ineffective when you look at corporate strategies for dealing with them. While some corporations will pay, others have filed for bankruptcy to make it impossible for regulatory agencies to collect [9], and some have just neglected to pay. Certain coal companies have millions in unpaid fines, some reaching back 20 years [10]. These companies continue to operate with no additional penalties, so the fines have become in essence non-existent for them.

Corporations often have to pay a combination of a penalizing fine and a restitutive fine. This distinction is important, due to the tax code. Corporations are not allowed to count penalizing fines as a tax write-off, but they can count restitutive fines. In a study of the ten largest settlements between 2012 and 2015, the corporations payed just under 80 billion in fines, but they could count 48 billion of that as tax write-offs. This resulted in 17 billion dollars less in payed taxes [11]. This is actually less than the average- overall between 2012 and 2014, cases signed off by the DOJ had just 18.4 percent non-deductible fines [12].

There are countless other methods used by corporations to avoid or negate the impact of fines, one could easily write countless books on the topic. This issue, combined with the inequity of flat rate fines, demonstrates the fundamental problems with fines in our system. At the beginning I pointed out that the general intent of penalizing fines is to deter offenders. This is obviously ineffective in the corporate world, with penalties seen as the cost of doing business. And with flat-rate individual fines the only section of society which has a serious motivation to avoid fines is the lower class. While the rich avoid fines they can afford, the poor are imprisoned for fines they can't.

[1]: Words of Justice- Harvard Law Library
[2]: WikiQuote- from "No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism" (1980) Daniel Guérin, translated by Paul Sharkey (1998), p. 90
[3]: ObamaCare Mandate: Exemption and Tax Penalty (obamacarefacts.com)
[4]: How The Poor, The Middle Class And The Rich Spend Their Money (NPR)
[5]: Jail Time For Unpaid Court Fines And Fees Can Create Cycle Of Poverty (NPR)
[6]: Speeding in Finland Can Cost a Fortune, if You Already Have One (NY Times)
[7]: OSHA Penalty Adjustments To Take Effect After August 1, 2016 (osha.gov)
[8]: The 10 most profitable companies of the Fortune 500 (fortune.com)
[9]: Even after workplace deaths, companies avoid OSHA penalties (Center for Public Integrity)
[10]: Coal Mines Keep Operating Despite Injuries, Violations And Millions In Fines (NPR)
[11]: How $80 Billion in Corporate Fines Can Become $48 Billion in Tax Breaks (PBS)
[12]: Settling for a Lack of Accountability? (U.S. PIRG)

Monday, December 19, 2016

Problems In the Marijuana Legalization Movement

There are numerous excellent reasons to legalize marijuana (and other drugs). It would allow us to collect tax revenues (a good reason provided those taxes went somewhere good), it would decrease the unnecessarily high prison population, it would allow research on medicinal effects, and it would allow some pain relief for those with chronic pain. However, a large chunk of the legalization movement sees those effects as secondary, and primarily wants it legalized so they can get high. I'm not saying that isn't a valid reason, but it's relatively unimportant. If the results were the same, this would be somewhat irrelevant, but there are some concerning impacts of the successes of the movement.

Drug offenders make up just over 50 percent of the US prison population. Of those prisoners, 27.6 percent are jailed for marijuana [1]. Despite almost equal rates of use, African-Americans are 3.76 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana [2]. Unfortunately, the in states that have legalized marijuana a black market still exists, and blacks are still arrested at unfair rates for participation [3]. The marijuana legalization movement needs to address this, and explore solutions to this issue. A large motivator to sell illegally is the cost to enter the legal market. To sell legally, one must obtain a license, and dispensaries cannot be owned by an individual with a drug felony [4]. That means that all the previously imprisoned dealers have no place in the new marketplace, and will sell outside of it.

Another problem occurs in states without full legalization. 21 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts [5]. This means instead of jail time, offenders face a fine. This puts poor offenders, unable to pay the fine, in a difficult situation. It creates yet another unfair advantage for the rich, who can now use marijuana as they please, and pay a fee which is insignificant to them if they get caught. The people unable to pay the fine could even face jail-time, as many states still unconstitutionally jail those unable to pay fines and court charges [6]. Even if they do manage to pay, they're losing a large chunk of their income, and may even have to resort to criminal means to obtain the capital.

Legalization is important, but we need to focus on legalizing to benefit those most harmed by the drug war- the lower class and especially minorities. Otherwise this is just a movement to benefit well-off white people who are mad they can't legally get high.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Russian Conspiracies- a New Brand of McCarthyism?



Joseph McCarthy was a republican when he began his immoral and oppressive crackdown on left-wing thinkers in the US. What many seem not to know, however, is that McCarthy enjoyed support from the democrats as well. Before McCarthy even started, democratic president Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9835, which removed government employees deemed unloyal to the United States. Grounds for removal included:

             "Membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association with any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means." [1]

The congressional committees tasked with exposing and charging communists were often headed or staffed with democrats. For instance, after McCarthy stepped down from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations democrat John McClellan took over as chair, and Robert Kennedy was appointed as chief council [2]. Under McClellan the committee went after labor unions, leading to the Landrum-Griffith act, which barred communists from serving in leadership positions in unions [3].

I fear we are heading towards a similar situation. In my last post, I discussed the movement towards censorship, which is supported by both liberals and republicans. The EU resolution to counteract Russian propaganda was proposed by Anna Fotyga, a member of the right-wing Law and Justice party in Poland. But in the US the attack on Russian Media is widely led by the democrats, claiming that Russia was rigging the election through revealing the inner workings of the democratic party [4]. While Russian media is obviously not impartial, some liberals have begun condemning anyone who lends credibility to anything from Russian media sources.

Propornot, a group that refuses to reveal their identities or methods, has compiled a list of news organizations that are helping Russia's propaganda effort, intentionally or unknowingly. This list includes many alt-right websites largely devoid of evidence or sources, but it also includes many well-regarded, trustworthy left-wing publications, such as Truthdig and Naked Capitalism. They even list wikileaks, an organization which has done nothing but spread valid leaked documents [5]. This is far worse than just an irrelevant group of wackos condemning valid media, because now the Washington Post has run an article using this group's 'research' as a source [6]. This is fake news. This is propaganda.

If the liberals turn on the far left as they have throughout history, Trump-like leaders will continue to emerge. If we want to move forward, the fear-mongering has to stop, and liberals need to admit that neoliberal policies are how we got Trump. I don't mean to assign blame, as I think that's counterproductive. I do mean to push people to look at the causes of the fascist right's success, and to look at the rampant corruption and corporatism of their own party.

[1]: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/executive-order-9835/
[2]: http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/psihistory.htm?attempt=2
[3]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120618?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[4]: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/02/opinions/kremlin-trying-to-rig-election-nimmo-opinion/
[5]: http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html
[6]: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543

Monday, November 28, 2016

Censorship With Good Intentions Will End Badly

Censorship is not a quality of a free society. It also rarely goes with left wing politics, as it usually goes hand in hand with the oppression that leftists fight. Currently there are some disturbing calls for censorship coming from the left. The EU just passed a non-binding resolution to counter Russian and Islamic terrorist propaganda [1], and many are calling for Facebook and Google to do something about the fake news that was shared on social media throughout this election.

I'm not going to argue the morality of actually trying to censor fake information- I think it's generally wrong but that would be a lengthy philosophical argument. However, I will argue that these two methods of attempting to filter false information are not going to only counteract fake news, but will also be aimed at certain valid viewpoints. I would be fine with attempting to distribute correct information to counteract the false information, but that would require an unbiased group to provide corrections, and the EU and corporations certainly aren't unbiased.

Russian media has a variety of viewpoints depending on the show or paper. Many of the RT America writers and Lee Camp are very left wing. They may have selective coverage, but I have not seen anything stated as fact that they can't back up. They also don't just spread fake news- when one of Sputnik's editors, Bill Moran, accidentally published a factually incorrect article he apologized profusely and was promptly fired. He was a bit overworked, and had attributed an attached article to the sender of an email, making it appear that Sidney Blumenthal had criticized Clinton's handling of the Bengazi situation. Afterwards, he attempted to make things right, explaining that it was a personal error. The individual who had written the article he had misattributed to Blumenthal, Kurt Eichenwald, attempted to stop him, alleging that the article was intentionally incorrect Russian propaganda. Eichenwald offered to help Moran find a new job if he remained silent, and if Moran spoke on the issue Eichenwald threatened to attack his credibility [2].

This shows a willingness to make up a Russia conspiracy where there is none. I'm not saying that Russian news agencies don't have an agenda, but I will say they don't, to my knowledge, intentionally publish factually incorrect news. I also think these attacks display a hypocrisy. Major American news sources have been publishing misinformation throughout the election cycle. On CNN, an anchor claimed it was illegal to possess the Wikileaks emails unless you were a journalist [3]. The Washington Post recently published an article on inaccuracies and bias within RT, which ironically was full of unsubstantiated claims (I know this is an RT link, but they back up their statements) [4]. Many reporters from a variety of news organizations were found to be working closely with Clinton's campaign, via leaked emails [5]. This is just a small selection of these issues, which present a troubling view of corporate media, and their intentions.

On The Intercept, a news organization I regard with some respect, a normally rational and forward-thinking columnist has called for Facebook to self-regulate when it comes to fake news [6]. This is a frightening prospect. Self regulation of corporations does not work, as corporations are driven by profits. The interests of CEO's rarely fall in line with the interests of the working class. What's happened when industries have self-regulated previously? Financial crashes [7], big tobacco avoiding safety warnings and thus killing millions [8], health care prices skyrocketing (remember Martin Shkreli?) [9], and Pharmaceutical industries misleading patients [10] to name a few. Zuckerberg has vowed to go after fake news in a variety of ways [11], but I don't think their methods of determining what is fake will be adequate. In many issues Americans have a very biased perspective of what is fake- just look at most Americans' view of the Syrian situation. Assad may be an oppressive tyrant, but the resistance is partially composed of right wing Islamist militants, such as the Muslim Brotherhood [12]. Would this censorship be used against the mainstream US media organizations I mentioned earlier as well?

The EU's declaration isn't concrete, which makes it hard to point out specific faults. The intention to go after Russian media is alarming though, as the EU is hardly an unbiased organization, regularly supporting corporate agendas (for instance [13]). And their history when it comes to propaganda is not far above that of the US, just look at the British government's anti-communist propaganda from the '40s and '50s [14]. Furthermore, Ukraine passed a law in 2015 banning communist and national socialist propaganda. The EU recommended that they revise this law, but also claimed that it "pursue[d] a legitimate aim" [15]. Anger over fake news stories spread by the alt-right is understandable, but we need to counteract it without government or corporate intervention. Censorship from corporations and corporate-influenced governments is not something we on the left should endorse, regardless of the legitimate problems with fake news from right-wing organizations.


[3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.a56dbbce8961
[4]: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/368180-fake-news-washington-post/
[5]: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
[6]: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
[7]: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-self-regulation-of-the-financial-system-wont-work/
[8]: http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78(7)902.pdf
[9]: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/taking-on-the-drug-profiteers
[10]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144321.htm
[11]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/19/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fake-news-election/
[12]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9450587/Muslim-Brotherhood-establishes-militia-inside-Syria.html
[13]: https://off-guardian.org/2016/08/23/european-commission-serving-a-corporate-agenda/
[14]: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/26637/1/08806632.pdf
[15]: http://uatoday.tv/news/venice-commission-ukraine-law-banning-communist-nazi-propaganda-not-comply-with-eu-standards-557297.html

Monday, November 21, 2016

The November 20 Bridge Standoff

Law enforcement officers surround demonstrators protesting against plans to pass the Dakota Access pipeline during a standoff at the Backwater Bridge in Morton County, North Dakota, U.S., November 20, 2016. © Morton County Sheriff's Department / Handout via Reuters

If you look at the temperature in Cannon Ball, North Dakota last night you’ll see that it was hovering around 23 degrees Farhenheit for most of the night. Protesters were out all night, fighting against the DAPL, as they have been for months now. As if this cold wasn’t hard enough to withstand, they were attacked by police, with rubber bullets, tear gas, an LRAD cannon (tested, but not used in any of the video I watched), mace, percussion grenades, and a water cannon. Yes, a water cannon in freezing weather. After watching Kevin Gilbertt’s live videos for much of last night, there were a few things I learned. I'll cite the time each event occurs/is noted in the 30 minute shortened video I compiled.

Mainstream media has failed us, and their replacements are under attack:
3 drones belonging to Digital Smoke Signals were shot down (29:35). The FAA has issued a no fly zone for private aircraft, including drones, in the area of the protests [1]. You may remember when Shailene Woodley was singled out and arrested, while obeying orders to move [2]. Many thought it was likely that this was a way to silence her live videos, as many were watching the situation unfold on her streams. Protesters have claimed authorities jammed cell phone signals at some points, this has been disputed, and the problems may be due to spotty coverage. However, the coincidence that those problems occurred when police began breaking down a protester camp seems suspect. Even if the latter two claims are incorrect, the no fly zone is only to attack the protester's communication with the outside world. The protesters are flying drones with video, not missile systems, and they pose no threat to the police, apart from the threat that their actions will become public.

Protesters' lives and well-being are in immediate danger:
There have been a number of health issues. One person required CPR, twelve people have gone to the ER, and at least 100 people were transported back to the main camp from injuries related to tear gas or the cold temperature and water (29:48). There is also a claim that a man was severely injured by a bean bag round, with his skull exposed, attested to by more than one protester (22:24).

They are attempting to discredit the movement:
The Morton County Police Department is releasing factually inaccurate propaganda. They claimed that the water protesters were setting fires and that they used the water cannon in an attempt to put those out. The only protester-started fires visible in the hours of footage I’ve watched are small, controlled camp fires for warmth, a necessity when police spray water in crowds in these temperatures (21:43). These fires have not been targeted by the water cannon, and indeed in all the footage I've seen the cannon was only targeting the protesters. There were some other fires, but from what I saw it appeared that the police set them, and water protectors rushed to put them out.

What can you do?:
Remove your money from banks that support DAPL, call the governor of North Dakota (701-328-2200), the Morton Co. Sheriff's Office (701-667-3330), the White House (202-456-1111), the EPA (404-562-9077), Amnesty International (202-544-0200), and anyone else you think could make an impact. Block the buildings of banks that support DAPL in a protest of solidarity. If you want to donate, here is a link so you can help them survive the winter. And of course if you can, head out there, they need more bodies.


My main sources are videos from the scene. If you don’t trust me, please, take a look for yourself:
Kevin Gilbert Facebook Page (I recommend following him for updates)

full videos: