Friday, October 30, 2015

In Praise of Nonconformity: Vagrants, Misfits, Rebels, and Liumang

The Vagrants: A Novel by Li Yiyun
I've just finished reading The Vagrants: A Novel by Li Yiyun.

Now the first thing I'll say is that everyone should read everything Li Yiyun writes. I particularly like the stories in the collection, Gold Boy, Emerald Girl.

A couple of things about The Vagrants struck me particularly.

One is that this novel is gives a very realistic account of people in China being swept up in all kinds of different ways in a political campaign. I've read a lot of fiction from China that deals with this issue, but I've never read anything that does so while also conveying the feeling of private life and inner life so convincingly.

Another -- and this is what inspired this blog post -- is that I found myself taken with the central character -- a boy named Bashi -- despite the fact that he is an odd duck . . . a nuisance . . . and potentially worse. (Bashi isn't the only "vagrant" in Li's novel.  In fact, just about everybody who is described has broken free of the moorings of that crushing social system, or nearly so.)

I kept thinking to myself, "This Bashi is just like all those odd boys in Flannery O'Connor novels and stories -- the abrasive Enoch Emery in Wise Blood, the stuck-in-his-ways Francis Tarwater in The Violent Bear It Away." Those were characters who made me more and more anxious with each page I read, because they not only had wacky ideas, but they were living them out. I read a lot of O'Connor in college, and wrote quite a bit about her works, and it's only just now becoming clear to me what I really felt as I was doing it.

Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor
These characters often cross the line from "different" to "criminal." (As I said, anyone reading The Vagrants will wonder when Bashi is going to do something really awful.)  After all, Flannery O'Connor didn't just subject me to Enoch Emery and Francis Tarwater, she also made me witness the sadism of "The Misfit" (in "A Good Man is Hard to Find").

Thinking about this has put me in mind of one of my favorite films, City of Sadness. In it, the patriarch of a Taiwanese family describes how his family were always liumang -- operating at cross-purposes with the authority being imposed by the Japanese occupiers in the first half of the 20th century, or by the officials sent by the central Chinese government before that -- in short, anyone who tried to tell them what to do.  Liumang is common Chinese vocabulary word, which we students were taught meant something along the line of "juvenile delinquents" or "bad apples," and in etymology it has some of that flavor of "unmoored." But it was the pride with which the old man in described his family's traditional liumang status that made me thing of it as something to valorize.




The film's subtitiles translate liumang as "gangsters." Take two minutes to click on the City of Sadness trailer above, and see what it feels like to you. Yes, there is a definite element of racketeering. But there's also a feeling of simple, youthful, impulsive, bad behavior. Sort of The Godfather meets Rebel Without a Cause. meets Rome, Open City. (More about this aspect of City of Sadness here.)

I guess the lesson for me in all of this is that we need vagrants, misfits, rebels, and liumang. And that while anxiety is worth noticing, that's not the same as saying it's undesirable, or should be shunned.

So: here's to nonconformity! And to the anxiety it creates . . . .


Related posts

 So as I watched Ziggy for the first time last night, I asked myself, "What is it? What is it? What is the frisson that one feels? It's part charisma, part sexuality, partly the thrill of gender-bending, partly adolescent rebellion . . . . But what is it that Ziggy did (and does) for so many people?" (It can't be a single thing, can it?)

(See "You're NOT alone!" (Ziggy the Subversive) )


The very act of free expression, itself, has become so hazardous ... what you say hardly matters . . . "He could not help feeling a twinge of panic. It was absurd, since the writing of those particular words was not more dangerous than the initial act of opening the diary." (From 1984 by George Orwell)

(See Building Metropolises of Self-Censorship )





I believe that once the Church comes out of the closet -- that is, once we start speaking quite openly about the difference between the world as we find it and the world as we believe God wishes it to be -- there is no way this old world will be able to stay the same.

(See Let the Church Out of the Closet )









In a composition suggestive of a yin-yang symbol, a woman in a burka (but wearing audacious red glitter platform heels) is surrounded by genie-ish tableaus of the many male obsessions/pastimes that some of us rail about frequently -- sexualized pop singers, professional sports -- as well as some that we probably should rail about more (such as patriarchy in religion and political violence).

(See VIOLENCE: " . . . and the women must live with the consequences . . . " )







Posterboard and markers: $21.79
Leaflets: $7:50
Bullhorn: $99.99
Standing up for peace and justice when everyone around you is saying "Get a job!" and "GO F**K YOURSELF!": PRICELESS!

(See Dissent: PRICELESS!)






Wednesday, October 28, 2015

What if #ChicagoPD and #BlackLivesMatter started to trend together?

All eyes are on the Chicago Police Department.

Or, more accurately, on a TV show called Chicago PD.

So #ChicagoPD is trending on Twitter.


Sophie Bush tweets about Chicago PD -- and the Twittersphere lights up . . .


Great. So how about an ep about Homan Square?

Or Rekia Boyd?

Or Flint Farmer?

Or John Burge?

What if #ChicagoPD and #BlackLivesMatter started to trend together?


Related posts

People around the world reading the exposé in The Guardian today about the thousands of (mostly African-American) people denied their rights while being detained at a secret Chicago Police Deparment location at Homan Square might wonder if anyone in Chicago is doing anything in an attempt to get control of the police.

(See CHICAGO: Twilight Zone? Constitution-Free Zone? (What's it look like to YOU?) )

The State's Attorney for the Chicago area finally got around to bringing a charge against a police officer who shot and killed a citizen. Why, I wondered, didn't Anita Alvarez charge him with murder? Then I remembered my Chicago vocabulary lesson.
(See Chicago Vocabulary Lesson: "Overcharging" and "Undercharging" )













In the city where I live, "normal" or "right" or "acceptable" has been given a brutal construction by the power structure:

Police encounter black man on street
Police shoot black man
Black man dies
(Business as usual in Chicago.)

 (See We need to get the police off the streets of Chicago. QED.)









More than any other part of the day, I was moved by the assurance with which Alderman Joe Moore, the resolution's sponsor, stated, "I expect this resolution will pass UNANIMOUSLY."

(See summary of testimony offered in Why Chicago Must Become a Torture-Free Zone )












A campaign exists to bring about a democratically-elected Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC) in Chicago. The campaign would involve the people in electing the watchers of the police, and put the ultimate control of (and responsibility for) the police in the hands of the citizens of Chicago.

(See Does a Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC) need to be part of a "new plan of Chicago"?



Eventually, in large part due to Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, the United States was converted from a country in which a small number of people thought slavery needed to be ended into a country determined to act to end slavery. This literary work took the movement wide, and it took it deep.

Why is a novel an important tool for creative resistance?


(See Creative Resistance 101: Uncle Tom's Cabin )

October 28, 2015, GOP Debate: "Your money, their DoD"

Tonight's GOP debate is entitled "Your money, your vote."

It should be called "Your money, their DoD" (as in "Department of Defense").

(Of course, you won't hear a peep from any of the contenders about military spending.)

The number one reason the Republican Party has become RINO ("Republican in name only") is that, for all their caterwauling about spending, they wouldn't dream of challenging the military industrial complex.

And the rest of us sit back and watch this show, with nary a thought in our brains . . . .


Why aren't we talking about cutting defense spending?
(This graph is from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
Another good source is One Minute for Peace.)


Related posts

How might an uprising against inequality and dismantling the military-industrial complex dovetail?

(See WHERE'S MINE? Inequality in the US and the Military-Industrial Complex )







Right now we're "stuck" -- the portion of the public that wants to cut military spending has hovered in the high 20%s since 2004; it just can't seem to break the 30% barrier. (The percentage of people in favor of expansion is about the same.)

(See Cutting Defense: Are We STUCK?




There's no question that for the next 18 months, we members of the general public will be deluged with media about the 2016 presidential election. Maddeningly, 99 and 44/100% of that media will make no mention of the need to end U.S. wars, occupations, imperialism, and militarism.

(See I Support Antiwar Candidates! (Know Any?) )










It's important to recognize that Goldman, Bloomberg, and the CME -- and ALL of the entities and individuals that profit from the "vol" -- can live with more or less taxation, or more or less regulation, or more or less business-friendly legislation. The one thing they can't live with? Peace . . . .

(See Finance's Unholy Trinity of Permawar: Goldman, Bloomberg, and the CME )

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Being Church in Logan Square, Chicago: An Ecclesiophilic Reflection


The procession to St. Luke's new location begins. (More photos.)

We said goodbye to our old church building in Logan Square today. Starting next Sunday, the St. Luke's Logan Square congregation will be begin worshiping in interim space (2837 W Armitage) as we figure out our long-term facility needs. (Another congregation, New Community, will begin worshiping in the building we've just vacated at 2649 N Francisco.)

The move has been the work of quite a few years, as the congregation has worked to figure out what's best for its mission in this place.

Through this transition, I keep thinking back to an explanation I heard a few years ago of what "church" means.  We were encouraged to look at the word ecclesia, which we now use as a fancy way of indicating "church" -- ecclesiastical, ecclesiology -- and notice that its original meaning was "to be called out" (from our comfortable dwellings) to a public place in order to do the work of the people. (The presentation was by Bob Sitze, at an ELCA gathering on community organizing directed by Susan Engh. For much more on the etymology of ecclesia, see "Ekklesia: A Word Study." )

Ever since I heard that, I have felt we have needed an ecclesiology -- an idea of what it means to be church together -- that lays stress on getting to where the people are, and on being wary of the ways in which we can become so cozy with the way things are that we forget about enabling everybody to take part.

Palm Sunday 2015 in Chicago: "We Who Are Many
Are One: From the Lord's Table to Every Table"
For me, some of the most important "church" experiences of the past five years have taken place not inside the church building at 2649 N Francisco, but on the grass along Logan Boulevard, or under the eagle monument in the center of Logan Square, or on the sidewalks of Lathrop Homes, or along Milwaukee Avenue. And they've included many people beyond the membership roles of our one congregation -- or of any specific congregation, for that matter.

I hope the months ahead will see us filled with inspiration about how to "be church" in away that emphasizes getting to where the people are . . . even if the result doesn't necessarily look exactly what people traditionally think of as "church." The question, I think, is welcoming the participation of more people.

In our service today, one of the points of continuity between past and future came right after the passing of the peace, when we made the announcement about "visitor cards." This week, it fell to me to make the announcement, and I said, "The theme of the day is change . . . but some things always remain the same! Just like every other Sunday, we want to encourage you to fill out a visitor card! Maybe today would be an appropriate day for everyone to fill one in, so we can be sure to stay in touch with you. And . . .  if you don't do it today, that's okay, too, because there will be plenty more chances to do it, starting next week, when we begin worship in our new space."

St. Luke's Logan Square: participants wanted . . . .
As I walked home from today's service, I replayed the service in my mind. "The part about the visitor card was pretty good . . . " I thought, "and yet . . . visitor card . . . ? Maybe it's not really a visitor card . . . . Maybe what we should be calling them is participant cards."

Yes: participant cards.

So: here's to a new era of participation in church in Logan Square in Chicago.  At a place called "St. Luke's" . . . and at many, many others, as well!


Related posts

Chicago, March 29, 2012 -- Members of congregations from across Logan Square and Humboldt Park streamed from their respective houses of worship to the Logan Square monument at the end of services on April 1 to Occupy Palm Sunday! Participants sang and chanted songs of protest and praise as they occupied the green space at Kedzie, Milwaukee and Logan Boulevard . . . .

(See Occupy Palm Sunday! in Logan Square)











Members of Logan Square Ecumenical Alliance (LSEA) gathered at the eagle monument in Logan Square on the evening of September 11, 2013, for a prayer vigil for peace in Syria.

(See Logan Square Laments With Syria )








We busted out of our big Neo-Gothic church building on Sunday and gathered for worship on the Boulevard. (Or, to be more precise, beneath the trees on the median alongside Logan Boulevard in Chicago, during the weekend-long "Boulevard Fest" sponsored by our congregation.) I've decided to embrace this new feeling of exposure and try to learn some lessons. I put them under the rubric "Congregations that worship in glass houses . . . (complete the sentence) . . . . "

(See Congregations That Worship in Glass Houses . . . )


¡Entren santos peregrinos!
¡Reciban éste rincón!
Que aunque es pobre la morada
¡Se las doy de corazón!

(Come in, holy pilgrims!)
(Receive this corner!)
(Because, even though the place is poor)
(I offer it to you from my heart!)


(See "Is there room at the inn at the CHA’s Lathrop Homes?" - Las Posadas 2013 )


I believe that once the Church comes out of the closet -- that is, once we start speaking quite openly about the difference between the world as we find it and the world as we believe God wishes it to be -- there is no way this old world will be able to stay the same.

(See Let the Church Out of the Closet )

Saturday, October 24, 2015

TIME FOR OBAMA TO LOWER THE BOOM: Investigate Homan Square

Watch Superintendent McCarthy Welcome You to Chicago!
Well this is embarrassing . . . .

Barack Obama is scheduled to be in Chicago next week to address the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) at their annual conference.

When I woke up this morning, I thought that I would be writing about just one embarrassment: the urgent need for a Department of Justice investigation into the black site maintained by the Chicago Police Department at Homan Square.

But the first thing I saw when I opened the newspaper this morning is that FBI Director James B. Comey is now propounding a theory that increased scrutiny of police departments is leading to an increase in crime. (He said this at an event at the University of Chicago!) Comey says a "chill wind" has blown on police departments because they are being watched by the communities in which they operate to make sure cops don't break the law. (See "F.B.I. Chief Links Scrutiny of Police With Rise in Violent Crime" by Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo in The New York Times.)

(Did I mention that the FBI is a part of the Department of Justice?)

Obama is a master of squaring the circle -- under other circumstances he could be expected to come to Chicago to deliver up a few elegant words to each constituency, leaving everybody to go away happy (or at least to go away asking, "what did he say?").  But this is one time he should avoid the temptation to do so. People feel a desperate need for the federal government to come out clearly and say whose side they're on.

The most valuable thing President Obama could do next week in Chicago is to announce -- with all due respect to CPD Chief McCarthy and Mayor Emanuel and the rest of the IACP host committee -- an expedited DOJ investigation into Homan Square.


Epilogue: Coverage of Obama's speech to the IACP confirmed everyone's worst fears: he stuck to saying things that would make the police chiefs in the audience happy. So: not a word about Homan Square. But did he have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? "I reject a story line that says, when it comes to public safety, there’s an ‘us’ and a ‘them,’" Obama said. (See "Obama Calls for Less Prison in Overhauling Sentencing Laws" by Michael D. Shear in The New York Times.) What about when "them" police are criminally liable?

Meanwhile, on Monday, the White House issued a statement disagreeing with Comey's statement. So does that mean a change will be coming at the FBI? See "The ‘Ferguson effect’ creates an ill-timed rift between the FBI and the White House" by Janell Ross in The Washington Post.


Update: December 2, 2015

Yesterday Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel fired Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy.

Today the New York Times called for a US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the police shooting of Laquan McDonald.

Yes, the list of Chicago police abuses for the DOJ to investigate grows . . . .


Update: December 7, 2015

It's official: "Justice Dept. Plans to Investigate Chicago Police After Laquan McDonald Case" - The New York Times . . .

Critics have raised many questions. . . . Did Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s re-election fight play a role in his administration’s decision this year to pay $5 million to Mr. McDonald’s family members even before they filed a lawsuit? Why did City Hall include a provision in the settlement to keep the video private at least temporarily? And why did it take Anita Alvarez, the Cook County State’s Attorney, 13 months to charge the police officer involved in the shooting? She waited until hours before the city was forced to release the video to charge the officer, Jason Van Dyke, with first-degree murder.

Will the DOJ investigation just focus on the apparent political corruption? Or will it address the full range of CPD abuses?


Related posts

People around the world reading the exposé in The Guardian today about the thousands of (mostly African-American) people denied their rights while being detained at a secret Chicago Police Deparment location at Homan Square might wonder if anyone in Chicago is doing anything in an attempt to get control of the police.

(See CHICAGO: Twilight Zone? Constitution-Free Zone? (What's it look like to YOU?) )


We can't imagine that anti-racism work is just about specific police officers or even specific departments. Entire institutions of racist law enforcement need to be brought to heel in real time. It's a task worthy of a society-wide, national, federal effort. And it's top priority. No leader can ignore this reality . . . .

(See "If elected . . . ." (The Election 2016 and #BlackLivesMatter Nexus) )









A campaign exists to bring about a democratically-elected Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC) in Chicago. The campaign would involve the people in electing the watchers of the police, and put the ultimate control of (and responsibility for) the police in the hands of the citizens of Chicago.

(See Does a Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC) need to be part of a "new plan of Chicago"? )

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

TRIAL OF THE CENTURY: United States v. Bin Laden

Official photos to go with the official story. ("Must-see TV!")

On Sunday, I read the article by Jonathan Mahler in the The New York Times Magazine about two competing versions of apprehension of Osama Bin Laden.

Mahler makes the point that we are so far from being able to know the truth of the matter that we might benefit more from what we are able to know, namely, the fact that we are being presented with several different stories.

In other words, what are we to understand about our situation from the fact that our government told us the story that it told? (Put aside the question of what's true . . . . )

So, for instance, the Mahler article made much of the question of whether the SEAL force entered Pakistan undetected, as opposed to whether, in fact, Pakistan was told in advance that the SEALs were coming (and that Pakistan had better not interfere).  What might lead us to think one case is more likely than another? And what conclusions might we draw from the fact that the story got told one way or another?

I keep having to ask myself a question: Was the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden carried out principally for our entertainment? Or did it have something to do with governing?

The film version: Zero Dark Thirty
I fear that most people are so caught up in the excitement and intrigue -- Zero Dark Thirty! -- that they don't stop to ask the sobering question: what would the story be like if our government took seriously the job of governing?

In particular, though it might be a dicey entertainment proposition, and certainly carry the risk of loose plot strands, it would have made for a very different story if the US government had arrested Osama Bin Laden and brought him to trial. It certainly would emphasize certain US values related to governance.

A very constructive thought exercise is to try to imagine a trial -- United States v. Bin Laden -- for the crimes committed on 9/11.

* What kinds of facts would be brought out in such a trial? (What would we be reminded of about the difference between facts established in a court of law and "according to reliable sources . . ." ?)

* What would be the legal issues that would be tested? (e.g. crime? act of war?)

* What, if anything, would the defendant say?

* What effect would holding such a trial have on US society?

Wouldn't the US government have so much to gain by playing out that story -- at least, if it really cared about Constitutional governance?

We should be grateful to Jonathan Mahler for reminding us that our government is so powerful that it can tell us just about any story it wants to.  But we still get step our of entertainment mode and into governance mode and ask: "Why?"

Update: October 29, 2015

By reading Charlie Savage's article in today's New York Times ("How 4 Federal Lawyers Paved the Way to Kill Osama bin Laden"), you can understand the outlines of the "show" the White House planned. According to Savage, there were four legal justifications that the Obama administration prepared:

* Entering Pakistan without the country's consent. (What if the Pakistanis responded by offering to bring him in alive?)

* Killing Bin Laden -- no matter what (with the exception of "if he [was] naked with his hands up"). (Because: who knows what he might have said if were in a position to give testimony?)

* Not telling Congress in advance. (Don't give them a chance to ask questions.)

* Burying Bin Laden at sea. (Physical evidence just gets in the way of a good story.)

In other words, the administration made sure there was no one left to naysay their narrative.

Can you imagine how different this report might have been? What if it were about four lawyers being asked to advise the administration about the "right" way to apprehend Osama Bin Laden? What if the question had been, "What would be most consistent with the rule of law? And with promoting the kind of due process that we claim to desire for the world?"


Related posts

In the film "The Response," as military judges are debating the fate of a detainee at Guantanamo, one of them says, "Okay, if 9/11 is the measuring stick, are we a great nation because of the blow we took? Or because how we, as a country, respond to that blow? The response matters. Our response defines us . . . . "

(See Why Have We Built A Monument To Bin Laden?)


The U.S. government and its military talk constantly about the new world of "asymmetric warfare" -- which basically boils down to how "unfair" it seems to them that individuals can wield any meaningful amount of power, given how minuscule their numbers or the firepower available to them. But what what we should spend much more time focusing on is "asymmetric policing" -- i.e. the overwhelming power that the U.S. state wields in every encounter with individuals.

(See Too Much State Power? (Asymmetric Warfare and Asymmetric Policing))








The story of the past decade-plus has been the story of the assertion by some that the conception of law that our society has is not sufficient.  Simply put, there are those who say that there is a third, "in-between" category of behavior -- and legal status -- that is not civilian (subject to criminal law) and not military (subject to military law and the laws of war). And since there are no rules about how to deal with that third category . . . .

(See Using the Good, Old Criminal Justice System: Worth a Try?

Monday, October 19, 2015

Time for a History Lesson? (Invoking Guernica)

The review in The New York Times compared the installation "Labyrinth: I Dreamt I Was Taller Than Jonathan Borofsky," in the new show by Jim Shaw, to Picasso's Guernica. (See "Jim Shaw at the New Museum: A Kaleidoscope of Giddy Delirium" by Ken Johnson)


"Part of the installation 'Labyrinth: I Dreamt I Was Taller Than Jonathan Borofsky,'
from the 'Jim Shaw: The End Is Here' show at the New Museum of Contemporary Art."
(Credit Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times}

(The comparison is apt, though I would suggest people take a closer look at that flying vehicle -- it's not a B-52, as the reviewer seems to think it is.)


Picasso, Guernica

"Labyrinth" and "Guernica": I wonder how many viewers will make the effort to tease out the parallels -- and contrasts -- between these two works.


Related posts

Alfred C. Barnes encouraged people to consider art objects in juxtaposition with each other, to try to see possibilities brought up by seemingly unconnected objects, and to decide for themselves what the significance of the objects is. (No "expert opinion" needed.)

(See 9/11 Fourteen Years On - A Visual Reflection (á la Alfred C. Barnes) )











The Futurists loved airplanes, and other fast machines. Considering how we, in the U.S. today have been seduced by drones and drone warfare, we would perhaps do well to reflect on why people find these things so appealing.

(See A Future Inspired by Kinetics? )









I don't think Alanna and I ever talked about what it must be like to be trying to escape a shower of sparks and hot ash. But she seemed to know that the sparks and hot ash are too important a part of the picture to be left out.


(See The Children Are Waiting )









Coming off our experience this past weekend once again protesting against drone killing, drone surveillance, and related acts of militarism at the Chicago Air and Water Show, I am more confirmed than ever in my view that air shows are a very effective place to get our message out to the public.

(See Why Air Shows Are a Very Effective Place to Protest Drone Killing and Drone Surveillance )


I'm marveling at the adjacency of a piece of public art -- one with a very clear message about the risk of human ambition and self-absorption and heedlessness -- to the center of political power in the city of Chicago.

(See NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Who will bring us down to earth? )

CHICAGO: Twilight Zone? Constitution-Free Zone? (What's it look like to YOU?)


Images from October 19 on Twitter, as "Homan Square" became a trending topic.

People around the world reading the exposé in The Guardian today about the thousands of (mostly African-American) people denied their rights while being detained at a secret Chicago Police Deparment location at Homan Square might wonder if anyone in Chicago is doing anything in an attempt to get control of the police.

Judging by how little coverage there is in the local media, one might imagine that police abuse is some kind of secret in Chicago.

In fact, there are multiple initiatives aimed at getting control of the Chicago police, including:

* a long-standing campaign for community control of the police by means of a Civilian Police Accountability Council.

* numerous initiatives aimed at curtailing specific abuses (such as the Community Renewal Society “Chicago Police Accountability Reform Platform”; We Charge Genocide’s “Stops, Transparency, Oversight and Protection Act” (STOP Act); and an agreement between the ACLU and the city regarding "stop and frisk" type police methods.

* the state-level "Police and Community Relations Improvement Act” - SB1304, which was signed into law this past summer.

All of these efforts are being pursued through their own particular set of processes and channels, and each has mobilized a large base of supporters.

Eventually, one or more of these initiatives will come to fruition. Chicago will eventually some degree of get control over its police force.

But is there time to wait?

The latest details about Homan Square raise a painful question: is it enough for the public to patiently pursue "due process" and "political action" when the police department is charging ahead with its abuses without disregard for law or human rights?

Today on Twitter, someone called Chicago a "Constitution-free zone."

What's the path of recourse when you're living in a "Constitution-free zone"?

Update October 23: "Homan Square: federal officials pressed to investigate 'egregious' revelations" in The Guardian: "Less than one day after the Guardian revealed that 7,185 arrestees had been detained at Homan Square over nearly 11 years with only 68 documented lawyer visits, the Illinois politician who represents the district housing Homan Square wrote to the US attorney general, insisting that that “further extensive investigative reporting by the Guardian” had forced him to request an expedited federal inquiry by the Justice Department." (emphasis added)


Related posts

We can't imagine that anti-racism work is just about specific police officers or even specific departments. Entire institutions of racist law enforcement need to be brought to heel in real time. It's a task worthy of a society-wide, national, federal effort. And it's top priority. No leader can ignore this reality . . . .

(See "If elected . . . ." (The Election 2016 and #BlackLivesMatter Nexus) )











A campaign exists to bring about a democratically-elected Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC) in Chicago. The campaign would involve the people in electing the watchers of the police, and put the ultimate control of (and responsibility for) the police in the hands of the citizens of Chicago.

(See Does a Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC) need to be part of a "new plan of Chicago"? )

The State's Attorney for the Chicago area finally got around to bringing a charge against a police officer who shot and killed a citizen. Why, I wondered, didn't Anita Alvarez charge him with murder? Then I remembered my Chicago vocabulary lesson.
(See Chicago Vocabulary Lesson: "Overcharging" and "Undercharging" )