Hurricane Victims Don't Have the "Complexion for Protection"

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 13:41
With your support, Truthout can continue exposing inequality, analyzing policy and reporting on the struggle for a better world. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation.

Millions of Puerto Ricans are still without water, food, electricity and shelter, four weeks after Hurricane Maria destroyed the island. With waterborne illnesses on the rise, a full-blown humanitarian crisis is on the horizon.

"Raw sewage continues to be released into waterways and is expected to continue until repairs can be made and power is restored," the EPA warns in a memo.

When the agency issued this statement, eighty-four percent of Puerto Rico was without electricity, and sixty percent of water treatment plants out of service.

"Water contaminated with livestock waste, human sewage, chemicals, and other contaminants can lead to illness when used for drinking, bathing, and other hygiene activities," the EPA says.

To make matters worse, Puerto Rico is home to 21 Superfund sites -- the nation's most deadly depositories of toxic chemicals. The island also has a five-story-high coal ash dump in Guayama that was hit by the storm.

Floodwaters have already mixed deadly toxins from these sites into nearby waterways, which residents are forced to use to bathe and drink. In a desperate attempt to save their own lives, some Puerto Ricans are drinking highly contaminated water from wells that were once sealed to avoid exposure to deadly toxins.

Families who have lost everything now must contend with the possibility that their groundwater is tainted with poison.

The Complexion for Protection

On the same day the EPA issued its warning, President Trump took to Twitter to complain, "We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders… in P.R. forever!"

First, Mr. President, a reality check. The devastation caused by major storms takes years, not weeks, to repair. FEMA is still at work in New Orleans, twelve years after Hurricane Katrina, and in New Jersey and New York five years after Hurricane Sandy. EPA cleanup of contaminated sites takes even longer.

Second, a political check. Puerto Ricans are American citizens, and have been for more than a century. They serve in our Armed Forces and pay taxes, even if they weren't allowed to vote for you -- or any candidate -- for President, and have no representation in Congress.

As Puerto Rico's Governor, Roberto Roselló, wrote in his response to Trump's Twitter tantrum, "The US citizens in Puerto Rico are requesting the support that any of our fellow citizens would receive across our Nation."

This is discrimination, plain and simple. When President Trump visited San Juan, he threw paper towels at a crowd of suffering people and scolded them for busting his budget. They weren't amused by his theatrics.

They, like the Houston residents who live near waterways fouled by toxins from the San Jacinto Superfund site, are people of color -- apparently not the right complexion for protection.

Dismissing the Victims

Dismissing victims is not unusual for this administration and for the EPA. The agency's new chief, Scott Pruitt, spends his time on the road meeting privately with corporate CEOs responsible for these toxic waste sites. He then takes their wish-lists back to Washington so he can draft new ways to roll back the environmental protections they loathe.

But local community leaders, with few exceptions, have not been given the opportunity to talk with Pruitt. 

Congress passed legislation in 1986 directing EPA to pursue permanent remedies or cleanups that conform to stringent standards. Although permanent cleanups cost more at the front end, they save money over the long term, as evident by the disruption of buried waste from storms like Harvey, Irma, Katrina and Sandy.

So, why won't the EPA enforce the permanent cleanup of these sites to avoid future cleanup costs as well as protect the community? 

Because the people who live around most Superfund sites are poor and of color and are considered not worth the investment.

This is even more the case in in Puerto Rico, since lawmakers in D.C. feel no accountability to the island's citizens, who are separated from the mainland and denied the right to vote.

The EPA Told Me So

How do I know this?  An EPA regional representative recently told me they were not going to spend millions to clean up a site when the surrounding houses are worth $60,000. It doesn't make cost-effective sense, he said; we'll just try to contain the waste.

Yet these houses are people's homes; inside are human beings raising their families, having backyard picnics and celebrating birthdays. The homes are their "American Dream." How dare these government officials devalue their neighborhoods because they are not wealthy!

These families pay taxes, contribute to society and deserve every protection available from our government, regardless of their wealth, language or the color of their skin.

I fear that families that have already lost so much in this summer's severe hurricanes will suffer even more in coming months because of the color of their skin and the level of their income. 

And as they try to clean up the mud and debris and rebuild their lives, families must also worry about how much chemical residue is in the mud they and their children have been exposed to.

They Don't Care, so We Must

There is no question in my mind that the Trump Administration does not care for victims, whether in Houston, Miami or San Juan. So we have to take responsibility to compel the administration to act and hold them accountable. 

We have to force the government to protect people living near Superfund sites by permanently cleaning them up, and to give Puerto Rico's people the equal treatment they deserve.

Categories: News

Why I've Started to Fear My Fellow Social Justice Activists

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 13:40
Truthout refuses corporate funding and all the strings that come attached. Instead, reader support powers us. Make a tax-deductible donation today!

Callout culture. The quest for purity. Privilege theory taken to extremes. I've observed some of these questionable patterns in my activist communities over the past several years.

As an activist, I stand with others against white supremacy, anti-blackness, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, and imperialism. I am queer, trans, Chinese American, middle class, and able-bodied.

Holding these identities scattered across the spectrum of privilege, I have done my best to find my place in the movement, while educating myself on social justice issues to the best of my ability. But after witnessing countless people be ruthlessly torn apart in community for their mistakes and missteps, I started to fear my own comrades.

As a cultural studies scholar, I am interested in how that culture -- as expressed through discourse and popular narratives -- does the work of power. Many disciplinary practices of the activist culture succeed in curbing oppressive behaviors. Callouts, for example, are necessary for identifying and addressing problematic behavior. But have they become the default response to fending off harm? Shutting down racist, sexist, and similar conversations protects vulnerable participants. But has it devolved into simply shutting down all dissenting ideas? When these tactics are liberally applied, without limit, inside marginalized groups, I believe they hold back movements by alienating both potential allies and their own members. 

In response to the unrestrained use of callouts and unchecked self-righteousness by leftist activists, I spend enormous amounts of energy protecting my activist identity from attack. I self-police what I say when among other activists. If I'm not 100 percent sold on the reasons for a political protest, I keep those opinions to myself -- though I might show up anyway.

On social media, I've stopped commenting with thoughtful push back on popular social justice positions for fear of being called out. For example, even though some women at the 2017 women's march reproduced the false and transmisogynistic idea that all women have vaginas, I still believe that the event was a critical win for the left and should not be written off so easily as it has been by some in my community.

Understand, even though I am using callouts as a prime example, I am not against them. Several times, I have been called out for ways I have carelessly exhibited ableism, transmisogyny, fatphobia, and xenophobia. I am able to rebound quickly when responding with openness to those situations. I am against a culture that encourages callouts conducted irresponsibly, ones that abandon the person being called out and ones done out of a desire to experience power by humiliating another community member.

I am also concerned about who controls the language of social justice, as I see it wielded as a weapon against community members who don't have access to this rapidly evolving lexicon. Terms like "oppression," "tone policing," "emotional labor," "diversity," and "allyship" are all used in specific ways to draw attention to the plight of minoritized people. Yet their meanings can also be manipulated to attack and exclude.

Furthermore, most social justice 101 articles I see online are prescriptive checklists. Although these can be useful resources for someone who has little familiarity with these issues, I worry that this model of education contributes to the false idea that we have only one way to think about, talk about, and ultimately, do activism. I think that movements are able to fully breathe only when there is a plurality of tactics, and to some extent, of ideologies.

I am not the first nor the last to point out that these movements for liberation and justice are exhibiting the same oppressive patterns that we are fighting against in larger society. Rather than wallowing in critique or walking away from this work, I choose a third option -- that we as a community slow down, acknowledge this pattern and develop an ethics of activism as a response.

I believe it's sorely needed as we struggle to mobilize in a chaotic and unjust world.

What might an ethics of activism look like?

Knowing When to Be Hard and When to Be Soft

I believe that when confronting unjust situations and unjust people, sometimes hardness is necessary, and other times softness is appropriate. Gaining the discernment to know when to use each is a task for a lifetime. I have often seen a burning anger at the core of activism, especially for newer activists. Anger can be righteous, and it often is when stemming from marginalized peoples weary of being mistreated. And yet, I want to use my anger as a tool for reaching the deeper, healing powers I possess when carving out a path of sustainable activism. Black social justice facilitator and doula adrienne maree brown writes of her oppressors, "What if what's needed isn't sexy, intimidating or violent? What if what is needed is forgiveness?" I've spent a good deal of energy exercising my ability to speak truth to power and boldly naming my enemies. Perhaps it is time to massage my heart so that I can choose to be soft toward someone in community who is hurting me, and open up the possibility of mutual transformation.

Adopting a Politics of Imperfection and Responsibility

I have been mulling over sociologist Alexis Shotwell's call for the left to adopt a "politics of imperfection and responsibility" as one way to move forward toward action and away from purity. A politics of imperfection asks me to openly acknowledge the ways in which my family and I have benefited and continue to benefit from oppressive systems such as slavery, capitalism, and settler colonialism. This is an ongoing investigation into my own complicity.  I am a Chinese American with immigrant parents, and my family has built economic stability by buying into the model minority myth, which is based largely in anti-blackness. As uninvited guests and visitors to this part of the world, we have claimed our new home on lands stolen from indigenous peoples. A politics of responsibility means that as I am complicit in harmful systems, I also possess full agency to do good. This allows me to commit to dismantling these systems and embracing centuries-long legacies of resistance. It means I am accountable in community spaces and do not destroy myself when others call me out on my errors. It means I practice a generosity of spirit and forgiveness towards myself and others. To do all this, I must publicly claim both imperfection and personal responsibility as an activist.

Tapping Into Our Shared Humanity

Marginalized people ask that privileged people look at them and see a human being, not a lesser-than being. Oppressive systems operate by systemically dehumanizing some groups for the benefit of others. On the flip side, I believe people with privilege are dehumanized when internalizing their societal supremacy over others. For example, the ethnographic studies that have been conducted to explain the election of Donald Trump have revealed the mass identity crisis in white America. We have seen poor and working class white Americans denounce people of color and diversity efforts because, sadly, they perceive them as threats to their historically established power and access. Rather than base cultural identities solely on power, could we tap into what we all have in common: our humanity, no matter how trampled it is? Black public theologian Christena Cleveland practices envisioning the humanity in those who challenge and attack her. According to her, training herself to cultivate love for her enemies makes it more effective for her to communicate and speak her truth into their hearts. She is as concerned about her well-being as she is about transforming antagonistic people in her life into "liberated oppressors." Black elder activist Ruby Sales firmly tells her oppressors, with unyielding love in her voice: "You can't make me hate you."

These are suggestions that have aided me in navigating toxic social justice environments. In testing them out, I try to stay open to new tactics while understanding that I must remain flexible and responsive to the variable stages of justice work. If we as activists do not feel safe in our experimental microcosms of justice and liberation, what can we attempt to replicate across larger society?

Categories: News

Micky Metts at Co-op DiscoTech

Grassroots Economic Survival - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 13:21
Link: Co-op DiscoTech May 2016: Speaker Micky Metts

A featured speaker from the May 2016 Disco Tech put on by MIT and the Engagement Lab.

Micky Metts is a member of Agaric, a worker owned cooperative of web developers.
In her talk Micky unpacks concepts of decolonization of the self, and of self care in collaborative space.

Co-op DiscoTech May 2016: Speaker Micky Metts from Engagement Lab on Vimeo.


Go to the GEO front page


Categories: News

Nuclear war may break out any moment, says N. Korean UN envoy

Citizens for Legitimate Government - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 07:14

Nuclear war may break out any moment, says N. Korean UN envoy | 17 Oct 2017 | North Korea's deputy UN ambassador has warned the UN General Assembly that the crisis on the Korean Peninsula "has reached the touch-and-go point and a nuclear war may break out any moment." Kim In-ryong said North Korea is the only country in the world subjected to "such an extreme and direct nuclear threat" by the US, AP reports. He accused Washington of hatching a "secret operation aimed at the removal of our supreme leadership" and defended his country's nuclear arsenal, at the heart of the crisis, as being for self-defense.

Categories: News

Company Behind Gas Rig Explosion in Louisiana Was Sued for Degrading Coast

deSmog - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 06:52
Clovelly Oil rig on fire

Clovelly Oil is not quite a household name, as far as oil and natural gas companies go, though it recently gained attention when its oil and natural gas storage rig exploded on October 15 in Louisiana.

Located on Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans, Clovelly's storage facility erupted at about 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, injuring seven. Timothy Morrison, 44, of Katy, Texas, remains missing. The search for him has been suspended by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

What do we know about this company and its history in the state? Clovelly previously made headlines in 2013 when the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority sued it along with over 100 other companies for their role in eroding and degrading the Louisiana coast. 

var icx_publication_id = 14813; var icx_content_id = '12211'; [Reuse options] Click here for reuse options! Tags: Clovelly OilLouisianaLake PontchartrainSoutheast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority
Categories: News

You Can't End Violence With More Violence: Shifting From Incarceration to Accountability

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 04:00

Our society does not encourage people who harm others to take responsibility for their actions, so there's no opportunity for transformation, say Mariame Kaba and Shira Hassan, organizers and educators whose work centers on criminalized survivors of violence. To create a society where interpersonal violence is unthinkable, we have to move away from a system of punishment and toward accountability to one's community.

We're now several months into the Trump administration, and activists have scored some important victories in those months. Yet there is always more to be done, and for many people, the question of where to focus and how to help remains. In this series, we talk with organizers, agitators and educators, not only about how to resist, but how to build a better world. Today's interview is the 83rd in the series. Click here for the most recent interview before this one.

Today we bring you a conversation with Mariame Kaba and Shira Hassan. Kaba is an organizer and educator whose work centers on criminalized survivors of violence and on ending youth incarceration. Hassan is the founder of Just Practice, a community project that focuses on accountability without involving police.

Sarah Jaffe: Sexual harassment and sexual assault are in the news because of a powerful famous man.... Do you feel like the public conversation around these people in the media, on social media, wherever you are hearing it, has progressed at all?

Mariame Kaba: The conversation is absolutely different from when I started doing work around sexual assault.... That was in the late 1980s/early 1990s. The focus at that point was really the question of date rape on campus and the conversation revolved mostly around ... "How do we address people drinking and then assaulting people?"

I also came of age at a time before social media. The conversation was very much limited to having talks with your friends about this.... Beyond that, you were talking with folks in a support group setting, storytelling and divulging that you had been raped.... It didn't feel like you had to premise your conversation around disclosing your own experience before you could actually speak to this in a real way. I, yes indeed, am a survivor of sexual assault and violence, but it just felt different at that time. It felt somehow more intimate and less tied to media and social media.

Shira Hassan: I think the conversation has definitely changed, especially the way we have the conversation much more publicly. It is a lot different than writing people's names on the bathroom walls, which is what we were doing in the 1990s. Facebook has become the bathroom wall, in a way.... I think because it is a more democratized platform, to some degree, different people are in the conversation than used to be. I do think that, by and large, the people who are having the conversation are still the same, though.

I don't actually feel overwhelmed by survivor stories. I feel overwhelmed by inaction around survivor stories. -- Shira Hassan

I don't see this conversation happening in the same way about young people in the sex trade, for example, or with a lot of the young people who I know, who are more street-based, where the idea of sexual harassment is something that people are thinking about and angry about and know what it is.... Gwyneth Paltrow is not commenting on their experiences. She is commenting on actresses in Hollywood. I don't want to diminish or demean how important those experiences of violence are, but at the same time, it is a certain kind of survivor and a certain kind of violence that we are all talking about. I think that part is the same.

One of the things about this big public conversation is that, for me, it actually feels more overwhelming. What Mariame called this "culture of compulsory confession" feels smothering.... You have been doing work around this for a while and dealing directly with survivors. How do you fight that feeling of "Oh my god, this is never going to end"?

Hassan: There are a couple of things. There are stories that overwhelm me and stop me in my tracks, but they are also the stories of people that I love and there is a face to the story most of the time for me, so ... I think the feeling of overwhelming has been something that I counter with action and I counter with healing. This idea of healing justice, where speaking out is part of that healing. I feel connected to that as an action, not so much connected to that as a burden. I feel like it is a blessing to be amongst survivor stories. I don't actually feel overwhelmed by survivor stories. I feel overwhelmed by inaction around survivor stories.

Kaba: For me, it is the difference between the question of asking "What can I personally do?" versus what we can do. When I think of what I can do as an individual person, it feels more overwhelming. It is like, "Well, a lot of my friends are survivors. A lot of people I care [about] and love are survivors. I can't personally take responsibility for ... all of their lives and their pain, I can't take all of that on."

You can't also just take on everybody's joy, either. When I think about it in that kind of individualistic way, it could feel overwhelming, but I have worked towards a collective idea of healing and a collective idea of action and organizing. I don't think that the issue we have right now is that we have too many organizers. I think we have too few organizers, and that can also feel super debilitating when it is a lot of handwringing or a lot of outrage ... that doesn't have any direction. I think that can feel overwhelming. I would say since 1988, since I have been in this field, what has kept me going is that collectivity. And seeking to actually understand and to heal and to be part of that healing process with other people.

Right now, we end up with this story of one survivor has to come forward and file charges with the police and then this one perpetrator will be held accountable and ... that doesn't work.

Kaba: And it doesn't happen. I think that is another aspect of this, for people who are counting on a criminal punishment response to this.... It doesn't know how to transform harm that occurs. It is a system that most people don't access, most survivors still never access. For lots of reasons: because they don't want to, because they have been traumatized in the past by the system, because they don't want the person who harmed them necessarily caught up in the system. There are a million reasons. Because they don't want to be raked over the coals themselves. Because they try to solve problems in community.

Our culture does not encourage people who cause harm to take responsibility. We have an adversarial model where the person who is actually placed on trial is the survivor. -- Mariame Kaba

When people do access the system, they are screwed over by it, literally, in all different kinds of ways. They also then feel a sense of disempowerment. I can understand that if the way you think we are actually going to solve this problem is through that system, I can understand that sense of complete debilitating depression, because that system actually can't do that.

Hassan: Not only can't the system do it, but I think our belief that it can is the part that I think we feel most betrayed by most often. I think there are some of us who have let go of that betrayal because we have just stopped trying to get water from a stone. Frankly, the stone is being thrown at us. So, we are now trying to build shelter from the stone and talk to everyone who is coming inside the shelter about what we can do. That, for me, is perhaps why I feel less overwhelmed. It isn't that I don't feel like, "Wow, we have an unbelievable amount to do," because I do feel like that. But I do feel like we have so many more things to try away from the system than with it. What we have begun to create is this shelter together, where we really can focus on who is inside this huddle and work with each person who is there in a more meaningful way to move forward.

In the wake of the Weinstein revelations, one of the things that some people have been talking about is the whisper network: The way that women warn each other about certain men in their political circles or in their work circles. And yet these feel inadequate too -- they are not particularly accountable for the people making accusations, which is less a problem than the fact that they just end up assuming that it is still our job to avoid perpetrators.

Kaba: You can't force somebody into being accountable for things they do. That is not possible. People have to take accountability for things that they actually do wrong. They have to ... say, "This is wrong and I want to be part of making some sort of amends or repairing this or not doing it again." The question is: "What in our culture allows people to do that? What are the structural things that exist? What in our culture encourages people who assault people and harm people to take responsibility?" What I see is almost nothing.

That means, for example, people continue to be rewarded when they do bad things to other people or take negative action against people. We are in a situation where people try to argue over semantics. Like, "Is this or is this not...?" We don't have a sense that people are prepared to say, "There is a spectrum of sexual harm. Not everything is rape. And yet, everything that feels like a violation is harm." We just don't have that within the larger culture that allows for people to feel like they can take responsibility and that they can be accountable.

The other thing is, we do have the threat that if you do admit that you do this, you might be caught up in the criminal punishment system. You might see the inside of a jail. So, your inclination is to deny, deny, deny until the very end. There is just no incentive for you to "come clean" and be like, "I actually did this. Yes, I did rape this person. I did sexually assault them. I did harass them. I did molest them." We are in this adversarial model where you don't admit it, and the person who is actually being placed on trial is the survivor, to prove that you actually did this.

We have to make violence unthinkable in our culture. Within our current system, we are trying to end violence with more violence. -- Mariame Kaba

I understand, within that, why people feel like they have to whisper and why survivors then have to take the weight of actually figuring out how to "bring somebody to accountability." All the incentive structure is set up in such a way that ... until we shift a lot of other things, I am not sure how we are going to be able to move from the particularly "women survivors" who have to do all the heavy lifting.

And of course, all survivors aren't women.

Kaba: Exactly. This is ... to me, the work that we have to do. It has to be to make community members understand what sexual harm looks like, what it feels like, why it is unacceptable. We have to make violence unthinkable in our culture. We have to make interpersonal violence unthinkable.... For that to happen, then that is actually an issue not around punishment, but about organizing. Most people don't want to organize around these things. That, to me, is the nexus. That is the place that we have to work from if we are really going to transform this into something where it isn't the survivors or the victims that have to carry the load all the time.

Hassan: I want to add one thing: where the history of those lists come from. Those kinds of lists got started with people in the sex trade, in particular trans women of color, who started creating bad date sheets. These were informal sheets, literally, that were written down and passed around through the community. We used to photocopy them, copy them down and hand them out with people's physical descriptions. The rest of the world looks at people in the sex trade as completely disposable, but we borrow their tools all the time when we feel disposable.

I want to be sure that we recognize the history and legacy of the tools that are being used and how they are being used and why they are being used before we say that they are not working or important or that is all we can do, because the next thing just has to grow out of that. What is the next thing we are going to do with those lists? We went from the bathroom wall to Facebook. We went from photocopying the sheet with descriptions to passing it around online. We do have the power and capacity to think of "What next?" but we haven't quite yet. In part, because we don't have solidarity with each other and we don't recognize that the spectrum of sexual violence is something that is happening to all of us because we live in [a] rape culture and all of this is going to keep happening to us until we can collectively figure out what we are doing here.

You have done work, also, around the way that survivors of this violence are often criminalized themselves. I am thinking about Black women and Black trans women like Cece McDonald and Marissa Alexander. Talk about that as an understanding that has to also come into these discussions of "What can we do?"

Kaba: In terms of Survived and Punished, we have come together nationally to put a spotlight on the fact that when you look at who is actually incarcerated and criminalized in the current criminal punishment system -- in terms of women and gender nonconforming people, in particular -- often, these are people who are survivors of sexual violence and domestic violence prior to their criminalization and prior to their incarceration. They have been violated in the first place. They end up criminalized within the system, often for defending themselves against violence or for criminalized survival actions like having self-medicated and used drugs in order to get over some of the stress that they have been put under, [or] being brought in under conspiracy charges for their abusive partner who coerced them into actions. Taking their kids and fleeing and then being charged with kidnapping. All sorts of survival actions.

We understand that the link between criminalization and domestic and sexual violence is inextricable and undeniable, and people find themselves caught up in the system and end up re-violated and re-traumatized within that very system. Then, you are in prison or in jail or an immigrant detention center.... People come in, they have to be patted down, they have strip searches, women are made to shower with male [correctional officers] watching them and leering. Sometimes people are raped in those particular institutions.

We have to be mindful of the fact that the very thing we say we want to end, violence, is being perpetrated by that very same system. We are trying to end violence with more violence. It just doesn't make any sense. Our work has been to uplift particular cases of people who have been criminalized by the system and make sure to make those connections. It is not just that we are lifting up those cases as exceptional cases, as cases that prove that this "one good person" needs to be released or this one innocent person needs to be released. We are making a broader case that actually everybody should be free, because almost everybody within these systems has these histories that they bring with them and these institutions are re-traumatizing institutions. They make no one better. In fact, they make everybody worse.

The difference between punishment and consequences is that punishment often is not the same as transformation. -- Shira Hassan

Recently, we organized to help free Bresha Meadows, a 14-year-old girl who killed her father in self-defense. We came together, initially, through the work that so many of us had been involved in in terms of freeing Marissa Alexander. We are part of a long tradition of defense campaigns for Joan Little and Cassandra Keaton and any number of other survivors of violence who have been criminalized for defending their lives or for actions they took in the attempt of surviving. We are trying to bring together many, many different kinds of people, groups, ideas, to leverage this in order to be able to free more people. These are freedom campaigns.

As Shira mentioned early on, who are we talking about as the survivors that we are actually uplifting? Who are the people? What is sexual violence? When we put people in prisons and in jails, often we are sentencing them to judicial rape because we know they are going to be assaulted when they go inside....

We have to complicate this conversation around sexual violence and see all the different ways that it is used as a form of social control across the board, with many different people from all different genders and all different races and all different social locations. If we understand the problem in that way, we have a better shot at actually uprooting all of the conditions that lead to this and all of the ways in which sexual violence reinforces other forms of violence. Our work over a couple of decades now has been devoted to complicating these narratives that are too easy, these really simple narratives around a perfect victim who is assaulted by an evil monster and that is the end of the story ... [it] doesn't take into consideration the spectrum of sexual violence, therefore minimizing certain people's experiences and making others more valid.

The last thing I want to add here is my concern over not just the "perfect victim" narrative, but also this idea somehow that we all have the same experience because we have been raped and we all think the same way about how to address it, and that for all of us, being a rape survivor becomes your identity. We were raped. Something bad happened to us. We are trying to address that, but we are not taking on the survivor as a totalizing identity for everything we do in our lives and how that matters. I want more of those kinds of conversations to be happening in public, but somehow, we can't have those. We can't have complicated conversations about sexual violence because then you are accused of rape apologia or you are accused of coddling rapists. That is very, very limiting. It means that we are not going to be able to uproot and really solve the problem ultimately.

Hassan: What I want to make ... clear is that community accountability and the work we are trying to do is not saying that people who cause sexual harm and intimate partner violence ...  are rapists ... I just want to complicate the fact that even though we are talking about prison abolition because of the harm that it causes to our entire community and because of the legacy of slavery, we are absolutely talking about consequences for people and real consequences....

For example, I don't know what is going to happen with Mr. Weinstein, but I know that he has enough money to make what he wants to happen a possibility. The consequences that are going to happen to him, they may never measure up to the harm that he created. Yet we see wide-scale harm happening for people who may ultimately want to be accountable. Sexual violence is very nuanced and the system that we have is not.

How are we going to create in our communities spaces that allow people real opportunity to heal? -- Mariame Kaba

Thinking about this idea of prison as not a feminist place. That is one of Mariame's famous quotes at this point: "Prison is not feminist." It isn't, because it recreates the same sexual violence and the same fear, the same kinds of oppression. It is the pin on the head of the racist and sexist system that we live in....

That does not mean, however, no consequences. It means real consequences. Consequences that really matter. It means transforming the conditions that exist in the first place for this to even have happened. It is really a critical point for people to think about ... the difference between punishment and consequences, and that punishment often is actually not the same as transformation and ... consequences and transformation are actually the long-term future we want to live in....

Kaba: I also want to talk a little bit about what is hopeful about what is happening in the world around these issues. Shira and I just spent three and a half days in Chicago with 50 people from around the country doing trainings and facilitating discussion and dialogue about how we do community accountability to address sexual harm and interpersonal violence. These folks came together from all around the country and took that much time out of their day because, I think, we understand this moment as ... opportunity for something different. A lot of people are talking now, and there is much more awareness around the fact that the prison industrial complex has churned communities and people through a meat grinder, literally, and devastated people. Yet people don't feel more safe. People don't feel as though violence is "curbed" in any way.

Because of that, people are in this position of feeling like "We are willing to return to some of what we used to do" in terms of trying to solve issues within our communities, but to do that with a different intentionality, by not romanticizing community as though that is the panacea and it is going to automatically lead to these outcomes that we want. We trouble the idea of community. We think about the fact that we have actual skills that we need to develop to figure out how we intervene when violence occurs, either when violence occurs to us or when it occurs to people we love and care about or it occurs to strangers that are affiliated with our communities.

How do we reclaim our imagination from what the prison industrial complex has forced us into thinking are the only solutions that we have? -- Shira Hassan

We have to build up the skills of being able to say, "What does it mean to actually center a survivor who is harmed? What does it mean to actually support people who have caused harm? What does it mean to take responsibility for saying 'We refuse in our community to condone when this happens'?" One of the things that is so important is that harm causes wounds that necessitate healing. That is what so many people are looking for -- a way to begin to heal. How are we going to create in our communities spaces that allow people real opportunity to heal?

Again, not necessarily through compulsory confession in a public way. But how do we hold that people who have been harmed deserve an opportunity to actually be able for that harm to be addressed in a real way? Often, that is all people want, is a real acknowledgement that "I was hurt. Somebody did it. I want them to know that they did it. I want to see that they have some remorse for having done it and I want them to start a process by which they will ensure to themselves, at least, and be accountable to their community for not doing it again. That is what I am trying to get as a survivor." I think there is hope in that.

People are doing this work all around the country. We had 150 applications for 45 slots. People want to be able to engage this. I think maybe that is something that people who are listening will take some hope from and see that there is a way for them in their community to activate along the same lines. Maybe if more of us do this, maybe we will be talking in 20 years about ... a landscape that is totally different, a way that people start taking accountability for actions that they do that are harmful to other people in a totally different way.

Hassan: I think about the Malcolm X quote all the time, "If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six, that is not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the knife made." What we are doing right now, that we are all actively committed to, is figuring out not only "How do we heal the wound?" but, "How do we transform the conditions that we are living in in the first place?" The premise of the community accountability weekend that we spent together was not only around skill transfer, but it was about reclaiming our imaginations. How do we reclaim our imagination from what the prison industrial complex has forced us into thinking are the only solutions that we have? How do we reclaim our imaginations from how capitalism and oppression has divided us?

We can spend three and a half days reclaiming our imaginations and practicing these skills together and figuring out "How do we actually transform the conditions that create the opportunity for that blow to come in the first place?" I am seeing that all the time. I am seeing that with my social work students, I am seeing that in these community accountability settings and the workshops that we are doing through Just Practice, and I am seeing it through conversations like this where we are not only thinking about, "How does Harvey Weinstein get held accountable?" but we are thinking about, "How do we transform this culture that we are living in? How do we hear and really hold survivors? How do we make sure that we all have a voice so that we can truly connect and be with each other to the end of this game, not just to the next incarceration or to the next lawsuit?"

How can people keep up with both of you?

Kaba: People can keep up with me on Twitter, where I am @prisonculture. They can read my blog

Hassan: You can subscribe to the mailing list for Just Practice on the website or

Interviews for Resistance is a project of Sarah Jaffe, with assistance from Laura Feuillebois and support from the Nation Institute. It is also available as a podcast on iTunes. Not to be reprinted without permission.

Grassroots, not-for-profit news is rare -- and Truthout's very existence depends on donations from readers. Will you help us publish more stories like this one? Make a one-time or monthly donation by clicking here.
Categories: News

Meet Tarana Burke, the Activist Who Started #MeToo Campaign to Ignite Conversation on Sexual Assault

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 04:00

Amid the ongoing fallout from sexual assault and harassment allegations against Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, a former contestant on "Celebrity Apprentice" has subpoenaed Donald Trump's presidential campaign for all documents relating to her and any other women who have accused the US president of unwanted sexual contact. We look at how this has reignited a conversation about sexual assault with women using the #MeToo hashtag, and speak with activist Tarana Burke, who started the campaign about a decade ago. "Me Too' is so powerful, because somebody had said it to me, and it changed the trajectory of my healing process," Burke says. We also speak with Alicia Garza, co-founder of Black Lives Matter, and Soraya Chemaly, a journalist who covers the intersection of gender and politics.

Please check back later for full transcript.

Categories: News

Mogadishu Massacre: Hospitals Run Out of Blood, Antibiotics for Victims in Mass Bombing Killing Over 300

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 04:00

Rescue operations continue in Mogadishu, Somalia, after two massive truck bombs exploded Saturday, killing at least 300 in the country's deadliest attack since the rise of the al-Shabab militant group a decade ago. The disaster is being referred to as the "Mogadishu massacre," and some are calling it "the 9/11 of the Somali people." The explosions came after the Trump administration stepped up a US campaign against al-Shabab in Somalia. We speak with Somali scholar Abdi Samatar and journalist Amanda Sperber, who splits her time between Nairobi, Kenya, and Mogadishu, Somalia.

Please check back later for full transcript.

Categories: News

The US Military's "Generational Approach": Nowadays, Our Wars Don't End

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 04:00

It's time to put generals David Petraeus (pictured), James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly in context.It's time to put generals David Petraeus (pictured), James Mattis, H.R. McMaster and John Kelly in context. (Photo: The World Affairs Council)

Choose journalism that empowers movements for social, environmental and economic justice: Support the independent media at Truthout!

It took 14 years, but now we have an answer.

It was March 2003, the invasion of Iraq was underway, and Major General David Petraeus was in command of the 101st Airborne Division heading for the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.  Rick Atkinson, Washington Post journalist and military historian, was accompanying him.  Six days into a lightning campaign, his division suddenly found itself stopped 30 miles southwest of the city of Najaf by terrible weather, including a blinding dust storm, and the unexpectedly "fanatical" attacks of Iraqi irregulars.  At that moment, Atkinson reported,

"[Petraeus] hooked his thumbs into his flak vest and adjusted the weight on his shoulders. 'Tell me how this ends,' he said. 'Eight years and eight divisions?' The allusion was to advice supposedly given the White House in the early 1950s by a senior Army strategist upon being asked what it would take to prop up French forces in South Vietnam. Petraeus's grin suggested the comment was more droll quip than historical assertion."

Certainly, Petraeus knew his history when it came to American interventions in distant lands.  He had entered West Point just as the American war in Vietnam was beginning to wind down and did his doctoral dissertation at Princeton in 1987 on that conflict ("The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A Study of Military Influence and the Use of Force in the Post-Vietnam Era").  In it, he wrote,

"Vietnam cost the military dearly. It left America's military leaders confounded, dismayed, and discouraged. Even worse, it devastated the armed forces, robbing them of dignity, money, and qualified people for a decade... Vietnam was an extremely painful reminder that when it comes to intervention, time and patience are not American virtues in abundant supply." 

So no wonder he was well acquainted with that 1954 exchange between President Dwight D. Eisenhower and former Korean War commander General Matthew Ridgeway about the French war in Vietnam.  Perhaps, the "droll quip" aspect of his comment lay in his knowledge of just how badly Ridgeway underestimated both the years and the troop numbers that the American version of that war would eat up before it, too, ended in disaster and in a military as riddled with protest and as close to collapse as was imaginable for an American force of our era. 

In his thesis, Petraeus called for the military high command to be granted a far freer hand in whatever interventions the future held.  In that sense, in 1987, he was already mainlining into a twenty-first-century world in which the US military continues to get everything it wants (and more) as it fights its wars without having to deal with either an obstreperous citizen army or too many politicians trying to impose their will on its actions. 

And by the way, though his Najaf comments have regularly been cited as if they were sui generis, as the Ridgeway reference indicates, he was hardly the first American military commander or political figure to appropriate Joan of Arc's question in Bernard Shaw's play Saint Joan: "How long, oh Lord, how long?" 

As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Halberstam recounted in his history of the Vietnam years, The Best and the Brightest, for instance, President Lyndon Johnson turned to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Earle Wheeler in a June 1965 meeting and asked of the war in Vietnam, "What do you think it will take to do the job?" 

Wheeler's answer echoed Ridgeway's 11 years earlier, though in the escalatory mode that was typical of Vietnam: "It all depends on what your definition of the job is, Mr. President.  If you intend to drive the last Vietcong out of Vietnam it will take seven hundred, eight hundred thousand, a million men and about seven years.  But if your definition of the job is to prevent the Communists from taking over the country, that is, stopping them from doing it, then you're talking about different gradations and different levels.  So tell us what the job is and we'll answer it." 

A Generational Approach to the US's Wars

Not so long after that moment on the outskirts of Najaf, the 101st Airborne made its way to Baghdad just as the burning and looting began, and that would only be the prologue to David Petraeus's war, to his version of eight years and eight divisions.  When an insurgency (actually several) broke out in Iraq, he would be dispatched to the northern city of Mosul (now a pile of rubble after its 2017 "liberation" from the Islamic State in Washington's third Iraq War).  There, he would first experiment with bringing back from the Vietnam experience the very strategy the US military had hoped to be rid of forever: "counterinsurgency," or the winning of what in that war had regularly been called "hearts and minds."  In 2004, Newsweek was already hailing him on its cover with the dramatic question: "Can This Man Save Iraq?"  (Four months after Petraeus ended his stint in that city, the police chief he had trained there went over to the insurgents and it became a stronghold for them.) 

By the time the occupation of Iraq turned into a full-scale disaster, he was back at Fort Leavenworth running the US Army's Combined Arms Center.  During that period, he and another officer, Marine Lieutenant General James Mattis -- does that name ring any bells? -- joined forces to oversee the development and publication of Field Service Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency Operations. It would be the first official counterinsurgency (COIN) how-to book the military had produced since the Vietnam years.  In the process, he became "the world's leading expert in counterinsurgency warfare."  He would famously return to Iraq in 2007, that manual in hand, with five brigades, or 20,000 US troops, for what would become known as "the surge," or "the new way forward," an attempt to bail the Bush administration out of its disastrous occupation of the country.  His counterinsurgency operations would, like the initial invasion, be hailed by experts and pundits in Washington (including Petraeus himself) as a marvel and a success of the first order, as a true turning point in Iraq and in the war on terror. 

A decade later, with America's third Iraq War ongoing, you could be excused for viewing the "successes" of that surge somewhat differently

In the process, Petraeus (or "King David" as he was supposedly nicknamed by Iraqis during his stint in Mosul) would become America's most celebrated, endlessly featured general, and go on in 2008 to head US Central Command (overseeing America's wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq).  In 2010, he would become the US Afghan commander, largely so that he could perform the counterinsurgency miracles in Afghanistan he had supposedly performed in Iraq.  In 2011, he became Barack Obama's CIA director only to crash and burn a year later in a scandal over a lover-cum-biographer and the misuse of classified documents, after which he morphed into a go-to expert on our wars and a partner at KKR, a global investment firm.  In other words, as with the three generals of the surge generation now ascendant in Washington, including Petraeus's former COIN pal James Mattis (who also headed US Central Command), he presided over this country's failing wars in the Greater Middle East.

And only recently, 14 years after he and Atkinson were briefly trapped outside Najaf, in his role as a pundit and prognosticator on his former wars, he finally answered -- and not quippingly either -- the question that plagued him then.  Though his comments were certainly covered in the news (as anything he says is), in a sense no one noticed.  Asked by Judy Woodruff of the PBS News Hour whether, in Donald Trump's America, it was "smart" to once again send more US troops surging into Afghanistan, he called the Pentagon's decision "heartening," even as he warned that it wasn't a war that would end any time soon.   

Instead, after so many years of involvement, experience, thought, and observation, in a studio without a grain of sand, no less a dust storm in sight, he offered this observation:

"But this is a generational struggle. This is not something that is going to be won in a few years. We're not going to take a hill, plant a flag, [and] go home to a victory parade. And we need to be there for the long haul, but in a way that is, again, sustainable. We have been in Korea for 65-plus years because there is an important national interest for that. We were in Europe for a very long period of time, still there, of course, and actually with a renewed emphasis now, given Russia's aggressive actions. And I think that's the way we need to approach this."

In proposing such a "generational struggle" to be handed on to our children, if not grandchildren, he's in good company.  In recent times, the Pentagon high command, too, has been adopting a "generational approach" to Afghanistan and assumedly our other wars across the Greater Middle East and Africa.  Similarly, the scholars of the Brookings Institution have urged on Washington's policymakers what they call "an enduring partnership" in Afghanistan: "The US-Afghan partnership should be recognized as generational in duration, given the nature of the threat and the likely longevity of its future manifestations."

Even if, under further questioning by Woodruff, Petraeus wouldn't quite cop to a 60-year Afghan war (that is, to a war lasting at least until 2061), his long-delayed answer to his own question of the 2003 invasion moment was now definitive.  Such American wars won't end.  Not now.  Maybe not ever.   And in a way you can't be much blunter or grimmer than that in your assessment of the "successes" of the war on terror.

A Military Success Story of the Strangest Sort

Until James "Mad Dog" Mattis hit Washington in 2017, no American general of our era was ever written about as much as, or in a more celebratory fashion, than David Petraeus.  Adulatory (if not fawning) profiles of him are legion.  Even today, in the wake of barely avoided felony and other charges (for, among other things, lying to the FBI) -- he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the handling of classified documents and was sentenced to two years of probation and a fine -- he may still be this country's most celebrated general.

But why exactly the celebration?  The answer would have to be that he continues to be lauded and considered a must-quote expert because in Washington this country's war on terror and the generalship that's accompanied it are now beyond serious analysis or reconsideration.  Sixteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, as America's wars continue to spread across the Greater Middle East and Africa, its generals -- thanks in part to Donald Trump and the need for "adult day care" in the White House -- are still treated like the only "adults in the room" in our nation's capital, like, in short, American winners.

And yet consider recent events in the central African country of Niger, which already has an operating US drone base, another under construction, and about 800 American troops quietly but permanently stationed there.  It's also a country that, until this moment, not an American in a million would have been able to locate on a map.  On October 4th, four Green Berets were killed and two others wounded during a "routine training mission" there.  Patrolling with Nigerien troops, they were ambushed by Islamic militants -- whether from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb or a new branch of ISIS remains unclear.  That officially makes Niger at least the eighth country, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Libya, to be absorbed into Washington's war on terror and, in case you hadn't noticed, in none of them has that war ended and in none have US forces triumphed.

And yet you could comb the recent mainstream coverage of the events in Niger without finding any indication that those deaths represented a modest new escalation in the never-ending, ever-spreading war on terror.   

As was inevitable, in Iraq and Syria, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Islamic "caliphate" is finally collapsing.  The city of Mosul is back in Iraqi hands, as is Tal Afar, and more recently the town of Hawija (with a rare mass surrender of ISIS militants).  Those were the last significant urban areas controlled by ISIS in Iraq, while in Syria, the "apocalyptic ruins" of the Islamic State's "capital," Raqqa, are also largely in the hands of forces allied with and supported by the air power of the US military.  In what are now the ravaged ruins of Syria and Iraq, however, such "victories" will inevitably prove as hollow as were the "successful" invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq or the "successful" overthrow of Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi.  Meanwhile, the Islamic State may have spread its brand to another country with US forces in it.  And yet, across a vast swath of the planet, the wars of David Petraeus, James Mattis, and the other generals of this era simply go on and on in a region being fractured and devastated (and whose vast numbers of displaced refugees are, in turn, helping to fracture Europe). 

Worse yet, it's a situation that can't be seriously discussed or debated in this country because, if it were, opposition to those wars might rise and alternatives to them and the by-now brain-dead decisions of those generals, including newly heightened air wars and the latest mini-surge in Afghanistan, might become part of an actual national debate. 

So think of this as a military success story of the strangest sort -- success that can be traced directly back to a single decision, now decades old, made by a long-discredited American president, Richard Nixon.  Without returning to that decision, there is simply no way to understand America's twenty-first-century wars.  In its own way, it would prove an act of genius (if, at least, you wanted to fight never-ending wars until the end of time).

In any case, credit, when owed, must be given.  Facing an antiwar movement that wouldn't go away and, by the early 1970s, included significant numbers of both active-duty servicemen and Vietnam veterans, the president and his secretary of defense, Melvin Laird, decided to try to cut into its strength by eliminating the draft.  Nixon suspected that young men not endangered by the possibility of being sent into the Vietnam War might be far less eager to demonstrate against it.  The military high command was uncertain about such a move.  They worried, with reason, that in the wake of Vietnam it would be hard to recruit for an all-volunteer military.  Who in the world, they wondered, would want to be part of such a discredited force?  That was, of course, a version of Nixon's thinking turned upside down, but the president moved ahead anyway and, on January 27, 1973, conscription was ended.  There would be no more draft calls and the citizen's army, the one that had fought World War II to victory and had raised such a ruckus about the grim and distasteful war in Vietnam, would be no more. 

In that single stroke, before he himself fell prey to the Watergate scandal and resigned his presidency, Nixon functionally created a legacy for the ages, paving the way for the American military to fight its wars "generationally" and lose them until hell froze over with the guarantee that no one in this country would seem to care a whit.  Or put another way, can you truly imagine such silence in "the homeland" if an American draft were continually filling the ranks of a citizen's army to fight a 16-year-old war on terror, still spreading, and now considered "generational"?  I doubt it.

So as American air power in places like Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan is ramped up yet again, as the latest mini-surge of troops arrives in Afghanistan, as Niger enters the war, it's time to put generals David Petraeus, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and John Kelly in context.  It's time to call them what they truly are: Nixon's children. 

Categories: News

Choose Your Own Sexual Harassment Adventure

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 04:00
Categories: News

Trump Revives Notorious GOP Dog Whistle in Call for "Welfare Reform"

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 04:00

 Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Rose Garden during a news conference with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) following a lunch meeting at the White House October 16, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Whether you read Truthout daily, weekly or even once a month, now's the perfect time to show that you value real journalism. Make a donation to Truthout by clicking here!

Rehashing a notorious Republican Party trope that accuses some Americans of cheating safety net programs, President Donald Trump on Monday said his administration is looking "very, very strongly" at "welfare reform."

"People are taking advantage of the system and then other people aren't receiving what they really need to live and we think it is very unfair to them," Trump said during a meeting with cabinet officials. "Some people are really taking advantage of our system from that standpoint."

The welfare system was last "reformed" during the administration of former President Bill Clinton, and the results were devastating.

According to research by sociologists Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer, extreme poverty more than doubled in the two decades following the passage in 1996 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed draconian work requirements on welfare recipients and converted federal welfare funds into block grants.

Now, Trump appears to be preparing to shred what is left of the social safety net. And as Clio Chang of Splinter News points out, Trump is deploying the same rhetorical formula as his welfare-slashing predecessors.

"It's not difficult to decode what Trump's saying," Chang notes. "It's the same tired line that politicians from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton have been using for decades: that some (read: mainly black) people are unfairly receiving welfare benefits and siphoning resources away from good, hard-working (read: mainly white) people. Reagan infamously spread the 'welfare queen' myth in the 1970s, a dog whistle that asserted black, single mothers were bilking the government's welfare system."

While Trump didn't propose any specific changes to the welfare system on Monday, previous reports -- along with his administration's previous actions -- have indicated that crucial safety net programs are squarely in the president's crosshairs.

In one of his first speeches as president, Trump asserted that the American welfare system is "out of control," and that people on welfare need to get "back to work" -- despite the fact that most welfare recipients already have jobs.

And as Politico reported earlier this month, Trump is "mulling an executive order that would instruct federal agencies to review low-income assistance programs [as] part of a coming effort to make sweeping changes to the country's welfare system."

Trump's Republican allies in the Senate, meanwhile, are gearing up to vote on a budget that would make room for $1.5 trillion in tax cuts and over $5 trillion in non-defense spending cuts -- including $470 billion from Medicare and $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade. 

Categories: News

How "Blight" Is Used to Justify Housing Demolition in Detroit

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 04:00

A "blight" designation has a devastating effect on property values, yet few of us understand the complexities behind it. In this month's installment of our ongoing graphic series on the housing foreclosure crisis in Detroit, we look at how the "blight" designation has been used to cheat the many for the profit of the few.

Stories like this are more important than ever! To make sure Truthout can keep publishing them, please give a tax-deductible donation today.

Our graphic miniseries on housing in Detroit wouldn't be complete without a close inspection of blight -- abandoned, uncared for properties that are portrayed as not only neighborhood eyesores, but extremely, albeit mysteriously, dangerous. Cancerous! Radioactive! And they drive down property values! Blight is painted as truly terrifying. Yet few of us understand how complex -- and profitable -- a blight designation can be.

In our continuing series on the Detroit housing foreclosure crisis we look closely at the use of the term "Blight" and its usefulness in the process of housing demolition. You'll want to catch up on the previous strips in the housing miniseries, Scenes From the Foreclosure Crisis: Water, Land and Housing in Michigan; The House on JunctionOccupied Detroit Home Is Threatened by Demolition: House on Junction II; and all of the strips in the water series, listed here.

Stay tuned for the final miniseries -- on the 143 square miles that make up the city of Detroit -- in December.

For a tour of the city and in-depth discussion of the impact of blight, the creators of this strip are grateful to Nick Caverly, a demolitions researcher at the University of Michigan.

How Blight Is Used to Justify Housing Demolition in Detroit

How Blight Is Used to Justify Housing Demolition in Detroit

How Blight Is Used to Justify Housing Demolition in Detroit


  1. "The Detroit Blight Removal Task Force Plan," May 27, 2014, p. 44-46.
  2. Ibid p. 2-3.
  3. Ibid p. 57.
  4. "Detroit Demolition Impact Report" Policy Brief, Dynamo Metrics, 2016. Accessed October 16, 2017: (The report was funded by The Skillman Foundation and Rock Ventures LLC; Both sit on the Detroit Blight Removal Task Force.)
  5. "Can Detroit find salvation through demolition?" Joel Kurth, Crain's Detroit Business, July 6, 2017. Accessed October 16, 2017:
  6. "Grand jury focusing on Detroit's demolition program," Robert Snell and Christine Ferretti, The Detroit News, June 13, 2017. Accessed October 16, 2017:
  7. "Speedy Detroit blight removal could be endangering residents," Jennifer Dixon and Joe Guillen, Detroit Free Press, Updated August 22, 2017. Accessed October 16, 2017:
  8. "2016 Vacant Property Analysis," Loveland Technologies. Accessed October 16, 2017:
  9. "Mayor Duggan blasts data showing Detroit vacancies on rise," Violet Ikonomova, Detroit Metro Times, August 4, 2017. Accessed October 16, 2017:
  10. "How the Ilitches used 'dereliction by design' to get their new Detroit arena," Tom Perkins, September 12, 2017. Accessed October 16, 2017:
  11. Ibid.
  12. Ibid.
  13. "Gilbert, Quicken Loans entwined in Detroit Blight," Christine MacDonald and Joel Kurth, The Detroit News. Accessed September 28, 2017:
  14. "Detroit Demolition Impact Report" Policy Brief, Dynamo Metrics, 2016. Accessed October 16, 2017: (The report was funded by The Skillman Foundation and Rock Ventures LLC; Both sit on the Detroit Blight Removal Task Force.)
  15. "How much does it cost to demolish a house?" Khalil AlHajal, MLive, February 19, 2016. Accessed October 16, 2017:

Copyright, Anne Elizabeth Moore and Melissa Mendes

Categories: News

Stunner on Birth Control: Trump's Moral Exemption Is Geared to Two Groups

Truth Out - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 04:00
 LW / TO)(Photo: Gabi Sanda; Edited: LW / TO)   In times of great injustice, independent media is crucial to fighting back against misinformation. Support grassroots journalism: Make a donation to Truthout.

Few people were surprised last week when the Trump administration issued a rule to make it easier for some religious employers to opt out of offering no-cost prescription birth control to their female employees under the Affordable Care Act.

But a separate regulation issued at the same time raised eyebrows. It creates a new exemption from the requirement that most employers offer contraceptive coverage. This one is for "non-religious organizations with sincerely held moral convictions inconsistent with providing coverage for some or all contraceptive services."

So what's the difference between religious beliefs and moral convictions?

"Theoretically, it would be someone who says 'I don't have a belief in God,' but 'I oppose contraception for reasons that have nothing to do with religion or God,' " said Mark Rienzi, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented many of the organizations that sued the Obama administration over the contraceptive mandate.

Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said it would apply to "an organization that has strong moral convictions but does not associate itself with any particular religion."

What kind of an organization would that be? It turns out not to be such a mystery, Rienzi and Bagley agreed.

Among the hundreds of organizations that sued over the mandate, two -- the Washington, DC-based March for Life and the Pennsylvania-based Real Alternatives -- are anti-abortion groups that do not qualify for religious exemptions. While their employees may be religious, the groups themselves are not.

March for Life argued that the ACA requirement to cover all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration includes methods that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus and therefore are a type of abortion. Real Alternatives opposes the use of all contraceptives.

March for Life, which coordinates an annual abortion protest each year, won its suit before a federal district court judge in Washington, DC.

But a federal appeals court ruled in August that Real Alternatives, which offers counseling services designed to help women choose not to have an abortion, does not qualify as a religious entity and thus cannot claim the exemption. That decision cited a lower-court ruling that "finding a singular moral objection to law on par with a religious objection could very well lead to a flood of similar objections."

The departments of Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services, however, suggest that, at least in this case, that will not happen. The regulation issued by those departments says officials "assume the exemption will be used by nine nonprofit entities" and "nine for-profit entities." Among the latter, it said, "we estimate that 15 women may incur contraceptive costs due to for-profit entities using the expanded exemption provided" in the rules.

The regulation also seeks comments on whether the moral exemption should be extended to publicly traded firms.

Rienzi agrees that the universe for the moral exemption is likely to be small. "The odds that anyone new is going to come up and say 'Aha, I finally have my way out,' " he said, "is crazy."

Women's health advocates, however, are not so sure.

"The parameters of what constitutes a moral objection is unclear," said Mara Gandal-Powers, senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center, which is preparing to sue to stop both rules. "There is nothing in the regulatory language itself that says what a moral belief is that would rise to the level of making an organization eligible for the exemption."

Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the ACLU, which has already filed a lawsuit, agreed. "We don't know how many other entities are out there that would assert a moral objection," she said. "Not everybody wanted to file a suit," particularly smaller organizations.

All of that, however, presupposes that the rule laying out the moral objection exemption will stand up in court.

Bagley said he's doubtful. The legal arguments making the case for the exemption, he said, are "the kind of things that would be laughed out of a [first-year] class on statutory interpretation."

Specifically, he said, the rule lays out all the times Congress has included provisions in laws for moral objections. But rather than justifying the case, "it suggests that Congress knew a lot about how to craft a moral objection if it wanted to," and it did not in the health law, he noted.

Bagley said the fact that the moral exemption was laid out in a separate rule from the religious one demonstrates that the administration is concerned the former might not stand up to court proceedings. "The administration must sense this rule is on thin legal ice," he said.

Which leads to the question of why Trump officials even bothered doing a separate rule. Bagley said he thinks the act was more political than substantive. "The administration is doing something that signals to religious employers … that they are on their sides, that they have their backs."

Categories: News

Help an Internationalist Anti-Fascist Get Home

It's Goin Down - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 03:34

The post Help an Internationalist Anti-Fascist Get Home appeared first on It's Going Down.

Donate Here

After two trips and over 15 months in Rojava with my time spent between the YPG and TevDem. I am trying to return home to my native country and movement to continue on organizing with the political tools and lessons that the Rojava revolution has bestowed upon me.

But due to a previous political crisis, the recent referendum in Başur and the following closing of the airports I have been stuck here for over 2 months now. Last night (10/15/17) it seems that the first shots where fired in Kirkuk in what is shaping up to be another large scale war in Iraq which complicates the process of leaving even more.

I have obviously not been able to work for almost two years between time spent in Başur, Rojava and preparing for this trip. All previous travel has left me functionally penniless and I’m afraid I have nothing left to sell to fiance this effort in solidarity. While in Rojava I was in a cadre tabur so I was not paid at any point for my work.

I have learned of a way to get home but it is by myself prohibitively expensive. That is where hopefully you are able to come in and assist me. I need money to cover hotel for a hopefully only a few nights, visa, flight and food.

I have set the stated goal a little over my projected costs as cushion for something going wrong (which in my line of work and this region the chances of are not high but are considerable). What ever money I do not spend will be directly funneled back into Kurdish solidarity or other antifascist efforts.

As a militant antifascist and revolutionary organizer asking for money on the internet is obviously a tricky predicament. I am not daft enough to think I can hide my actions (which are completely legal) from my government. But being from a country with a growing violent fascist movement I would not like them to know of my travels. This is why I have chosen to remain as anonymous as possible.

Categories: News

Blast From the Past: Lexicon Pamphlet Series

It's Goin Down - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 03:04

The post Blast From the Past: Lexicon Pamphlet Series appeared first on It's Going Down.

Download and Print Here

The Lexicon series aimed to convert words into politically helpful tools—for those
already engaged in a politics from below as well as the newly approaching—by
offering definitional understandings of commonly used keywords. Wanting to keep that project alive, we are again releasing the PDF.

Lexicon Series created by the Institute for Anarchist Studies, for more info:

Topics Include: 

Anarchism: AT ITS CORE, ANARCHISM IS INDEED A SPIRIT—ONE THAT CRIES OUT AGAINST ALL that’s wrong with present-day society, and yet boldly proclaims all that could be right under alternate forms of social organization. There are many different though often complementary ways of looking at anarchism, but in a nutshell, it can be defined as the striving toward a “free society of free individuals.” This phrase is deceptively simple. Bound within it is both an implicit multidimensional critique and an expansive, if fragile, reconstructive vision.

Colonialism: COLONIALISM CAN REFER TO A TRANSNATIONAL PROCESS OF DOMINATION, the policies by which it is carried out, and the ideologies that underwrite it. Modern colonialism has taken various forms since the Iberian, British, and French (and later German, Belgian, and Italian) incursions into Asia, Africa, and the Americas—whether for armed trade, armed missionizing, or armed settlement—began to escalate from the late fifteenth century onward.

Gender: GENDER IS A SYSTEM OF CATEGORIZING OURSELVES AND EACH OTHER (including bodies, desires, and behaviors) running through every aspect of culture and society, and intertwining with other categories and hierarchies (race, class, sexuality, age, ability, and so much more). Various aspects of biology (for example, genitals, chromosomes, and body shape) are interpreted to mean that human beings naturally belong in one of two categories: male and female. But if we look more closely, we might question the nature of gender. Biology, human and otherwise, is wonderfully diverse.

Power: POWER IS ONE OF THE MOST ELUSIVE ASPECTS OF POLITICAL SPACE. People are said to seek, hold, exercise, or lord it over others. On the Right, it is thought to be a reality that has to be seized. The world is a place where power speaks. Better it be ours than theirs. On the Left, power is often considered something dirty. It is something we must rid the world of if we are to achieve peace and equality.

White Supremacy: BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS RACE. As hard as they’ve tried, scientists have never been able to come up with an adequate definition of it. Yet the social and political effects of race are very real. Race is like a dollar bill—a human creation rather than a fact of nature that has value only because people say it does. And like money, people give race “value” because it serves a function in society. That function in the United States is to suppress class conflict. In the United States, the system of race (what we now call “white supremacy”) emerged in the late 1600s to preserve the land and power of the wealthy. Rich planters in Virginia feared what might happen if indigenous tribes, slaves, and indentured servants united and overthrew them. Through a series of laws, they granted the English poor certain rights and privileges denied to all persons of African and Native American descent: the right to be excluded from enslavement, move about freely without a pass, acquire property, bear arms, enjoy free speech and assembly, change jobs, and vote. For their part, they respected the property of the rich, helped seize indigenous lands, and enforced slavery. In accepting this arrangement, the English poor (now called “whites”) went against their class interests to serve their “racial” ones, and thereby reinforced the power of the rich.

Categories: News

Frank Lopez on Puerto Rico, Toxic Water, & FEMA Candy

It's Goin Down - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 02:27

The post Frank Lopez on Puerto Rico, Toxic Water, & FEMA Candy appeared first on It's Going Down.

In this episode, we caught up with Franklin Lopez of Sub.Media, a native of Puerto Rico, to discuss his recent trip to the island, the history of colonialism and how it has affected the Puerto Rican people, and the recent tragedy of Hurricane Maria. In our discussion, Frank talks about the impact of the storm, the response from the State, how people on the ground are dealing with the disaster, how anarchists and autonomous groups are organizing relief efforts, and about the recent revelations that toxic water from SuperFund sites are being distributed to those in need by authorities.

We then switch gears and discuss how Sub.Media is continuing full steam head, and will be releasing a new episode of Trouble at the end of this month, which will be on autonomous disaster relief. Frank and Sub.Media are also spearheading a program to buy in bulk water filters that people can use in streams and rivers. With fires raging in California and people still attempting to rebuild their lives in Florida and Texas, we hope that this episode inspires people to get organized and take action.

More Info: Mutual Aid Disaster Relief, Sub.Media Drive for Water Filters, Sub.Media General Fundraiser.

Music: Ricanstruction

Categories: News

Final Straw: Support Herman Bell & Discussion on Signal App

It's Goin Down - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 02:23

The post Final Straw: Support Herman Bell & Discussion on Signal App appeared first on It's Going Down.

Listen and Download Here

First this week, we had the opportunity to speak with Dr Kihana Mariah Ross, who is the daughter in law of Herman Bell, a former member of the Black Panther Party and a political prisoner who is currently clocking 44 years behind bars. We will speak about recent developments in his case, plus some historical context, and actionable items moving forward.

To learn more about Herman Bell and to read some of his writings, you can visit To send him a card – and be aware that his 70th birthday is on January 14th and his upcoming parole hearing is in February 2018 – you can write to him at

Herman Bell 79 C 0262
Shawangunk CF
P.O. Box 700
Wallkill, NY 12589-0700

How Best to use Signal?

In the second segment of today’s episode, we’ll air another conversation with William Budington, a digital security expert and trainer about the Signal end-to-end text encryption app for smart phones and desktops. Signal, produced by WhisperSys, is an easy to use, free means for folks to avoid one type of surveillance in their day to day communication. The ubiquitous, normalized use of encryption shields the purpose of the use, obscuring whether the practice is to shield illegal activity or not. In the conversation we talk about the human failure side of communication, as well as the informational leakage possibilities of the devices we use to engage Signal app. If you really enjoy the pie-baking/Betty Crocker metaphor, don’t despair, it doesn’t end with this segment. Check out more on this topic in our occasional series, Error-451.

Stay tuned soon for a conversation with William about burner phones and more. If you have a topic about digital security, devices and programs, surveillance or related topics, leave us a suggestion at ! If you want our pgp key, check our website.


Now, it’s my turn for a brief editorial, dear listeners. This is Bursts. I grew up in a part of so-called California known as Sonoma County, lands stolen from the Pomo and the Miwok peoples first by the Spanish, then by Mexico and Russia and then the U.S. I lived there from the mid-1980’s through 2009 and consider it my home in a way I could no other place. The rolling hills, the foggy mornings, the Coastal Live Oak groves, the nasty but 100 year old Eucalyptis groves, the early evening sky that turns a goldish orange into purple, the Manzanita, the people, the ocean breeze coming out from Bodega. These are things that I remember fondly from the deeply damaged yet still beautiful biome I called home for most (and definitely the more formative years) of my life.

This has been a year for spectacular disasters around this hemisphere, with a record 10th hurricane now appearing in the Carribean and southern U.S., 2 major earthquakes rocking Mexico and now the fires in Northern and Southern California. The fires in the north, which I’ve been paying more attention to because they QUITE literally bring home to me a sense of devastation I still haven’t been able to digest from this distance, have been whipped up by winds, a seasonal dryness out of the ordinary and fed by the aftermath of a wet winter that created a ton of easy-to-burn fuels. California has long been racked by fires, but never this many deaths and never have they consumed large parts of cities as they have with Santa Rosa. Thousands of homes have been turned to ash, monuments standing over a hundred years are cinders, human and non-human animals have been killed, damaged and displaced. California is yet another part of the world feeling the first hand effects of anthropogenic climate change, after years of over-taxing it’s water levels with large scale and animal and food agriculture, it’s manicured industrial lawns, the barely regulated weed industry booming, the building of human settlements in the middle of deserts and the idea promoted by high levels of industry and state that as the 6th largest economy in the world it could buy itself climate chaos. Day by day, year by year, this is proven more and more a delusion. But I digress.

I’d like to give a shout out to the brave folks doing search and rescue in my home away from home, the neighbors who look out for each other, that roused each other from sleep to escape the fire storms, who shelter and feed each other. Also to the fire professionals who are working to fight back the fires. An element of this that is under reported, of course, is the fact that over a thousand prisoners of the state of California and it’s included counties, are putting their lives on the line for $1 to $2.56 a day to train and then fight these blazes. That can be compared to the $31.85 an hour of the median hourly wage for non-inmate firefighters. I would like to bring this up because as the climate becomes more chaotic and the ever-tighter squeeze of austerity capitalism turns further and further away from more sustainable and stable incomes like unionized firefighters this continues a nasty trend.

Putting prisoners on the fire lines to fight the blazes, while more deadly for them than other modes of work, arguably offers them a potentially more meaningful and lucrative engagement with community service. This also fuels the profit motive of governments bent on incarcerating mostly poor communities of color, often people with chemical dependencies and neuro-divergencies the state can’t be bothered to treat but to stick them in a concrete and steel cage. More prisoners means more low-pay and expendable firefighters who’s crime was to be born the wrong color or class in the age of mass incarceration. I don’t bring this up to denigrate those risking themselves to save lives and homes, whether a prisoner or not, but to point out that this is not how a community organizes itself for it’s members, this is the logic of capital and thus streams value to the top of the pyramid.

My heart goes out to those who suffer at the hands of these fires. Let’s fight for futures where we are better prepared, where we don’t employ slave labor to fight them, and everyone has what they need to live in true community, which means true accountability to the impact of our survival on the non-human environment with which we share this awesome world.

If you’d like to help by sending some money to autonomous organizing for relief in Sonoma County, consider visiting

Categories: News

TOTW: Principles vs. Outcomes

Anarchist News - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 01:53

Are anarchists too hung up on defining, elaborating, and enforcing anarchist principles, rather than focusing on what successfully accomplishes the outcomes they hope to achieve?

Consider an example that occurred during the heydey of Occupy, in which a working group emerged that proposed electing two delegates from each state state in the continental U.S. to send to Philadelphia on the fourth of July for the "National Convergence", with the expressed goal of publicly petitioning for a redress of grievances. That constitutional convention is a process outlined in the U.S. constitution that provides an opportunity to counter-hijack the system, to use its own merits to destroy it.

But the central Occupy group opposed it.

They released a statement the following day: “However, the group’s plan to select delegates representing each Congressional District to ratify a petition to present to the U.S. government while threatening to run candidates for positions in this corrupted system runs counter to OWS’ commitment to direct democracy, grassroots people power, and building a better society from the bottom up.”

Livestream provided a window into general assemblies at this time that dissipated into bickering over identity politics and broke off into insular groups in order to bypass the agreed-upon collective decision-making process. Is this a cost of a commitment to principles over outcomes?

Occupy had great momentum. People could have hijacked the political process in a way relatable to the public and provided working rapid protypes of the better world that was possible. It wasn’t about living in the park. It wasn’t about twinkling fingers as a form of decision making. It was about ending corruption, about sticking it in the craw of Wall Street. What happened instead was bickering over chosen tools and ideological purity.

In the last few TOTWs on this website, many words have been exchanged regarding what anarchism is (or isn't), what every anarchist should (or mustn't) do, about which perspectives and priorities are most important (and which are morally repulsive.

Even critical perspectives focus on the principles 'every anarchist needs to have' rather than the process or criteria by which we might evaluate whether those principles are any good. As suggested in one thoughtful post, 'The answer to covert intellectual leadership is for everyone to develop the ability to think critically and formulate their own ideas... Every anarchist needs to be able to suspend judgement and consider whether the facts fit several possible narratives... to interpret and understand other points of view on a deep level... to be able to conceptualise and process sensory information *from multiple points of view at once*... to perfect the art of thinking structurally - instead of morally - about social problems and their causes (e.g. radical criminology)... to tell the difference between a latent common sense belief they haven't questioned, and an idpol or other politician telling them what their "real motives" or "real significance" is."

But is thinking critically enough? By what criteria should we evaluate whether our ideas are any good? How do we measure success? How can we tell whether what we're doing is furthering our goals versus enforcing narratives about what anarchism means, about what it is and it isn't, about who is or is not worthy of the title?

Tags: totwcategory: Other
Categories: News

SWAT Team Raids Autonomous Relief Efforts in Puerto Rico

It's Goin Down - Tue, 10/17/2017 - 01:20

The post SWAT Team Raids Autonomous Relief Efforts in Puerto Rico appeared first on It's Going Down.

Several police vehicles, an armored tactical vehicle, and law enforcement personnel including swat team pointed their guns at relief workers while surrounding and then entering our base of operations in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico in the early hours before dawn of October 16th, 2017. Law enforcement communicated that they were acting from a call that Mutual Aid Disaster Relief volunteers were engaged in “kidnapping”. After checking everybody’s belongings without consent, they forced volunteers out of what was the Mutual Aid Disaster Relief Puerto Rico hub at gunpoint and the threat of arrest.

Law enforcement intimidation also included aggressive questioning of our purpose there and whether or not we were protestors or Antifa, had we ever used the raised fist, if we were distributing propaganda, and if we were planning to overthrow the government.


The state used similar intimidation and disruption tactics against revolutionary disaster relief workers in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Brandon Darby being just one example.

We know that repression from the state intensifies when our organizing is perceived by those in power as effective. Rather than be intimidated into silence and passivity, this just furthers our resolve to continue organizing from below to support people’s survival and self-determination.

And to answer the question, no. We are not planning on seizing state power and overthrowing the government. We do not need to. The state is decaying and will fall by its own weight. We are building relationships of support that can withstand every crisis and give people fertile imaginations full of the possibilities of what can be built in the power vacuums for when the inevitable does happen.

Categories: News

Emergency Medical Campaign for Robert Seth Hayes

It's Goin Down - Mon, 10/16/2017 - 22:02

The post Emergency Medical Campaign for Robert Seth Hayes appeared first on It's Going Down.

New York Jericho Movement reports on campaign to help former Black Panther and political prisoner Robert Seth Heyes get medical attention. 

We saw Seth yesterday for his 69th birthday. We had a good visit. However, Seth’s sugars were at 535 in the morning and at 585 at 4 p.m. These high sugar levels can lead to Seth going into a diabetic coma!

Seth is very frustrated, since medical staff at Sullivan keep saying they are going to send him to Albany Medical Center for an investigation of the pump, but this has not happened. They claim it has a “glitch”; however, they are continuing to use it. Also, the pump has somehow become locked and the data in it cannot be accessed by the endocrinologist at Coxsackie, so there is no record of his daily sugar fluctuations.

The sensor that enables the monitor to work was not even ordered until recently and is expected to arrive at the end of October. Seth has been told for several months now that the monitor, which enables him to see whether his sugars are high or low, will be “phased in”. It has been more than a year since the insulin pump/monitor was recommended by the DOCCS endocrinologist at Coxsackie and Seth STILL DOES NOT HAVE THE MONITOR!

Seth now has diabetic neuropathy in his legs. He fell again this past week. In addition, he says his legs are swollen in his calves. However, his feet and ankles are not swollen. He also has sores all over his body, which are not being treated. Seth has a medical callout scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 17.

We need people to call Dr. Carl Koenigsmann, Commissioner Annucci, Governor Cuomo and the Superintendent at Sullivan to demand there be a full investigation of the pump at Albany Medical Center and that Seth be given the monitor as soon as possible.

Also, that the problem with his legs and the sores on his body be investigated and resolved to the fullest extent possible. What will happen if these sores become infected?

Please write, call, fax and email the following people and insist that Robert Seth Hayes, DIN No. 74-A-2280, be taken to Albany Medical Center as soon as possible for a full investigation of the insulin pump and a complete workup for the problems with his legs and the sores all over his body.

We the people must prevent the medical murder of our captured freedom fighter, who has been in prison since September 17, 1973! Despite Seth’s excellent prison record, he has been turned down for parole 10 times, adding 20 years to his sentence. Seth should have been released in 1998!

If you are a doctor, nurse, or any other kind of medical personnel, please use your letterhead. Please email and let us know what response you receive. Also, if you are able to find out any additional phone or fax numbers, we will be grateful for the information.

Superintendent Keyser at Sullivan: 845-434-2080

Carl J. Koenigsmann M.D.
Deputy Commissioner/Chief Medical Officer
NYS DOCCS Division of Health Services
Harriman State Campus, Building #2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12226-2050
Phone: 518-457-7073
Fax: 518-445-7553

Anthony J. Annucci
Acting Commissioner
Harriman State Campus, Building #2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12226-2050
Emails: or 
Phone: (518) 457-8126

Division of Health Services
Nancy A. Lyng, MS, Director of Health Services
Operations and Management
Harriman State Campus, Building #2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 12226-2050
Phone: (518) 445-6176

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
NYS Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12224
Phone: (518) 474-8390

Write to Seth:

Robert Seth Hayes #74A2280
Sullivan C.F.
P.O. Box 116
Fallsburg, NY 12733-0116

Send him a card or write him a letter. Seth loves corresponding with people, and it also shows the prison that people are paying attention.

Anne Lamb
NYC Jericho Movement

To contribute to ongoing efforts supporting Robert Seth Hayes, please donate online at:

Categories: News