Nov 30

Why We Won't Be Participating in Black Friday

Posted in: Today's Chili

2014-11-28-ScreenShot20141127at6.20.05PM.png

The holidays are a time for reflection. An opportunity to give thanks while keeping in mind those who are less fortunate. It should be about spending time together with our families and friends and celebrating what we have.

Yet it seems we’ve lost our way. We’ve been inundated by a consumerist culture pushing hugely discounted Black Friday sales from big box retailers.

We all love sales, but there’s something wrong with the indiscriminate price-slashing that has come to define Black Friday. The value of what you buy gets lost when we just focus on slashed prices. As Oscar Wilde famously said, “nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

While we may save a few dollars, we pay for these sales in other ways. As consumers, we pay because big box retailers offset big sales by using lesser quality materials specifically made for overstock and Black Friday.

Designers and small businesses pay as they are forced to slash their margins to keep up. And our society pays because we’ve become overwhelmed by a mass consumerist frenzy instead of valuing what is important and supporting high quality craftsmanship and small businesses that benefit our local economies.

That’s why this holiday weekend, my site Modavanti won’t be participating in a heavily discounted storewide Black Friday sale. We will match the sale prices our designer’s individually set, but are not offering additional discounts.

Instead we want to celebrate what’s important and give back. Starting tonight and running through the weekend, we will be donating 10 percent of each sale to our incredible charity partners: Nest and Charity: Water.

Modavanti was born out of a recognition that when it comes to fashion, we can do better. That we should value and cherish our clothing. That profit and style don’t need to come at the expense of people and progress. We value our designers, artisans and brands and all the others committed to making clothing that is not only stylish but good for us, good for the earth and good for others.

Over the past two years we’ve had the incredible pleasure to work with brands like Indigo Handloom who, through their beautiful scarves, empower women artisans in rural India by providing them a living wage, safe working conditions and a chance to improve their own communities. Designers like EcoAlf, who are working to save our oceans by making their jackets out of recycled water bottles and fishing net from the sea. Or the team at Amour Vert who employ a zero waste philosophy and only use sustainable materials; and the many designers, like Heidi Merrick, Line Dry Apparel, Nettie Kent and others, who are committed to keeping manufacturing here in the USA.

These are brands who deserve to be valued. By slashing prices, we are slashing their work and devaluing their craft. So this Black Friday join us in voting with your wallets and value what you wear.

No Comments
Nov 30

Why I'm Boycotting Movies About Men

Posted in: Today's Chili

I’m a huge fan of the blog Reel Girl, whose tagline “Imagining gender equality in the fantasy world” says it all. It was on Reel Girl’s Facebook wall that the exchange below took place. The thread was about this article in Forbes titled “‘Night At The Museum 3’ Posters Reveal Seven Men, One Woman.”

2014-11-29-ReelGirl.png

I’ve obviously gotten radical, stubborn, inflexible and up-to-my-eyeballs-fed-up with this obscene stage hogging, and am in desperate need of a shepherd’s crook to remove superfluous male bodies from the world’s movie sets. I’ve spent half a century watching films that are by, for, and about men. I’ve paid too much of my hard-earned money supporting a fantasy world where half the human population has gone missing.

Please allow me to direct you to the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media for any stats you may need to convince you of this grotesque and sweeping gender disparity or, alternatively, to fuel your misogyny as you search for opposing fake stats to deny what blatantly goes on right in front of millions of eyeballs every year. I’ll only share one statistic with you, because it’s my favorite. Did you know that the average crowd scene contains 17 percent women? I know! You can’t believe it! But pay attention in the theater, and you’ll see it immediately. Geena Davis was interviewed about this and said:

“…We just heard a fascinating and disturbing study, where they looked at the ratio of men and women in groups. And they found that if there’s 17 percent women, the men in the group think it’s 50-50. And if there’s 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.”

Recently a fan on my Facebook author page sprinted for Olympic gold in mansplaining by asserting that directors have to cast this way because if there were anything more than 17 percent women in a crowd, the “average viewer” would perceive the scene as totally overrun by women. What are you talking about, you absolutely brainless sea monkey? Not only are females 51 percent of the human population, but we also bankroll Hollywood. Women buy the most movie tickets. Go to hell, amigo. (Yes, I banned him).

There are hundreds if not thousands of articles on the problem of gender imbalance in all aspects of movie making in Hollywood and I’m not going to write another one. Wait, so what am I writing about, then? I’m writing about how this makes me feel, which is shitty and furious and apoplectic. If you don’t want to hear it, then move along little doggie, out you go.

On Thanksgiving last week I overheard a brief exchange about the new Brad Pitt film, Fury. People were saying it’s one of the best World War II movies ever made. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, and no disrespect intended toward my friends and relatives who have enjoyed or will enjoy this film. But me? I am not interested in war movies, though Lord knows they’re a popular genre! I could not care less about Fury, even if it would have received 1,000 thumbs up from the dearly departed Siskel & Ebert.

War movies are not just historical and important and great art. They are code for — and efficient vehicles for — movies about men. I looked up Fury‘s cast on the Internet. Two women appeared at the bottom of the first 20 actors listed on IMDB, a tedious and interminable list of male actors that became impossible to count in my post-Thanksgiving food coma, and remained impossible to count the next morning when I had my wits about me. I know, I know… #notallmovies. There’s Thelma and Louise! There’s Fried Green Tomatoes! And Bridesmaids! Quitcherbitchin, ladies!

One of the funniest experiences I’ve had this year was sitting in the local cinema with my sister-in-law and watching previews before the main attraction. I started singing my “Men, Men, Men, Men” song very quietly under my breath for each male-dominated preview, and after each one, I would reassuringly whisper to her, “Don’t worry, I’m sure the next preview will have a woman in it!” We would giggle and wait and watch, and then, about 90 seconds later, I’d sing my little ditty again, and once more express my complete certainty that we were merely moments away from seeing a preview of a movie either about a woman or including one or two of them in the dozen or so scene cuts. And when that never happened once, we could barely stifle our laughter in the quiet theater, because really, how else does one deal with such absurdity?

I had a short but uplifting conversation during the Thanksgiving meal with my nephew Paul-Emile Cendron, the son of my sister-in-law who put up with my silly singing in the movie theater a few months ago. It was about the fantastic new HBO miniseries Olive Kittredge, starring one of my favorite actresses, Frances McDormand. My nephew is 24 and he’s an actor who recently appeared as Robert Duvall’s grandson in The Judge. I did go see that movie, making an exception for yet another cinematic celebration of masculinity, because how could I boycott the movie that gave my nephew his first role?

So perhaps you can see why it meant so much to me that this young actor — fresh off a film set starring mostly men about a father-son relationship and the relationship between three brothers — would rave about the power of McDormand’s role, and understand why I felt so grateful seeing McDormand produce this film and play its aging, unsympathetic, complex female protagonist who was not sexualized or killed off early.

Sometimes it’s the little things!

Maybe in my dotage I’ll be able to watch movies that accurately represent my gender both quantitatively and qualitatively. If not, I’ll just keep up my personal boycott because maybe I enjoy feeling bitter and exacting miniscule and inconsequential revenge on an industry that shapes more than it mirrors our society. Pfft, whatever. I’m not sliding into any pulsating, gaping void of despair. I’m waiting for whatever Frances McDormand is going to do next!

—

Lori Day is an educational psychologist, consultant and parenting coach with Lori Day Consulting in Newburyport, MA. She is the author of Her Next Chapter: How Mother-Daughter Book Clubs Can Help Girls Navigate Malicious Media, Risky Relationships, Girl Gossip, and So Much More, and speaks on the topic of raising confident girls in a disempowering marketing and media culture. You can connect with Lori on Facebook, Twitter, or Pinterest.

No Comments
Nov 30

It's Not Over: An Illustrated Analysis of Op-Ferguson (Pt. 2)

Posted in: Today's Chili

It is now almost a week after the grand jury decision was released in the case of police officer Darren Wilson’s murder of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. Over the pass few months life has been full of ups and downs for us here in St. Louis. I decided to publish some of the political cartoons I have created over this time to continue the original illustrative analysis I started at the beginning of this ordeal. As an artist and activist, I am here to say that IT IS NOT OVER, by a long shot.

2014-11-29-privilege_final_web.jpg

2014-11-29-ourduty_final_web.jpg

2014-11-29-dad_final_web.jpg

No Comments
Nov 30

First Nighter: The Bedlam Company Shoots and Wounds Chekhov's 'Seagull'

Posted in: Today's Chili

Before I get to the many reasons for my strongly objecting to the Bedlam company’s attack on Anton Chekhov’s great play, The Seagull, I want strongly to recommend their Sense & Sensibility adaptation, which my Huffington Post colleague has already praised.

Having seen that production earlier in their current two-play season — last year’s included Hamlet and Saint Joan — I was looking forward to The Seagull with great anticipation. So what I saw, at the Steen Center, was not only a major disappointment but also raised questions in my mind about policy and politics in a company as clearly adventurous and creative as Bedlam.

But before I even get to that I’d like to note that company member Jason O’Connell is giving an outstanding performance as the novelist Boris Trigorin. It’s not the usual interpretation of Madame Arkadina’s lover as self-impressed and manipulative about his accomplishments when seducing young and naïve would-be actress Nina.

The tall, dark, husky, round-faced O’Connell sees Trigorin as completely sincere on the man’s lack of belief in his success. This means that when Nina (Laura Baranik) returns in act four as a beaten, fallen woman, the report she gives on Trigorin’s treatment of her after she’s run away to join him doesn’t quite jibe with the man we’ve seen. Nevertheless, O’Connell is captivating whenever he’s on stage.

Now, however, to the production’s major affliction, which points to a potential problem companies such as Bedlam encounter when casting plays that don’t easily fit the members’ ages and abilities. What can unfortunately eventuate is that, in order to accommodate everyone, mistakes are made. Though Bedlam’s 10-members are all exactly right for Sense & Sensibility, the shoehorning in The Seagull goes terribly wrong.

Let’s just say that the beautiful, youthful Vaishnavi Sharma as the veteran Arkadina — with younger lover Trigorin and a son who says she doesn’t want him seen because her age then becomes more apparent — simply shouldn’t be in the role. She certainly shouldn’t be when son Konstantin (Eric Tucker, who also directs) appears just on the cusp of being too old for his assignment.

At one point Arkadina insists that she can still play Juliet. When she claims this, no audience member can be chided for thinking she should be playing Juliet. Attempting to compensate for the misjudgment, Sharma pushes Akadina’s actress-y manner and affects an unconvincing hoity-toity actress-y accent.

The curious aspect of the situation is that there’s a company member who would be an ideal Arkadina: the impressive Bedlam co-founder (with Tucker) Andrus Nichols. Instead, she’s present as Masha and doing a convincing job — or would be convincing if she didn’t come off as about the same age as, or slightly older than, John Russell and Kate Hamill, who play her parents, Shamrayev and Polina.

Nichols is such a fine actor that while watching her, I started to imagine her in all sorts of classic parts she’d undoubtedly enhance — not to mention my also imagining the imposing performance she’d give as Arkadina. Perhaps it’s the manifold skills that make her want to stretch herself by choosing not to do the obvious thing — take on Arkadina — in favor of the unexpected.

Maybe it’s the inclination not to do the expected that underlies all the casting decisions for this Seagull. If that’s the case, it runs counter to Chekhov’s strict requirements for a fully effective outing.

There is one piece of untraditional casting that does work. The cameo-profiled Samantha Steinmetz is Medvedenko, the earnest but socially clumsy fellow gone on Masha. In the roles that are more or less cast properly, Nigel Gore as Dorn definitely looks right when more than once he gives the moody doctor’s age as 55. His is among the too few worthy portrayals.

In her early scenes Baranik as Nina comes across as slightly more sophisticated than the standard Ninas. As directed by Tucker, her performance in Konstantin’s pretentious play-within-the-play is particularly amusing. She also executes Nina’s fourth-act return (the intermission follows the first two acts) with finesse, not something always accomplished. As the aging and ailing Petrusha Sorin, Stephan Wolfert does sufficiently well.

A cassette player blasting tunes underneath a hammock on John McDermott’s set signals to the entering audience that Anya Reiss’s version is modern-day. It’s an approach that Angela Huff’s denim-heavy costumes confirm when the cast emerges to talk among themselves before launching into the play. It remains real when, for instance, sound designers Tucker and Katie Young send a plane over Arkadina’s country retreat.

Reiss’s choice isn’t unusual these days. It’s the second Chekhov updating I’ve seen in a month. The other was a superb Cherry Orchard at London’s Young Vic. I suppose I don’t mind the notion–not when Reiss includes a computer on which Konstantin works and then, in his despair, which he destroys.

Nonetheless, it’s annoying and hardly fresh when adapters such as Reiss and her London colleague decide that were Chekhov writing today, he would make sure his characters used “fucking” at least a few times in their outbursts. Totally unnecessary. Nor do I see the need to call the fourth-act card game played “Bullshit.”

Reiss does something else that grated on me, although it’s only a petty infringement in the context of this treatment’s larger transgressions. Chekhov lovers know that when at the start of The Seagull Medvedenko asks Masha why she always wears black, she replies, “I’m in mourning for my life.” Not here. When this Medvedenko asks Masha why she always wears black, she says, “I’m in mourning.” Full stop. Medvedenko then asks what’s she in mourning for, and she comes back with, “For my life.” Maybe Reiss has gone to Chekhov’s script–in Russian, of course–and discovered that’s how he wrote the exchange. If so, I stand corrected.

If not, leave it alone, and also trust the casting obligations. Seeing it any other way is madness. Throughout The Seagull, the characters talk about happiness and of what it’s constituted. They all want to be happy. Not one of them is. At this revival, I was in their unhappy number.

No Comments
Nov 30

5 Things We Know You Don't Know About Mark Twain

Posted in: Today's Chili

The adventures of Mark Twain, born Samuel Langhorne Clemens, certainly hold up to those of his spirited protagonists. Early on in life, he made “millions” prospecting in Nevada and then quickly lost it all. He somewhat accidentally joined the Confederate army for two weeks because he didn’t pay attention to politics at the time. As we know, he became the extremely well-respected author we’re familiar with, but also had years of bankruptcy even while he was successfully writing. One of those successful writings may have even been the first novel written on a typewriter.

Why is all of this trivia being thrown at you? Because Twain was born Nov. 30, 1835, and this is a celebration.

Twain was a dog lover, naming his collies “I Know,” “You Know” and “Don’t Know.” To remember the man, it’s not worth discussing facts about him that’ll make you say I know, but hopefully ones you don’t know … you know?

1. His friend Nikola Tesla may have made Mark Twain have an … accident.

The details of this legend are a bit murky, but, basically, Twain and Nikola Tesla knew each other from the same social club and one night Tesla invited Twain to his laboratory. According to an interview Tesla expert W. Bernard CarlsonIn did with PBS, a high frequency oscillator of Tesla’s then “[shook] the poop out of Mark Twain.” The author had been standing on Tesla’s machine for fun and then his body was affected by the vibrations.

James O’Neill’s book, Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla, talks about the story more fully, with commentary to the ordeal with Tesla apparently telling Twain at one point, “You have had enough Mr. Clemens. You had better come down.” Twain didn’t listen to his friend and stayed on the machine long enough for it to be a problem.

2. Mark Twain devoted a whole lecture to masturbation.

113488276

In 1879, Mark Twain, then 44, gave a speech entitled “Some Thoughts on the Science of Onanism” to a men’s club in Paris. At the time, masturbation was a taboo subject, but Twain wanted to give some humorous opinions on the matter, ultimately concluding that it wasn’t worthwhile.

In the lecture, Twain went on to say:

Of all the various kinds of sexual intercourse, this has the least to recommend it. As an amusement it is too fleeting; as an occupation it is too wearing; as a public exhibition there is no money in it. It is unsuited to the drawing room, and in the most cultured society it has long since been banished from the social board…

So, in concluding, I say: If you must gamble away your life sexually, don’t play a Lone Hand too much. When you feel a revolutionary uprising in your system, get your Vendôme Column down some other way — don’t jerk it down.

In case you’re wondering, the Vendôme Column was a memorial to a military victory by Napoleon Bonaparte. As you may have guessed, it’s rather phallic in shape.

3. Mark Twain invented one of the first bra straps.

151999306

In 1871, Twain (under his name Samuel Clemens) received a patent for a garment strap that was later patent-cited as source material for the bra. The Atlantic, where Twain was also published, looked into this invention and cited Twain:

The nature of my invention consists in an adjustable and detachable elastic strap for vests, pantaloons, or other garments requiring straps as will be hereinafter more fully set forth.

Although the use for bras was not mentioned in this patent, the contemporary bra wasn’t fashioned until later in the century.

Twain was pretty proud of his invention, writing in the patent, “The advantages of such an adjustable and detachable elastic strap are so obvious that they need no explanation.” Clearly he knew the strap held big things in its future.

Image: Google Patents

4. Mark Twain ensured Helen Keller’s education was completely paid for when she was still relatively unknown.

141554652

Helen Keller and Mark Twain met when she was just fourteen, the same age as Twain’s own daughter. After the meeting, Twain wrote to the wife of an oil magnate, who was also helping Twain exit bankruptcy at the time, convincing the magnate to fund Keller’s entire education. Both Keller and Twain remained good friends until his death.

Keller remembered Twain saying:

He entered into my limited world with enthusiasm just as he might have explored Mars. Blindness was an adventure that kindled his curiosity. He treated me not as a freak, but as a handicapped woman seeking a way to circumvent extraordinary difficulties. There was something of divine apprehension in this rare naturalness towards those who differ from others in external circumstances.

Image: WikiCommons

5. Mark Twain was born the same day as an appearance of Halley’s Comet. He predicted he would die — and did — when the comet returned.

171093043

Not only is it strange that Mark Twain was both born and died upon the appearances of Halley’s Comet, the author also predicted the latter would happen.

Albert Bigelow Paine’s 1910 book, Mark Twain: A Biography, quotes Twain:

I came in with Halley’s Comet in 1835. It is coming again next year, and I expect to go out with it. It will be the greatest disappointment of my life if I don’t go out with Halley’s Comet. The Almighty has said, no doubt: ‘Now here are these two unaccountable freaks; they came in together, they must go out together’.

For what it’s worth, Twain actually died one day after the comet’s reached perihelion; he died April 21, 1910.

Image Left: WikiCommons. Image Right: Getty.

BONUS: This is how Mark Twain got his name.

173466758

Most people know that Mark Twain is a pen name and that his real name is Samuel Clemens.

What you might not know though is that “Mark Twain” is actually a boating term that he picked up while sailing on steamboats across Missouri. The “mark twain” is where the water is determined to be 12 feet above a lead and safe enough for the steamboat to sail through. This term is one of many markers for the different depths such as “mark one” for six feet above the lead and “half twain,” which is 15 feet above.

Samuel Clemens eventually received his steamboat pilot license on April 9, 1859, presumably in part because he knew how to sail his boat through mark twain waters.

To Mark Twain …

TK TK gifs

All images Getty unless otherwise noted.

No Comments
Nov 30

Outrage In Germany After Woman Is Killed Defending Teenage Girls From Harassment

Posted in: Today's Chili

BERLIN (AP) — Germany’s president is considering awarding a posthumous medal to a young woman killed after defending two teenage girls from male harassment.

German news agency dpa reported Sunday that President Joachim Gauck was mulling the honor amid an outpouring of public outrage over the killing. Student teacher Tugce Albayrak died Friday, her 23rd birthday, after her family gave doctors permission to switch off her life support.

Albayrak had been in a coma after reportedly being struck in the head Nov. 15 following an altercation at a restaurant in Offenbach.

Police say an autopsy will be performed Monday to determine the exact cause of death. They are appealing for witnesses, including the teenage girls, to come forward.

An 18-year-old man identified only as Sanel M. is being held in custody.

No Comments
Nov 30

Photo Of Young Boy Hugging Officer At Ferguson Rally Goes Viral And Becomes 'Icon Of Hope'

Posted in: Today's Chili

As photos around the web show images of nationwide protests in reaction to the events in Ferguson, Missouri, one particular image has received widespread attention.

Earlier this week, freelance photographer Johnny Nguyen captured a photo of 12-year-old Devonte Hart during a Ferguson-related rally in Portland, Oregon.

Hart, an African-American boy, was holding a sign that read “Free Hugs,” and the image Nguyen took shows Hart with tears streaming down his face while in a heartfelt hug with a white police officer.

“It was an interesting juxtaposition that had to be captured. It fired me up,” Nguyen told The Huffington Post on Sunday. “I started shooting and before I knew it, there were hugging it out. I knew I had something special, something powerful.”

Nguyen said the photo has since been shared more than 400,000 times on Facebook and reposted on more than 68,000 Tumblr accounts.

According to The Oregonian, which was the first outlet to publish the photo, the officer pictured in the image is Portland Police Sgt. Bret Barnum, who reportedly saw Hart holding his sign and called him over to engage in a quick conversation about the protest, school and life.

Barnum then asked Hart for a hug — and it was during this moment that Nguyen captured the touching photo that he shared with the world.

“I’ve been told this photo has become an icon of hope in regard to race in America,” Nguyen said.

“Prior to that day, I would scroll through the Internet and see the photos of images out of Ferguson, which all showed some violence and anger — some even to the point of hatred and destruction. This was the first photo I saw that showed something positive. It showed humanity.”

Following the protest, Hart’s parents — Sarah and Jen Hart — wrote a Facebook post that detailed more about their son and the events that led to the moment captured in the photo.

“My son has a heart of a gold, compassion beyond anything I’ve ever experienced, yet struggles with living fearlessly when it comes to the police and people that don’t understand the complexity of racism that is prevalent in our society,” the post read. “It was one of the most emotionally charged experiences I’ve had as a mother.”

As the photo continues to spread across the web, Nguyen said he hopes it will provide some people with a sense of peace along with a message of love and compassion.

“In order to move on and progress toward real change, we need every reason for hope that can be garnered,” he said.

“We all have hurt in our heart but we have to turn that hurt into hope, hope for humanity. We need to find a way to come together and find a common ground and find peace.”

In doing so, Nguyen reflects on one particular quote from civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. that he believes really drives the message home.

“MLK once said: ‘Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.'” Nguyen recited. “I think that’s what my photo has done.”

No Comments
Nov 30

Prosecutors Repeatedly Stressed Brown's Pot Use

Posted in: Today's Chili

When St. Louis County Police conducted a followup interview of two construction workers who witnessed the Michael Brown shooting, a detective focused not on what they had seen but on a single word one of the men had said to Brown: “wax.”

No Comments
Nov 30

Feds Need Look No Further Than Rodney King for the Case Against Wilson

Posted in: Today's Chili

In August 1992, nearly three months to the day after the four LAPD officers that beat black motorist Rodney King were acquitted on nearly all charges by a jury with no blacks on it, Lourdes G. Baird, the United States Attorney for California’s Central District, stepped before a battery of news cameras and reporters and announced that three of the officers would face federal charges. The charges were violating King’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable arrest and with depriving him of his 14th Amendment due-process rights during his March, 1991 arrest. The four would face up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines if convicted.

The Justice Department’s decision to prosecute rested squarely on two compelling legal and public interest points, neither of which significantly involved any need to proof racial animus. The legal charges were that the officers who beat King acted under the color of the law. This violated a near century old federal statute that makes it a crime to deprive any person of a Constitutional right under the color of law. The statute specifically targeted police officers and public officials who abuse their authority and violate public trust by physically victimizing citizens.

The Justice Department assigned more than a dozen agents to the case, and a team of civil rights attorneys and investigators. It repeatedly fended off loud criticisms that the prosecution was a racial witch hunt to satisfy the clamor from civil rights organizations and a sop to African-Americans who blasted their acquittal in state court. This charge was continually leveled at then President George H.W. Bush who green-lighted the federal prosecution. He was accused of caving in to the threat of more bloody riots if he didn’t act.

There would have been absolutely no chance to bring, let alone get, convictions of the officers if there had been even the remotest public hint that race was the sole reason for the federal prosecution. The Justice Department had to bring, argue and try to win their convictions exclusively on the evidence and testimony that the cops violated the federal statutes in beating King. Baird reiterated the point: “Racial motivation is not an element of any of these charges.”

Twenty-two years later, the situation with Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson is nearly identical. The instant the call went up for a federal investigation and prosecution of Wilson on civil rights charges in the slaying of Michael Brown, the same loud scream was heard that Wilson broke no law, acted under color of authority, and that any federal action against him was done solely to appease civil rights organizations that clamored for his head. The Ferguson grand jury decision not to indict him brought the same outcry that the state trial and acquittal of the four LAPD cops who beat King brought, namely that there are no grounds for a separate federal action against him.

Federal prosecutors in the King case knocked that down when they made clear that the jury decision did not satisfy the federal requirement for the presentation of fair, unbiased evidence and witness testimony in a publicly charged trial. The same argument stands with the Ferguson grand jury. The gaping holes, inconsistencies, contradictions and omission in and of the testimony and evidence presented to the grand jury, as well as the dismissal of witness testimony that would have rebutted Wilson’s story, was ignored. This violated the fundamental precept of how a grand jury is supposed to function.

Even U.S. Supreme Court Antonin Scalia, the hardest of hard-nosed in defending absolute police power, noted that it is the grand jury’s function not “to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,” or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine “upon what foundation [the charge] is made” by the prosecutor. Scalia made one more another crucial point that debunks any notion the Ferguson proceeding was fair. This was the four-hour guided testimony of Wilson. Scalia noted that “neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented. “

Brown as was King was unarmed. Brown and King were not charged with a crime when detained. Brown as King received injuries after he ceased resisting. Brown as King was abused during an official stop. These, as they were with King, are compelling civil rights violations.

Associate Attorney General Wayne Budd, who directed the federal investigation into the King beating case, issued this terse statement after the indictment of the LAPD cops was announced “The Department of Justice has a responsibility to vindicate the violation of the fundamental rights protected by the United States Constitution.” The indictment he said was the first step toward fulfilling that responsibility.

The Justice Department should take the same step in the Brown slaying it took 22 years ago in the King beating case. That is to fulfill its responsibility and prosecute Wilson.

—

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour heard weekly on the nationally network broadcast Hutchinson Newsmaker Network.

No Comments
Nov 30

Evidence Photos Prove Michael Brown Hit Darren Wilson So Hard, He Almost Left A Mark

Posted in: Today's Chili

Photos released by the St. Louis County Prosecutor’s Office of Officer Darren Wilson, taken shortly after his altercation with 18-year-old Michael Brown on August 9, 2014, appear to prove that Brown hit Officer Wilson so hard in the face that a mark was almost left on Wilson’s skin. In one of the photos, the skin above Wilson’s right jawbone is possibly reddened slightly.

“What these photos show, I think, is that Mr. Brown hit Officer Wilson in the face with such force that a little red mark was left there,” said St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch. “That kind of inflammation of the skin is something that is not to be tolerated, with regard to the faces of law enforcement officers.”

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, and also in his grand jury testimony, Wilson described the punches Brown hit him with as so powerful that he might not survive even one more of them.

“The next thing was, how do I survive?” Wilson said in the ABC interview, referring to the moment following the first series of punches. “I didn’t know if I’d be able to withstand another hit like that.”

Wilson’s grand jury testimony contains a very similar passage, where Wilson says, “I felt that another of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse. I mean it was he’s obviously bigger than I was and stronger…. I’ve already taken two to the face, and I didn’t think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right.”

According to Josh Lovett of UCLA Medical Center, Wilson had reason to fear for his life.

“I mean, look at the results of the other punches that landed,” Lovett said. “They resulted in a mark that may in fact be reddening of the skin, and maybe even some puffiness. That’s scary stuff, especially for a law enforcement officer. Very scary.”

In his press conference following the announcement that there would be no inictment of Officer Wilson, McCulloch, the prosecuting attorney, sought to point out the fact that Wilson’s skin is especially sensitive.

“I would say it’s obviously above average in terms of its sensitivity,” McCulloch said. “You can see it in the photos. Now, I’m not saying the irritation Officer Wilson’s skin suffered at the hands of Michael Brown justifies the shooting, but I do think people need to take extra care when getting into altercations with law enforcement officers who may have skin sensitivity issues, like Officer Wilson clearly has. Any contact could cause more inflammation, more swelling than it would on someone who doesn’t have the same sensitivity issue. And I think that needs to be taken into account.”

McCulloch had previously taken the unusual step of releasing all of the evidence seen by the grand jury, because, he says, he wanted the public to have all the facts. He says part of the reason he took that step was precisely because of issues like Officer Wilson’s sensitive skin.

“I want them to see the whole picture, not just selected snippets that they’ve gotten from social media and elsewhere,” McCulloch said. “Things aren’t always cut and dried and simple. This may appear to many to be a case of a police officer overstepping his authority, because he shot an unarmed teenager. But then you look at these photos, and you say, ‘Whoa, wait a minute. This officer has a skin sensitivity issue. I didn’t know that before.’ And that may affect how you see the situation from then on, because now you have all the facts.”

Visit The National Protrusion as often as humanly possible.

No Comments