February 24, 2019
This seven minute unnerving documentary was nominated for an Academy Award. It did not win. Too much for the Academy to acknowledge. It actually happened here.
Attached is a link to the documentary
February 24, 2019
Jeff Adachi. One of a kind.
The phrase “irreplaceable” is the only way to describe the loss of Jeff and what will be missed with his sudden departure from the scene.
Personally, I am devastated.
I first saw Jeff Adachi speak in 1999 at the Golden Gate University Law School. I was totally swept away by his intelligence, knowledge and unwavering advocacy for his clients.
During the past 20 years I followed Jeff’s career, his zealous defense of his clients and his unabashed willingness to call out law enforcement for its inappropriate and, some time, illegal behavior.
One can only hope that whoever steps into Jeff’s position as Public Defender will bring a similar commitment to serving Justice and calling out law enforcement.
New York Times 2.22.2019
Any reader who is taken aback by the anecdotes discussed in the article has watched Mary Poppins too many times. The Republicans must be jumping for joy. Senator Klobuchar is a candidate who could defeat Trump. The Times is doing the dirty work for this misogynist abuser. Who needs Roger Stone when the Times is carrying the ball for Trump? This is a vile hit piece. Nothing more. Guys are just as bad in their behavior. When is The Times going to unload its faux fury on a man?
Voters have short attention spans. Senator Klobuchar was one Senator who very effectively got under the skin of now Justice Kavanaugh. The Senator may not be Ms. Congeniality. She gets the job done.
The Germans have a robust profile as international arms merchants. Sales and profits from munitions keep drug cartels in business. Read my earlier post about the courageous journalist Anabel Hernandez.
Deutsche Welle 2.21.2019
Two former staff members at the weapons manufacturer were given suspended sentences for violating Germany’s War Weapons Control Act for their involvement in the delivery of machine guns to Mexico.
The 10-month trial of former employees of Germany’s biggest gun-maker, Heckler & Koch, ended in disappointment for arms trade opponents as former CEOs were acquitted for their part in the illegal sale of G36 assault rifles to Mexico between 2006 and 2009, while Marianne B. and Ingo S., employees with largely administrative duties, were found guilty.
A few boos rang out in the courtroom as Judge Frank Maurer read the verdict, especially as Peter B., a former CEO, was found not guilty. The executive, who was also H&K’s main contact with government export authorities, was the most powerful of the defendants, none of whom showed a visible reaction as the verdict was read.
The judge’s narrow legal focus drew outrage from the gallery. After he dismissed what he called the “populist” argument that the “executioners” were being condemned while the big decision-makers were being let go, Grässlin called out, “That’s exactly how it is!” Afterwards, Grässlin called the verdict an example of “two-class justice,” and said the trial had revealed how ineffective Germany’s arms export controls are.
The company Heckler & Koch itself was fined €3.7 million ($4.2 million), the approximate value of the guns at the time of their sale. That came as a welcome surprise to veteran anti-arms trade activist Jürgen Grässlin, who had initially pressed the charges and had expected a fine based only on the profits from the illegal sale. He added that the fine could exacerbate H&K’s financial troubles.
https://www.dw.com/en/heckler-koch-fined-37-million-over-illegal-arms-sales-to-mexico/a-47610975
CNN 2.21.2019
Photo by Lee Heidhues. Strikers at 12th and Oak Streets
(CNN)Of all the teachers’ strikes across the country, this one is especially consequential.
Clarence Thomas who has spent nearly 30 years trashing civil liberties has now set his sights on the Free Press. This is the same sexual abuser who trashed Anita Hill and lied his way on to the Supreme Court with an assist from then Senate Judiciary Chairman Joe Biden.
Excerpted from New York Times – Adam Liptak 2.20.2019
WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.
He said the decision had no basis in the Constitution as it was understood by the people who drafted and ratified it.
“New York Times and the court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,” Justice Thomas wrote.
Justice Thomas, writing only for himself, made his statement in a concurring opinion agreeing that the court had correctly turned down an appeal from Kathrine McKee, who has accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault. She sued Mr. Cosby for libel after his lawyer said she had been dishonest.
Justice Thomas’s statement came in the wake of complaints from President Trump that libel laws make it too hard for public officials to win libel suits.
“I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Mr. Trump said on the campaign trail. “We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”
Thanks to the Sullivan decision, it is indeed hard for public figures to win libel suits. They have to prove that something false was said about them, that it harmed their reputation and that the writer acted with “actual malice.” That last term is misleading, as it has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of malice in the sense of spite or ill will.
To prove actual malice under the Sullivan decision, a libel plaintiff must show that the writer knew the disputed statement was false or had acted with “reckless disregard.” That second phrase is also a term of art. The Supreme Court has said that it requires proof that the writer entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.
Justice Thomas questioned those standards.
“There appears to be little historical evidence suggesting that the New York Times actual-malice rule flows from the original understanding of the First or Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote.
Deutsche Welle 2.19.2019
A daring journalist who has spent her career reporting on drug cartels and corruption in Mexico, Anabel Hernández is the fifth person — and first woman — to receive the Deutsche Welle Freedom of Speech Award.
Born in Mexico, Anabel Hernández began her career in journalism in 1993, working for the newspaper Reforma while still a student in university. In the decades that followed, Hernandez has made a name for herself as one of Mexico’s leading investigative journalists, publishing stories of government corruption, sexual exploitation and drug trafficking.
That groundbreaking reporting, which includes two books investigating the interconnections between Mexican government officials at all levels and the leading drug cartels in the country, has come with a price. Hernández currently lives in exile, having fled Mexico after credible death threats directed at her and her children.
“During this dramatic period in Mexico’s history, silence is killing men, women and children, ordinary members of civil society, it is killing human rights defenders, it is killing government officials, and it is killing journalists,” she said when accepting the Golden Pen of Freedom Award in 2012.
“But breaking the silence can also be deadly,” she added.
Hernández has intimate knowledge of the dangers that citizens in Mexico face as a result of the country’s criminality. Her father, who initially discouraged her ambitions of becoming a journalist, was murdered in Mexico City in 2000. His killing remains unsolved as her family refused to pay the officials who were tasked with the investigation. Hernández said that his murder is what drives her work.
After five years of research, Hernández published the book Los Señores del Narco in 2010 (released in English in 2013 under the title, Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords And Their Godfathers). The book thoroughly explores those behind the drug cartels. It shows how utterly interwoven the “narco system” is into the fabric of everyday life in Mexico and the complicity of politicians, the military and businessmen in the drug trade.
“Between them all, they have turned Mexico into a graveyard,” she wrote.
The detailed accounting of corruption was a best-seller upon its release in Mexico. It also earned Hernandez numerous death threats. She was later assigned bodyguards for around-the-clock protection.
“After I published Los Señores del Narco in Spanish — now Narcoland in English — I received death threats. Last June, someone left decapitated animals in front of my house,” Hernández told The Nation magazine in October 2013. “It’s sad to say, but I didn’t receive the threats from the drug cartels. I received the threats from the federal government, from the most powerful chief of police in Mexico.”
https://www.dw.com/en/anabel-hern%C3%A1ndez-honored-with-dw-freedom-of-speech-award-2019/a-47535543
Every Picture Tells a Story. Ongoing Series
“Proud to be an American at a Trump Rally in Missoula, Montana, October 2018.”
Photo. Foreign Affairs Magazine March April 2019
Deutsche Welle 2.18.2019
Producers of the film ‘Berlin, I Love You’ have cited Chinese influence as the reason they cut Ai Weiwei’s segment. The artist told DW that the Berlin International Film Festival suggested his section be removed.
Ai is an outspoken critic of China’s government and spent four years under house arrest in China until he was finally allowed to leave the country in July 2015. He then moved to Berlin.
The Berlin Film Festival told DW they do not comment on films that had not been selected, but added: “We can confirm that the involvement of Ai Weiwei would never be a criteria for choosing or not choosing a film.”
Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei’s segment in the film “Berlin, I Love You” was cut from the final version due to concerns the artist had become a political liability, the artist and film producers said.
“The reason we were given for the episode’s removal was that my political status had made it difficult for the production team to secure further funding,” Ai told DW reporter Melissa Chan.
Ai told DW that the Berlin International Film Festival had suggested his participation in the film had made it difficult for the producers to submit it as an entry to the event, a claim the festival has denied.
“[The producers] told me they submitted this film to the Berlin Film Festival and the festival told them, if Ai Weiwei’s in there, the film can never be accepted,” Ai said.
DW’s Melissa Chan reviewed a document which appeared to confirm Ai’s story.
“Berlin, I Love You” is not the only film to have succumbed to apparent influence from China. Earlier, top Chinese director Zhang Yimou withdrew his film “One Second” — set during the Cultural Revolution — from consideration for the Berlinale’s prized Golden Bear in what is widely believed to be censorship and control by Chinese officials.
https://www.dw.com/en/chinese-artist-ai-weiweis-segment-cut-from-berlin-i-love-you/a-47575219
SCARY. We know what the Ayatollahs think about women’s place in society.
Deutsche Welle 2.17.2019
Iranian state TV did not broadcast a Bundesliga soccer match because of the presence of a woman as referee, media say. The Islamic country censors the showing of women in “revealing” clothes such as football shorts.
Bibiana Steinhaus, 39, is the first woman to have officiated at men’s football matches at a professional level in Germany. She refereed her first Bundesliga match in September 2017.
The broadcast was reportedly canceled because the Iran’s strict Islamic regulations do not allow the showing of images of women wearing clothes that reveal large amounts of skin, such as football shorts.
Lee's Perspective 