The Opera

The Secret Behind My Empathy

By Michael Tennant
Illustration Rebecca Ustrell
This was produced by Curious Publishing The Pomonan is Co-Publishing this article.
Published 5/17/2022 10:03Am PST

Michael Tennant, is an award-winning media, advertising, and nonprofit veteran for companies like MTV, VICE Media, P&G, CocaCola, and Google. In the 2000s, he sat front seat to the rise of VICE, today’s leading voice in millennial media, and brought with him a dedicated approach to long-term authentic community building. He created Curiosity Lab to be a radical example in media and advertising of business diversification and progressively inclusive hiring practices. Today, Curiosity Lab is a growing product, content, and consulting business that uses storytelling to drive change.

Empathy and consistency have been my guide and the secret to my recent good fortune. At first, this routine of consistent empathy check-ins with myself literally saved my life. When I learned of the passing of my older brother, I turned to the habits that gave me a guaranteed instant escape, drugs, and alcohol.


It was when my body seized up and I thought I’d have a heart attack if I went to sleep, that I knew I needed to form some other habits or it would cost me my life.


From a life or death situation to living every day as though it might be my last. Reflective questions became my default. Questions like, if today was my last on this earth, how would I want to spend it? Or, if the way I’m spending my time, with this person, or that task, doesn’t feel good to me, then what’s the point in me doing it?

Empathy, my dear friends, is not about how I treat other people. It’s a part of it, yes, but the real daily consistent work is more about how I respond to the emotional quality of what I encounter. How am I feeling? How are those who are involved feeling?
It is a different orientation toward the world than what I was taught, or what I know naturally, so it really does take daily practice.

The good news is that this approach has allowed me to work at a high level, while also listening in for signals that I need a break in order to remain resilient. My body has some consistent ways of warning me about burnout. My shoulders might get tense. My skin might be sensitive to the touch. These are extreme cases that I’ve only recently learned.

Some relatable ones to most people might be the pit that might develop at the top of my abdomen every time a name or situation is brought up. Or a situation that visits me in my sleep, my meditation, or when I’m trying to rest and be at play. These were once the very situations that I drowned in a bottle and obsessed over with willing commiserates and some lines. Today, these are the uncomfortable situations that I address head-on with myself and the ones that I love.

Rebecca Ustrell is an artist and the Founder and Director at Curious Publishing, Project Manager for Curiosity Lab, and Event & Engagement Coordinator The Arts Area.

Critique of Zionist Propaganda

By Gilbert Aguirre
Published 2/23/2022 6:00Am PST
Photography Ahmed Abu Hameeda

An email sent to UCR students from the UCR Life email list on May 27, 2021, caught recipient’s attention with the subject heading: Antisemitism then and now. Instead of providing information on antisemitism, an abhorrent form of discrimination which has no place in civil society, the piece intended to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and erase the existence and justified resistance of Palestinian people. This is my critique of the interview of UCR Jewish Studies professor Michael Alexander, and his interviewer Omar Shamout, for the disingenuous framing of critiques of the apartheid, settler-colonial state of Israel as antisemitic. Their discussion can be read here (1).

In the article’s opening lines, anti-Zionists educated on what anti-Zionism and antisemitism are, are made aware that the framing of this article is entirely disingenuous— the working definition of antisemitism in the article comes from the Anti-Defamation League, which classifies antisemitism as being “based on age-old stereotypes and myths that target Jews as a people, their religious practices and beliefs, or the Jewish State of Israel” (2). I will repeat that antisemitism, like all forms of prejudice, is absolutely abhorrent and must be destroyed by any means necessary. However, in framing critiques of Israel as antisemitic, activists fighting for justice in Palestine are silenced, as the Anti-Defamation League’s definition of antisemitism functions to quell dissent of Israel. Shamout proceeds to frame the purpose of his interview with Alexander as a response to “data compiled by the Anti-Defamation League [which] shows an increase in violent attacks, vandalism and harassment of Jews in the U.S., around the world, and online, since fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas earlier this month.” So, in analyzing this framing, actual antisemitic attacks are being lumped in with “vandalism and harassment,” keeping in mind that the working definition of antisemitism in Shamout’s piece includes critique of Israel as antisemitic, vandalizing the term “Free Palestine” on a wall, or critiquing Israel on twitter would also qualify as antisemitic. Again, critiquing Israel is not antisemitic, and this framing portrays a fictitious world in which critiques of Israel have the same material impacts on Jewish people as violent hate crimes committed by white supremacists.

Additionally, the data compiled by the ADL reporting an increase in antisemitism is contested. In an analytical article published by Jewish Currents, a magazine committed to leftist Jewish discourse, Mari Cohen questions and analyzes the data and methods that contribute to the ADL’s report. Cohen, like many leftists, is concerned by the weaponizing of anti-Zionism as antisemitism, and her analysis contributes greatly to how the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism contributes to misinformation and skewed data— which the ADL’s report exemplifies (3).

Another part of my critique will include the constant erasure of Palestinian people and Palestine as a sovereign state. In the quotation provided above, Shamout makes his first attempt, through the phrase “fighting broke out between Israel and Gaza’s militant rulers Hamas—“ not Israel and Palestine, not the Israeli Defense Force and Palestinian’s resistance movement, not Israel’s occupying force and the Palestinian resistance; Shamout erases Palestine entirely, as if it were a dirty word. Shamout proceeds in the next paragraph to use the problematic framing that critique of Israel equates to antisemitism to assert, “while hatred toward Jews is sadly nothing new, these incidents are framed against the backdrop of recent Middle East violence, a surge in pro-Palestinian sentiment,” which implies that Palestinian existence is itself a problem. So I ask, what exactly does the term “pro-Palestinian sentiment” imply? What makes “pro-Palestinian sentiment,” in other words defense of Palestinian’s right to exist and resist violence from the state of Israel, support hatred towards Jewish people? Would the international movements and demonstrations against police violence after the murder of George Floyd be considered “pro-Black sentiment”? Why is Palestinian existence framed as a problem?

Shamout almost comes to see that anti-Zionism is separate from antisemitism when he asks Alexander, “Many of the recent antisemitic incidents have used the term ‘Zionism.’ Can you explain what Zionism meant historically, what it means today, and how the term has been used by racists to target jews?” To which Alexander gives a bloated, incoherent response that doesn’t state the clear intentions of Zionism, which is a colonial project whose modern conception was proposed and propagated by Theodor Herzl (4).

Zionism, a political position, is framed by Alexander as, “simply Jewish nationalism: the desire for the Jewish people to have and hold their own state,” ignoring that this political position hinges upon the colonization of Palestine, and the genocide of its native occupants. Alexander seems to support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as he states, “Let’s not forget, the logic of self-determination implies the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority. Cleanse or be cleansed. The logic is stark, but to date it remains the main means by which nation states are formed.” So I ask, how did UCR News allow this violent, genocidal speech to get published to its student body? How can a professor be unashamed of giving a defense of what he himself refers to as “the cleansing of everybody else in order to achieve a majority”?

Shamout, expecting an answer to the question “So it’s fair to say that not all critiques of Zionism should be cast as antisemitic?” receives another bloated, asinine response where Alexander goes to further defend genocide. Alexander proposes a both-sides defense of genocide in his next monologue, again not answering the question, as he states, “Zionism is as legitimate and as problematic as any other nationalism”— to this point I argue that nationalism against an oppressive force is legitimate (5). Nationalism against colonizing forces has been used historically by Cubans proud of their nation’s decolonial revolution, the Irish Republican Army’s resistance against British colonial rule, and Palestinians’ fight against the Israeli government that actively pushes Palestinians out of their homes, murders Palestinian children, and bombs densely populated territories (6).That nationalism is quite separate from nationalism that seeks to oppress another group, and expand the nation’s borders, disregarding human rights and international law— which is precisely what Palestinians have been resisting since the birth of Zionism. Alexander continues, “it is problematic in the sense that having formed an ethnic majority, Israel turns around and polices its remaining minorities.” As a reminder, the minorities Alexander refuses to name are Palestinians. Additionally, the Palestinians Alexander refuses to name have only become minorities as a result of Israeli occupation, a modern project that ironically results in some Palestinians being older than the illegitimate state of Israel. “Nearly all majorities do this. This past year, we all saw once again how the American policing of minorities is no exception. The problem of minorities is systemic and is not particular to Israel or to the U.S. Yet that does not excuse Israel from the need to acknowledge and cease the violence of its nation building.” Although implicitly, excusing is exactly what Alexander is doing. To both-sides and what-about state violence via settler-colonialism and white supremacist policing in both Israel and the United States is a disingenuous deflection that attempts to justify the violence of Israel. Alexander is saying— Yeah, it sucks, but that’s just how it goes. By putting on an apolitical mask, in this case and in any other case, it is very clear that the person engaging in the both-sides / what-about argument is on the side of the oppressor. In the last two sentences of his pro-genocide diatribe, it appears Alexander returns to answer Shamout's question on whether or not all critiques of Zionism equate to antisemitism, I am not sure because Alexander has thus far shown a clear aversion to answering any question directly. He states, “I would say this is the great moral imperative and conundrum of the Jewish people in our time. Still, it is a conundrum that rightly should be admitted and shared by hundreds of nations and national movements.” Again, an asinine non-answer that serves to conflate all Jewish people with the ideology of Zionism, to serve Alexander’s personal political agenda. 


At the interview’s conclusion, Shamout asks Alexander, “what do you think are the best ways to combat antisemitism in our communities, both physical and online?” to which Alexander does not speak to antisemitism, but once again to the prospects and effects of propagating Zionism without consequence. His opening statement to this sentence is, again, incoherent, so I’ve done the work of decoding it. He states, “I would need to expand the purview of the mandate to include the elimination of Islamophobia and the denial of Palestinian rights to a free and self-determined state.” This thirty-one word sentence means almost nothing, but serves to frame the Israeli occupation of Palestine as a religious issue. Contrary to what Alexander is propagating, there are Palestinians of Muslim faith, Christian faith, Jewish faith, and atheists (7)— keep in mind the question Shamout asked concerned how to combat antisemitism, but Alexander’s monologue concerns Zionism. In the following sentence, Alexander reveals his true intentions as he states, “it would also have to include complete civil rights for Palestinians and other minorities who are Israeli citizens.” By granting Palestinians citizenship status, he is finally revealing his agenda as a one state solution Zionist. Under the proposed civil rights, Palestinians won’t have their land, and they would be citizens of the illegitimate state of Israel that imposed itself unto the Palestinian people.

Ultimately, this interview published by UCR News is unacceptable in its disingenuous framing of a human rights issue that affects the lives of real people, and has affected the lives of Palestinian students at UCR. In framing critiques of Zionism as antisemitic, and speaking almost exclusively to Zionism in an interview which is supposedly about antisemitism, Alexander constructs an argument that, within the argument’s fabrication, cannot be critiqued without being antisemitic. Furthermore, the answers Alexander gives are so bloated and incoherent, I don’t understand how he is a professor at UCR, as I’ve had more coherent and substantive conversations with my five year old brother, who would stand firmly against genocide if knowledgable enough to understand it— not provide a both-sides / what-about defense so that his in-group can commit atrocities without critique. To be explicit, my use of “in-group” is not an allusion to an antisemitic conspiracy, but a direct contention of the conflation of critiques of Zionism as antisemitic— a clear and obvious disingenuous framing that uses identity as a shield and weaponizes actual hate towards Jewish people, which has material consequences and thus should not be minimized to serve a political agenda.

LINKS

In Defense of a Lone Revolutionary: Christopher Dorner, Resistance, and Narrative - Parts One & Two

Essay by Gilbert Aguirre
Parts One & Two
Published 02/03/2022 11:05 Pm PST

Dorner’s Story

“The warranty of sanity is worth only as much as the social processes that generate it. I perceive a difference, however, between the collective outrages that we sometimes label madness and the idiosyncratic act of an individual “ Robert M. Cover, 1982


This is an analysis of ex-LAPD officer and former Navy reservist Christopher Dorner who was entrapped and killed by police in 2013. Southern California police conducted a manhunt for Dorner after he was the prime suspect in the murder of former LAPD captain Randal Quan’s daughter and her fiancée. Dorner posted an eighteen page manifesto on Facebook with the opening lines:

“From: Christopher Jordan Dorner /7648

To: America

Subj: Last resort

Regarding CF# 07-004281”

The case file number at the end of this citation refers to the complaint levied against Dorner that lead to him being fired by LAPD. This complaint was levied against Dorner, in his perspective, because he called out the abuse of his partner Teresa Evans who kicked a handcuffed, mentally ill man in the face. The reason Dorner sees the complaint levied against him as retaliation is because the department claimed he fabricated the incident entirely, and that lying about Teresa Evans’ conduct is the reason for his termination (Dorner,2013). 

During the investigation that lead to Dorner’s termination, Dorner claims to have revealed a conflict of interest amongst the Board of Rights judges that were to decide on his case, as the judges were friends and close colleagues to Evans, but of course these conflicts of interest were undressed (2). Thus, in response to having lost his job, Dorner states,

“I have exhausted all available means at obtaining my name back. I have attempted all legal court efforts within appeals at the Superior Courts and California Appellate courts. This is my last resort. The LAPD has suppressed the truth and it has now lead to deadly consequences.” Christopher Dorner, 2013.

The feeling of betrayal, and disillusionment of the prestige of empire because of how its corruption affected him, lead to Dorner’s individual acts of violence for personal redemption. After killing the daughter of the former LAPD captain who represented Dorner in his case, as well as her fiancée, Dorner was traveling east through Southern California and had shootouts with cops in Corona and Riverside. Including Dorner himself and the couple he killed, five people died in the process of the manhunt. Dorner was finally entrapped in Big Bear, California and surrounded by police in a cabin. They set the cabin aflame with Dorner inside, he was reportedly found with a gunshot wound in his head, likely fired by Dorner himself.



State Violence “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”
—Carl Schmitt


Abolitionist scholar Dylan Rodriguez makes the important clarification that “police brutality” is a ham-fisted term, that rather the brutality of the police is simply cops doing their job. In his own words, Rodriguez argues, the term police brutality “is often used to refer to violent police practices that are utterly, ritually sanctioned by law”. Dorner speaks to this in his critique of Latino cops targeting and harassing Latino immigrants— because of their marginalized status in the United States empire, law sanctions more violent consequences for undocumented citizens. To this point, the former police chief Randal Quan— who represented Dorner in his case to the Board of Rights— and whom’s daughter Dorner killed, refers to himself as “a cop who had been respectful to everyone he arrested” (LA Times, 2013), the irony of this statement does not escape this writer just as it should not escape the reader. It is tremendously easy for a cop, whose occupation permits him to wield and exercise power as he sees fit, to view himself as having engaged in respectability politics while ruining the lives of others— this is simply what the job of being an arm of the state requires and incentivizes. As an arm of the state, the former LAPD captain Randal Quan is illusioned by his role of power, and is unable to see the contradiction of respectfully enforcing law to arrest and imprison the populace he claims to protect. Quan was so illusioned, he couldn’t imagine how someone, anyone, would want to retaliate against him or his family as a result of the “respect” he showed while subjugating Los Angeles community members to state violence.

In searching for Dorner after he was known to be the perpetrator of the murder of Randal Quan’s daughter Monica Quan, and her fiancée Keith Lawrence who was a Public Safety Officer for USC, Southern California police were on high alert (Research 15). And, as police on high alert typically equates to extreme violence without provocation, nearly killed three innocent civilians in Torrence, California. 

The first women, who made the mistake of driving a truck while Southern California police were conducting a manhunt, were delivering newspapers in the early hours of the  morning. The women, 71 year old Emma Hernandez and her 47 year old daughter Margie Carranza were going about their daily shift, delivering newspapers to a house that was under high security due to one of the residents being a high ranking officer. The truck Hernandez and her daughter were driving in was shot at over one hundred times (Sasha Goldstein, 2019).

A 4.2 million dollar settlement was eventually reached for Hernandez and Carranza. However, the discourse at the time makes it clear that police feel entitled to their power, and thus should only rarely face consequences. A “use-of-force expert” interviewed for the Los Angeles Times critiqued the large settlement, because “a payout of this magnitude typically comes in cases with crippling injuries and deaths” (Andrew Blankstein LA TImes 2013). This reality reveals that the motive of operations for the police is, again, not on accountability or public safety. The women shot at over one hundred times by seven different cops, each sustaining gunshot wounds, is somehow not enough damage or terror to justify a high settlement.

This sly, disingenuous discourse that surrounds— not “police brutality,” but policing— is what Christopher Dorner was disillusioned with. The lack of accountability sustained by state violence and disseminated through mass media and pseudo-intellectual rightwing discourse exist to reinforce the idea that police have a right to exist, and that their existence is somehow separate from, and not intrinsic to, extreme violence and repression.

Resistance

“Any group that seeks the transformation of the surrounding social world must evolve a mechanism for such change. There must be a theory and practice of apostolic ministry to the unconverted, a theory and practice of Leninist selection of cadres and class-consciousness- raising activity, or a theory and practice of legislation and deliberative politics. Of course, some associations - most limited-purpose ones - strive for small change in a world understood to be unproblematic if ill defined.” —Robert M. Cover

In this section I will be critiquing Christopher Dorner’s attempt at resistance. As I have made clear my support and admiration for Dorner’s resistance, here I will critique the individualist nature of his actions by placing it in context with an editorial released by The Black Panther Party’s newspaper, The Black Panther, in 1968. Although he sought to wage a war against the police, his resistance was shortsighted and not based in firm ideological ground, despite his staunch commitment to egalitarianism, informed by his liberal conception of race and indoctrination into the empire’s nomos, namely the illusion of American exceptionalism and the prestige of empire. In Dorner’s manifesto, he offers the problematic assertion, “I’m not an aspiring rapper, I’m not a gang member, I’m not a dope dealer, I don’t have multiple babies momma’s,” this inclusion in the manifesto functions as Dorner’s attempt to separate himself from racist stereotypes of Black men. Instead of critiquing these caricatures as problematic and rooted in white supremacist ideology, Dorner repeats them as truisms, so to say “I agree with those descriptions of The Other— believe me when I tell you I am not them— I am one of you.” In the manifesto, he continues; “I am an American by choice, I am a son, I am a brother, I am a military service member, I am a man who has lost complete faith in the system, when the system betrayed, slandered, and libeled me”.

I draw this point to critique Dorner’s ideology, which throughout his manifesto ranges from radical, to liberal, and even to prideful of the US empire. His logical ground, firmly against corruption but unable to see that the empire he praises is itself corrupt, lead him to confusion and anger— these feelings are what produced Dorner’s militant, shortsighted action.

So, what is resistance in the wild west? And where did Dorner go wrong? I will answer these questions with an excerpt from The Black Panther from a larger editorial entitled “Correcting Mistaken Ideas.” In the editorial, written by a Black Panther member by the name of Capt. Crutch,  the writer critiques the hyper-militant ideology of members of the Black Liberation Army— asserting that their refusal to work on propaganda and community outreach renders them useless and a threat to the revolutionary movement. A list he provides is pertinent to understand the misguided base of Dorner’s resistance. Captain Crutch states:

“The sources of the purely militant viewpoint are:

  1. A low political level

  2. The mentality of mercenaries.

  3. Over confidence in the military strength and absence of confidence in the strength of the masses of the people. This arises from the preceding three.”

By applying this critique to Dorner’s ideology, which he presents in his manifesto, and observing its impact on how his resistance manifested materially, we can better understand where Dorner went wrong. In observing a critique of The Black Liberation Army by The Black Panther Party, we are able to see how a political organization aimed at revolution, which understands “military affairs are only one means of accomplishing political tasks… We must not confine ourselves merely to fighting,” (Crunch) can work to provide an educational basis that would quell the purely militant viewpoint, and provide a network of resistance, as opposed to individual and isolated acts of violence against the oppressor.

The “low political level” Crutch critiques of the militant viewpoint are present in Dorner’s manifesto, as Dorner praises corrupt politicians such as “honorable President George H.W. Bush”; affirms to Hillary Clinton that “much like your husband, Bill, you will be one of the greatest… He was always my favorite president”; provides encouragement to Governor Chris Christie, stating “you’re the only person I would like to see in the White House in 2016 other than Hillary” (Crutch, Capt. 2017); and his misguided praise of Joe Biden, stating, “I’ve always been a fan of yours and consider you one of the few genuine and charismatic politicians” (11). Moreover, along with displaying a low political level in his manifesto, Dorner also displays the mentality of a mercenary, as his direct action against the LAPD, he states numerous times, is being done to clear his name— Dorner states explicitly, “The attacks will stop when the department states the truth about my innocence, PUBLICLY!!!”. These beliefs held by Dorner, alongside his racialized critique of the populace he separates himself from, further articulates what Crutch calls an “absence of confidence in the strength of the masses of the people” Thus, although being released forty-five years before Dorner’s resistance and death, his ideology and ill-informed resistance are precisely what Crutch criticizes. Crutch does not stop at criticism in his editorial for The Black Panther, he proceeds to offer solutions:

“The methods of correction are as follows.

Raise the political level in the party by means of education. At the same time, eliminate the remnants of opportunism and putschism and break-down selfish departmentalism.

  1. Intensify the political training of officers and men. Select workers and people experienced in struggle to join the party; thus, organizationally weakening or even eradicating the purely military viewpoint.

  2. The party must actively attend to and discuss military work.

  3. Draw up party rules and regulations which clearly define its tasks, the relationship between its military and its political apparatus, and the relationship between the party and the masses of the people.” (23)

These solutions, beginning with raising the political education of party members, an insistence on political training and its relation to militant action, and the enforcement of these practices via party rules are important in leading to an understanding of why Dorner’s story is critical to both narratives of resistance, and resistance in praxis. It is clear that Crutch is not disavowing the Black Liberation Army, but is rather being critical of them because their praxis, void of ideology, makes them less dependable, and thus harder to be in solidarity with.

PART TWO

Crutch’s critique provides a roadmap for people who both believe in and practice resistance against state violence, and also illustrate the importance of critical solidarity. By being critical and honest about Dorner’s low political education, his mercenary mentality, and his lack of faith in the rest of society, we are made aware of the necessity for political education and a network of support for radicals, disillusioned by the prestige of the United States empire.


Myth

“The very imposition of a normative force upon a state of affairs, real or imagined, is the act of creating narrative “

—Robert M. Cover,

In killing Dorner, the LAPD was able to end the narrative and stop his resistance by denying his right to go to court. If Dorner had been tried in a court of law, courts would, hypothetically, publicly validate the abuses Dorner called out in his manifesto— or they would be seen as unsubstantiated and unworthy of attention because Dorner himself would be on trial, not the reason for his action; a tricky reality of the verisimilitude of the court of law. The ethical man— broken by racism and corruption he witnessed firsthand in a system he had faith in —was again betrayed and silenced by a state sanctioned execution that parallels the American tradition of a lynching.  His death, and his body set aflame in the city of Big Bear is representative of what the violent arm of the state is capable of doing to its adversaries; not police brutality, but a state sanctioned murder— police simply doing their job. Dorner, who shed blood because he was broken, is representative of an individual has been sold a lie and grew to hate his role within it. 

In a New York Times article written after Dorner’s death, a liberal op-ed columnist Charles M. Blow wrote a piece titled “Don’t Mythologize Christopher Dorner,” in which he expresses disgust at those who make a hero of Dorner, and apologize or empathize with his action. He states, “fighting for justice is noble. Spilling innocent blood is the ultimate act of cowardice. Dorner is not the right emblem for those wronged by the system,” (Blow 1) but as someone who was wronged by the system, and as his resistance was informed by the ideology of that system, how is he not its emblem?

When Blow cites KTLA’s condolences to “anyone that suffered losses or injuries resulting from Christopher’s actions,” he acknowledges it as “the right sentiment: condolences for the victims and condemnation of Dorner’s actions. Period” (1). The narratives of both Blow and KTLA omit:

1. the two women who were misidentified as Dorner while delivering newspapers who were shot at over one hundred times (Goldstein 1), and

2. the man who, twenty five minutes later, was shot at after his truck was, again misidentified, and rammed by the same department.

Through both revisions, these acts of violence that are a direct result of police negligence and thirst for blood are framed as being a result of Dorner’s actions— not the police or their abuse. The passive voice in Blow’s critique is astounding— the narrative propagated by his omissions are unsurprising. In addition, Dorner’s entrapment and the burning of his corpse is both synthesized and editorialized in the sentence: “Christopher Dorner… who died this week in a cabin fire while on the run” (Blow 1), the section omitted by ellipses is used to call Dorner a fugitive and state his crimes. Blow’s intent is clear— to villanize Dorner and condemn anyone who sees him as representative of resistance and a possibility for accountability and change.

I argue the opposite of Blow’s op-ed— Dorner needs to be mythologized, not only to praise a man broken by a corrupt system, but to let the arm of the state know that we, as victims of their violence and members of the communities they occupy, will support and stand for anyone who is against them. As a corrupt occupying force that exists to protect property and reject accountability, resistance in its many forms should be praised to send a message. A message that states a corrupt, violent organization is deserving of whatever bloodshed comes as a result of their abuse.

In mythologizing Dorner, not only are the police made aware of their unrespected role of power, they are also aware that the public they occupy is against them. By praising revolutionaries, and even an admittedly shortsighted radical like Christopher Dorner, we create a network of support that uplifts resistors. We are aware that violence and the threat of violence brings change. Dorner himself stated that he was waging a war against the police because of their corruption, and what they did to him for calling it out. Critiques of Dorner as an egoist fall short of acknowledging the national context of early 2013— this was before the Black Lives Matter movement, and there were no major organizations to absorb his radical resistance. Instead, because there was no support network of resistance for Dorner, he was compelled to act alone in order to begin the violent change we need to combat a violently corrupt police force. Thus, through a framework of critical solidarity, people who believe in resistance and revolution can set the social and ideological base of escape for possible revolutionaries like Christopher Dorner by allowing Dorner to be a myth, identifying how his ideology impeded his resistance, and using the narrative of his resistance to educate and liberate people trapped in the illusion of American empire.

Blankstein, Andrew, et al. “Women Shot during Dorner Manhunt to Receive $4.2 Million from L.A.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 23 Apr. 2013, www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-apr-23-la-me-dorner-settlement-20130424-story.html.

Blow, Charles M. “Don't Mythologize Christopher Dorner.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/opinion/blow-dont-mythologize-christopher-dorner.html?_r=0.

Cover, Robert M., "The Supreme Court, 1982 Term -- Foreword: Nomos and Narrative" (1983). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2705. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2705

Crutch, Capt. “Correcting Mistaken Ideas.” The Black Panthers Speak, edited by Philip S. Foner, 2017, pp 21-23. Print

Dorner, Christopher. Manifesto. 7 Feb. 2013. Pdf

Goldstein, Sasha. “LAPD Officers Who Shot Innocent Women during Manhunt for Vengeful Ex-Cop Violated Policy: Report .” Nydailynews.com, New York Daily News, 10 Jan. 2019, www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lapd-cops-shot-women-violated-policy-article-1.1602272.

Research And Destroy New York City. Communiqué From An Ex-Cop. 2013. Annotation of Christopher Dorner’s manifesto. https://researchdestroy.com/dorner-communique-from-an-ex-cop.pdf

Rodríguez, Dylan. “Beyond “Police Brutality”: Racist State Violence and the University of California.” American Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 2, June 2012 pp. 301-313. JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23273518 

Lady Winchester by Matt Sedillo

Poetry By Matt Sedillo
Published 02/08/2022 10:27Am PST


Lady Winchester
I.
That is no country for guilty conscience
Laughing, learning in summer near lakes named in remembrance of murder
The young in their way stand as living monuments to generations of forgetting
II.
An aged truth unrenewed is a thing of genocide
The naming of avenue
The making of highway
The forging of boulevard
The foundations of national celebrations, psyches
Bodies of literature
Schools of cinema
Standing in pools of blood
III.
Oh pioneer
This is no place for honest reflection
And I have therefore traveled north
Towards doors and staircases that lead nowhere
Filled with rooms that reach for the dead
Passageways to escape their revenge
IV.
Once I heard the story of Lady Winchester
Building her mansion until the day that she died
In her time a marveled destination
For escape artists
Today sold as mystery to travelers and tourists as curiosity
Of what is past and passing
And they too in their way stand as living monuments
In a home built by rifles
In the great American tradition known
To run from ghosts

Matt Sedillo has been described as the "best political poet in America" as well as "the poet laureate of the struggle" by academics, poets, and journalists alike. He has appeared on CSPAN and has been featured in the Los Angeles Times, among other publications. He has spoken at Casa de las Americas in Havana, Cuba, at numerous conferences and forums such as the National Conference on Race & Ethnicity in American Higher Education, and at over a hundred universities and colleges, including the University of Cambridge, among many others. He is the current writer in residence at Re:Arte and author of Mowing Leaves of Grass (Flowersong Press, 2019), and City on the Second Floor (Flowersong Press 2022)

Instagram @matt_sedillo
Website Matt Sedillo

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO DEMOLISH AND TRY TO BAND-AID OUR WAY OUT OF BLIGHT?

Illustration Rebecca Ustrell Concept Julian Lucas

Illustration Rebecca Ustrell
Concept Julian Lucas

Photography Julian Lucas 2020

Photography Julian Lucas 2020

Text & Photography Julian Lucas
Published January 5, 2020 7:13am PST
Updated 01/20/2020
Updated 2/14/2023
Illustration Rebecca Ustrell

I regret to inform you, another cool-ass building with potential has been taken from us. The act of demolition resulted in yet another empty lot. I even left a couple of voicemails inquiring about the space and my call wasn’t returned. 1377 was actually demolished over the summer months. It sure did hurt my feelings, as I am a Mid-Century Modern aficionado.

Built in 1954 and zoned for office use the building was used as an orthodontist who we learned passed away. Naturally, 1377 became a place for squatters and people who had an addiction. Hmm, to think if only we had real affordable housing and if we really believed in HARM REDUCTION, then squatters wouldn’t squat and there would be a nice place for people to get high without trespassing on private property. But, since Pomona would never come to grips of having a safe injection site for people with an addiction, we will continue down the road of squatters and haters.  


Why do so many older buildings face demolition in Pomona while others are pardoned from the bulldozer? Who decides and why isn’t anyone stopping the creation of empty lots?

The Historical Society of Pomona Valley is a non-profit historical society, which is a museum based organization with no legal power. The HSVP has been successful at designating buildings as historical and has advocated for buildings as well however, the powers that would be would be the Historic Preservation Commission. The Pomona’s Historic Preservation Ordinance passed in the 1990s, which stated any application to demo buildings built before 1945 has to be presented before the commission. Currently there is an ad hoc committee that has been established to change the rule to 50 years so Mid Century buildings and other design types as they become older.

Until this rule is changed, buildings built during the 50’s or after can be torn down, at the land owner’s discretion. And if you think the city will help, good luck. Usually developers and city people don’t give a rat’s ass about what the community wants.

There are few safeguards for this kind of thing. Many city staff don’t live in the city so nothing is of value to them, and developers are just there to make a profit.

Photography Julian Lucas 2020

Photography Julian Lucas 2020

Anyway, the building could have been a dope ass coffee shop or a cool ass bakery. We need to be operating towards a vision of today, not 1989. We need sustainable businesses that everyone can enjoy. We need to make an effort to hold commissioners and city leaders accountable. We can’t continue to tear down and put a band-aid over blight.

Links
Safe Injection Sites
Harm Reduction

It is now February 2023, all of the debris from the demolition was cleared and hauled away creating yet another lifeless lot in the city of the Pomona. Maybe housing? Maybe another fast-food chain? Who knows, maybe we’ll wait another 3 years before theres life again.

Julian Lucas, is fine art photographer and photojournalist. Julian loves to create images that evoke emotions. Julian has lived in Chicago, Inglewood, Portland, and the suburbs of Los Angeles County.