Yesterday, at 4:45 p.m., SFPD shot a teenager who fled during a fair inspection on a Muni light rail car. The cops claimed that he was armed and had fired shots at them first. After the suspect was shot in the back, no gun was found. Doesn’t this sound awfully familiar?
Seriously though, you shot a 19 yr old over a $2 fair? And he later died in the hospital, all because he didn’t pay a $2 fair & you assumed he had a gun. Back up arrived before an ambulance did. No back up was needed. There were already other cops on the scene, some even carrying assault rifles. The man was on the ground fighting for his life. That moment in the video where he struggles to even attempt to get up is some of the most chilling video I’ve seen. Ever.
It’s okay though right? America will probably ignore this & move on to some more mindless crap, as is usually the case. I’ve seen it before with the Oscar grant case, Sean bell, James Brissette, and countless others. When will this country’s collective conscious wake up?
this happened a couple years ago…not that it makes this any less reprehensible. ACAB
The Bay Area has one of the highest homeless populations in part because of the explosion of recent wealth that has led to increasing inequality and a lack of affordable housing for those without high-paying tech jobs. The San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan area is the wealthiest in the country, even outpacing New York-Connecticut and Washington DC-Maryland-Northern Virginia. This influx of money has brought higher housing prices and more evictions in the past few years.
And for those viscerally impacted by rising inequality, life is especially difficult when the temperatures drop. Many communities in the Bay Area lack emergency shelters, in part because freezes aren’t very common. But what happens to many of the thousands of people living without shelter in the Bay Area, waiting for their name to be called for the few affordable housing units that exist? “What happens is they die on the street,” Betty DeForest, director emeritus of South Hayward Parish, wrote in an email to the City Council last week following White’s death.
In other words, we live in a society that leaves many people too poor to survive but are surprised to see them die.
The primary task of critique will not be to evaluate whether its objects—social conditions, practices, forms of knowledge, power, and discourse—are good or bad, valued highly or demeaned, but to bring into relief the very framework of evaluation itself. What is the relation of knowledge to power such that our epistemological certainties turn out to support a way of structuring the world that forecloses alternative possibilities of ordering? Of course, we may think that we need epistemological certainty in order to state for sure that the world is and ought to be ordered a given way. To what extent, however, is that certainty orchestrated by forms of knowledge precisely in order to foreclose the possibility of thinking otherwise?
Now, one might wisely ask, what good is thinking otherwise, if we don’t know in advance that thinking otherwise will produce a better world? If we do not have a moral framework in which to decide with knowingness that certain new possibilities or ways of thinking otherwise will bring forth that world whose betterness we can judge by sure and already established standards? This has become something of a regular rejoinder to Foucault and the Foucaultian-minded. And shall we assume that the relative silence that has greeted this habit of fault-finding in Foucault is a sign that his theory has no reassuring answers to give? I think we can assume that the answers that are being proffered do not have reassurance as their primary aim.
This is, of course, not to say what withdraws reassurance is, by definition, not an answer. Indeed, the only rejoinder, it seems to me, is to return to a more fundamental meaning of ‘critique’ in order to see what may well be wrong with the question as it is posed and, indeed, to pose the question anew, so that a more productive approach to the place of ethics within politics might be mapped.
"Implicitly, Wiseman is asking whether, for all its dazzling breadth, Berkeley can still be that first step on the ladder of upward mobility for California’s middle class, which is what the university system was originally designed to do.
Berkeley, however, is the wrong place to find that answer. Just in the two years since Wiseman stopped filming, the school has raised $3 billion, while handling, last year, 67,650 applications, the most in its history. Its status as one of the country’s elite universities means that it is not forced to ask any financial question tougher than whether faculty members will go along with centralized purchasing. (It has also since begun a financial aid program for middle-class students.)
It’s the other schools in the California system where the harder questions about the role of a public university need to be asked. Like Berkeley, they have seen their state funding slashed. But unlike Berkeley, it hasn’t been so easy for them to bounce back. Should they use more online courses? Change their mix of research and teaching? Aim for the same students as Berkeley, or focus on educating the middle class? The real issue is: how do you make college affordable again?
Berkeley, being Berkeley, will do just fine. But unless everyone else in higher education takes a hard look at their model, the promise of higher education as the means to upward mobility will continue to diminish."
except Berkeley won’t be fine because increased privatization (“raised $3 billion” of private funds) and mismanagement has already put it on the road to no longer being a public institution “for the middle class.” This isn’t even taking to account it’s academic decline due to privatization—bigger class sizes, under paid and overworked graduate students, etc. make for bad classes and poorer graduates.
"Metaphysics - the white mythology which reassembles and reflects the culture of the West: the white man takes his own mythology, Indo-European mythology, his own ‘logos’, that is, the ‘mythos’ of his idiom, for the universal form of that he must still wish to call Reason."
"I’m on methadone. Sometimes I have a joint. I drink too much alcohol. My liver is about to kill me. I have cirrhosis because of hepatitis C. I will die soon, I know that. But I haven’t missed out on anything in my life. I am fine with it. So this isn’t what I’d recommend: this isn’t the best life to live, but it’s my life."
Never thought I’d share a vice article but this “counter-biopolitical” narrative reminds me of Halberstam. It’s not celebratory exactly; it just is.