city:new york city

  • How to walk to LaGuardia Airport in New York City - Curbed NY
    https://ny.curbed.com/2018/12/6/18128031/how-to-walk-to-laguardia-airport-queens

    n a crisp and sunny autumn day, not long ago, I walked to LaGuardia Airport. I wasn’t one of those people you’ve seen on the news who get so panicked by gridlock on the Grand Central Parkway that they abandon their taxis and drag their wheelies across eight lanes of traffic and up the exit ramps to their terminals. I wasn’t even in a hurry. I didn’t have a plane to catch.

    I wasn’t going anywhere except the airport.

    Accompanied by Stanley Greenberg, a photographer whose primary interest is urban infrastructure, I walked to the airport simply to see if it could be done. It was an expedition, like Magellan circumnavigating the earth or Lewis and Clark trekking to the Pacific Ocean

    #photographie #aéroports un autre angle du #DFS


  • A historian explains why right-wing criticism of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s clothing mirrors the response to early female labor activists | Alternet
    https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/historian-explains-why-right-wing-criticism-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-clot

    It seems that some critics just can’t accept the fact that an unapologetic Democratic socialist like Ocasio-Cortez – who calls for a more equal distribution of wealth and fair shake to workers – can also wear designer clothes.

    To a historian like me who writes about fashion and politics, the attention to Ocasio-Cortez’s clothing as a way to criticize her politics is an all-too-familiar line of attack.

    Ocasio-Cortez isn’t the first woman or even the first outsider to receive such treatment.

    In particular, I’m reminded of Clara Lemlich, a young radical socialist who used fashion as a form of empowerment while she fought for workers’ rights.
    Report Advertisement

    Lemlich – like Ocasio-Cortez – wasn’t afraid to take on big business while wearing fancy clothes.
    ‘We like new hats’

    In 1909, when she was only 23 years old, Lemlich defied the male union leadership whom she saw as too hesitant and out of touch.

    In what would come to be known as the “Uprising of the 20,000,” Lemlich led thousands of garment workers – the majority of them young women – to walk out from their workplace and go on a strike.

    As historian Nan Enstad has shown, insisting on their right to maintain a fashionable appearance was not a frivolous pursuit of poor women living beyond their means. It was an important political strategy in strikers’ struggle to gain rights and respect as women, workers and Americans.

    Two women strikers on picket line during the ‘Uprising of the 20,000’ in New York City. Library of Congress

    When they picketed the streets wearing their best clothes, strikers challenged the image of the “deserving poor” that depicted female workers as helpless victims deserving of mercy.

    Wearing a fancy dress or a hat signaled their economic independence and their respectability as ladies. But it also spoke to their right to be taken seriously and to have their voices heard.

    Despite the criticism, Lemlich and her fellow strikers were able to win concessions from factory owners for most of their demands. They also turned Local 25 of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union into one of the most influential labor unions in the country, changing for the better the lives of millions of workers like themselves.

    But more importantly, Lemlich and her colleagues changed the perception of what politically radical women should look like. They demonstrated that socialism and labor struggles were not in opposition to fashionable appearances.

    Today, their legacy is embodied in Ocasio-Cortez’s message. In fact, if Clara Lemlich were alive today, she would probably smile at Ocasio-Cortez’s response to her critics.

    The reason some journalists “can’t help but obsess about my clothes [and] rent,” she tweeted, is because “women like me aren’t supposed to run for office – or win.”

    Ocasio-Cortez has already begun to fashion an image for women who, as her worn-out campaign shoes can attest, not only know how to “talk the talk,” but can also “walk the walk.”

    #Féminisme #Politique #Lutte #Fashion #Alexandria_Ocasio_Cortez


  • Helen Levitt’s New York – in pictures
    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2018/nov/30/helen-levitt-new-york-in-pictures

    Brooklyn-born Helen Levitt was teaching art to children when she bought a camera to document the chalk drawings they were sketching on New York’s streets. Her works were influential but she struggled to make a living in her lifetime.


    New York City, 1939 photo Helen Levitt
    #photographie


  • Info prise chez Nova dont je ne suis pas sur du rapport à l’underground.

    « Underground Radio Directory, et recense des radios underground de 28 différents pays, de Tokyo a Glasgow en passant par Kansas City mais aussi Marrakech et São Paulo, il y en a pour tous les goûts et on y fait de très belles découvertes. »

    Underground Radio Directory.
    http://www.undergroundradiodirectory.com/stations

    Number of stations : 86

    10TwentyRadio

    Bristol, England

    more info...

    199Radio

    London, England

    more info...

    20ft Radio

    Kiev, Ukraine

    more info...

    2Day Radio

    Aberdeen, Scotland

    more info...

    8 Ball Radio

    New York City, USA

    more info...

    8K.NZ

    Christchurch, New Zealand

    more info...

    Automat Radio

    Worldwide

    more info...

    Balamii

    London, England

    more info...

    Basso Radio

    Helsinki, Finland

    more info...

    BBC Radio 6 Music

    London, England

    more info...

    Berlin Community Radio

    Berlin, Germany

    more info...

    Bloop

    London, England

    more info...


  • Coming From Inside the House
    https://jacobinmag.com/2018/11/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-nancy-pelosi-green-new-deal-amazon-queens


    On a besoin de beaucoup de femmes comme elle.

    The Left has raised questions about how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will conduct herself in office. By attending a protest in Nancy Pelosi’s office and coming out strong against Amazon in New York City, she’s off to a strong start.

    Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) -
    http://www.dsausa.org

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez

    #USA #politique #femmes


  • Lyft Is Not Your Friend
    http://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/the-myth-of-the-woke-brand-uber-lyft-capitalism

    10.25.2018 BY MEAGAN DAY #UNITED_STATES #CAPITAL #CONJECTURES #LIBERALISM

    Lyft is the latest brand trying to build market share by posing as a “progressive” corporation. But the fight can’t be good corporations against bad ones — it’s working people against capitalism.
    In early 2017, liberals hit on a new strategy to resist the nascent Trump administration: #DeleteUber.

    It started when New York City’s taxi drivers refused to service JFK airport to protest Trump’s travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, and Uber was spotted leveraging the ensuing crisis for profit. Then Uber CEO Travis Kalanick came under fire for accepting an appointment to Trump’s economic advisory council. He announced his resignation from the council, but only weeks later a video leaked of Kalanick reprimanding a driver for his company.

    Amid various ensuing scandals, Kalanick stepped down as CEO of Uber, but by then millions of consumers had turned on the brand in protest, deleting the Uber app from their phone and opting instead for the rideshare giant’s rival Lyft.

    Lyft leaned in, eagerly branding itself as the progressive alternative to Uber by pledging a $1 million donation to the ACLU and trotting out celebrities to promote it as a company committed to “doing things for the right reasons.” Lyft, of course, operates on the same labor model as Uber — its drivers are not employees but independent contractors, and are therefore denied all the benefits and protections that workers receive under more ideal circumstances. Nevertheless, a new refrain rang out across liberaldom: “I don’t use Uber, I use Lyft.”

    What socialists understand that liberals don’t is that brands are corporate enterprises, and corporate enterprises are fundamentally motivated by the pursuit of profit — even in their ostentatious acts of charity and wokeness.

    Three surefire ways to maximize profit are: suppressing labor costs by paying workers as little as you can get away with, lobbying the state for deregulation and lower taxes, and opening new markets by finding new things to commodify and sell. Businesses will always pursue these avenues of profit maximization where they can. It’s not a matter of ethics but of market discipline: if they don’t, they run the risk of losing out to the competition and eventually capsizing.

    Sometimes corporations do things for publicity that make it seem like their interests are not fundamentally misaligned with those of the working-class majority, who rely on decent wages and well-funded public services. But those efforts are meant to sustain public confidence in a given corporation’s brand, which is occasionally necessary for keeping up profits, as Uber’s losses in 2017 demonstrate. When corporate profits come into direct conflict with active measures to improve people’s wellbeing, corporations will always select the former. Case in point: Lyft just donated $100k to the campaign against a ballot measure that would create a tax fund to house the homeless in San Francisco, where the company is based.

    Why did the progressive alternative to Uber do this? Well, because the company doesn’t want to pay higher taxes. Because high taxes imperil profits, and profits are the point. Another likely rationale is to build stronger bonds with pro-business advocacy groups in San Francisco, so that the company will have allies if the city decides to implement regulations against ride-sharing services, which is rumored to be a possibility.

    Lyft has already mastered the art of suppressing labor costs and opening new markets. Next on the wish list, low taxes and deregulation. It’s pretty formulaic when you get down to it.

    San Francisco is home to an estimated 7,500 homeless people. Proposition C would tap the large corporations that benefit from the city’s public infrastructure to double the city’s homelessness budget in an attempt to resolve the crisis. The corporations opposing Proposition C say that the move would imperil jobs. This is not an analysis, it’s a threat. What they’re saying is that if the city reaches too far into their pockets, they’ll take their business elsewhere, draining the region of jobs and revenue as punishment for government overreach. It’s a mobster’s insinuation: Nice economy, shame if something happened to it. Meanwhile thousands of people sleep in the streets, even though the money to shelter them is within the city’s borders.

    Of course, in every struggle over taxes and industry regulation there may be a few canny corporate outliers looking to ingratiate their brand to the public by bucking the trend. In the case of Proposition C, it’s Salesforce, whose CEO Marc Benioff has made a public display of support for the ballot measure. But before you rush to praise Benioff, consider that only two months ago he lauded Trump’s tax cuts for fueling “aggressive spending” and injecting life into the economy.

    You could spend your life as an engaged consumer hopping from brand to brand, as liberals often do, pledging allegiance to this one and protesting that one to the beat of the new cycle drum. You could delete Lyft from your phone the same way you did with Uber, and find another rideshare app that you deem more ethical, until that one inevitably disappoints you too.

    Or you could press pause, stop scrambling for some superior consumption choice to ease your conscience, and entertain the socialist notion that deep down all corporations are objectively the same. They all exist to maximize return on investment for the people who own them. They are all in competition with each other to plunder our commons most effectively, with the lowest overhead, which means compensating the least for employees’ work. And when the rubber meets the road, they will all prioritize private profits over the wellbeing of those who own no productive assets, which is the vast majority of the people on the planet. They will demonstrate these priorities on a case-by-case basis, and on a massive global scale so long as capitalism prevails.

    “We’re woke,” said Lyft CEO John Zimmerman at the height of the Uber scandal. It was horseshit — it always is. And until liberals stop believing than any brand can be truly “woke,” or can offer a genuine alternative to the predatory behavior they observe in other “unwoke” brands, they’ll be unable to mount a meaningful resistance to anything.

    Whether we want to ensure clean drinking water for the residents of Flint or to shelter the homeless of San Francisco, we have to draw clear battle lines that are up to the challenge. The fight can’t be good corporations against bad corporations. It has to be working people against capitalism.

    #USA #transport #disruption #Lyft


  • New Bill Would Make Cash-Free Businesses Illegal
    http://www.grubstreet.com/2018/11/new-bill-would-make-cash-free-businesses-restaurants-illegal.html

    Tomorrow, New York city councilmember Ritchie J. Torres will formally introduce legislation that could ban so-called cashless businesses from operating in New York City. Like lawmakers in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey, Torres, who represents the 15th Council District in the central Bronx, believes that cash-free establishments are discriminatory by design. If his bill is passed, any business that refuses to accept #cash will face fines — a move that would impact the many cash-free restaurants, coffee shops, and cafés that have recently emerged across New York City. On the eve of announcing his bill, Grub Street talked to him about the racism and classism that he believes are at the heart of the so called “cashless revolution.”

    #guerre_aux_pauvres


  • Amazon HQ2 Will Cost Taxpayers at Least $4.6 Billion, More Than Twice What the Company Claimed, New Study Shows
    https://theintercept.com/2018/11/15/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-virginia-subsidies

    Amazon’s announcement this week that it will open its new headquarters in New York City and northern Virginia came with the mind-boggling revelation that the corporate giant will rake in $2.1 billion in local government subsidies. But an analysis by the nation’s leading tracker of corporate subsidies finds that the government handouts will actually amount to at least $4.6 billion. But even that figure, which accounts for state and local perks, doesn’t take into account a gift that Amazon will (...)

    #Amazon #urbanisme


  • New York City to Amazon : drop dead
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/14/amazon-hq2-new-york-protest-queens-long-island-city

    In Queens, opponents of second HQ say building plans bypass elected officials, will rip off taxpayers and harm neighborhood Politicians and advocates gathered in Queens on Wednesday to denounce a multibillion-dollar plan to bring a new Amazon headquarters to New York. One city councilman called the move “an assault on our democracy”. ’It’s obscene and wrong’ : Amazon HQ2 gets typically warm New York welcome Read more Rallying across the street from the Long Island City site where Amazon’s new (...)

    #Amazon #urbanisme


  • ‘Dear Mr. Zuckerberg’: Students Take Summit Learning Protests Directly to Facebook Chief

    https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-11-15-dear-mr-zuckerberg-students-take-summit-learning-protests-direct

    Earlier this month, a group of high school students in New York City took to the streets to protest their school’s online program, Summit Learning. On Thursday, hoping to send a stronger message, they took it all the way to the top, with a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

    Students at the Secondary School for Journalism in Brooklyn had become increasingly frustrated with Summit Learning. Several told the New York Post that they would spend hours a day “staring at one screen” and had to teach themselves the material. Some described the content as too easy—and easy to cheat on.

    They had tried before to address their concerns with the program, says Kelly Hernandez, one of the organizers of the protest. But no matter how many times they talked to their principal, or how many calls their parents made to the school to complain, nothing changed.

    “We wanted to fight back with a walkout,” Hernandez, a 17-year-old senior, tells EdSurge, “because when we tried to voice our concerns, they just disregarded us.”

    Brooklyn students walk out of school over Zuckerberg-backed learning system

    https://www.fastcompany.com/90266263/brooklyn-students-walk-out-of-school-over-zuckerberg-backed-learning-sy

    Almost 100 students walked out of class at Brooklyn’s Secondary School for Journalism to protest the school’s use of Summit Learning.

    The controversial educational system is backed by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the philanthropic organization started by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan. Students said the program, designed to deliver individualized learning, kept them tied to computer screens for hours each day, the New York Post reports.

    There’s more evidence #Facebook can make you feel lonely
    What a new study tells us about social networks
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/13/18090016/facebook-study-loneliness-depression-hunt-pennsylvania


  • À lire un extrait de Travail gratuit, la nouvelle exploitation ?, de Maud Simonet
    https://www.contretemps.eu/extrait-travail-gratuit-simonet

    Qu’y a-t-il de commun entre une bénévole chargée des activités périscolaires dans une école, une allocataire de l’aide sociale qui nettoie les parcs de New York ou le rédacteur d’un blog en ligne ? Des milliers d’heures de travail exercées gratuitement pour faire fonctionner associations, services publics et entreprises. Que nous apprennent ces différentes formes « citoyennes » et « numériques » de travail gratuit ? À qui profite-t-elles et qui y est assigné ?

    En repartant des grandes leçons de l’analyse féministe du travail domestique, et en se fondant sur plusieurs enquêtes de terrain menées en France et aux États-Unis, Maud Simonet propose une approche critique du travail par sa face gratuite. Elle analyse ces formes d’exploitation qui se développent au nom de l’amour, de la passion ou de la citoyenneté et participent à la néolibéralisation du travail dans les mondes publics et privés.

    Maud Simonet est chargée de recherches en sociologie au CNRS et directrice de l’IDHES-Nanterre. Elle a publié Le travail bénévole. Engagement citoyen ou travail gratuit ? (La Dispute, 2010) et Who Cleans the Park ? Public work and Urban Governance in New York City, avec John Krinsky (Presses de l’Université de Chicago).


  • Lyft Is Not Your Friend
    http://jacobinmag.com/2018/10/the-myth-of-the-woke-brand-uber-lyft-capitalism

    BY MEAGAN DAY
    Lyft is the latest brand trying to build market share by posing as a “progressive” corporation. But the fight can’t be good corporations against bad ones — it’s working people against capitalism.

    In early 2017, liberals hit on a new strategy to resist the nascent Trump administration: #DeleteUber.

    It started when New York City’s taxi drivers refused to service JFK airport to protest Trump’s travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries, and Uber was spotted leveraging the ensuing crisis for profit. Then Uber CEO Travis Kalanick came under fire for accepting an appointment to Trump’s economic advisory council. He announced his resignation from the council, but only weeks later a video leaked of Kalanick reprimanding a driver for his company.

    Amid various ensuing scandals, Kalanick stepped down as CEO of Uber, but by then millions of consumers had turned on the brand in protest, deleting the Uber app from their phone and opting instead for the rideshare giant’s rival Lyft.

    Lyft leaned in, eagerly branding itself as the progressive alternative to Uber by pledging a $1 million donation to the ACLU and trotting out celebrities to promote it as a company committed to “doing things for the right reasons.” Lyft, of course, operates on the same labor model as Uber — its drivers are not employees but independent contractors, and are therefore denied all the benefits and protections that workers receive under more ideal circumstances. Nevertheless, a new refrain rang out across liberaldom: “I don’t use Uber, I use Lyft.”

    What socialists understand that liberals don’t is that brands are corporate enterprises, and corporate enterprises are fundamentally motivated by the pursuit of profit — even in their ostentatious acts of charity and wokeness.

    Three surefire ways to maximize profit are: suppressing labor costs by paying workers as little as you can get away with, lobbying the state for deregulation and lower taxes, and opening new markets by finding new things to commodify and sell. Businesses will always pursue these avenues of profit maximization where they can. It’s not a matter of ethics but of market discipline: if they don’t, they run the risk of losing out to the competition and eventually capsizing.

    Sometimes corporations do things for publicity that make it seem like their interests are not fundamentally misaligned with those of the working-class majority, who rely on decent wages and well-funded public services. But those efforts are meant to sustain public confidence in a given corporation’s brand, which is occasionally necessary for keeping up profits, as Uber’s losses in 2017 demonstrate. When corporate profits come into direct conflict with active measures to improve people’s wellbeing, corporations will always select the former. Case in point: Lyft just donated $100k to the campaign against a ballot measure that would create a tax fund to house the homeless in San Francisco, where the company is based.

    Why did the progressive alternative to Uber do this? Well, because the company doesn’t want to pay higher taxes. Because high taxes imperil profits, and profits are the point. Another likely rationale is to build stronger bonds with pro-business advocacy groups in San Francisco, so that the company will have allies if the city decides to implement regulations against ride-sharing services, which is rumored to be a possibility.

    Lyft has already mastered the art of suppressing labor costs and opening new markets. Next on the wish list, low taxes and deregulation. It’s pretty formulaic when you get down to it.

    San Francisco is home to an estimated 7,500 homeless people. Proposition C would tap the large corporations that benefit from the city’s public infrastructure to double the city’s homelessness budget in an attempt to resolve the crisis. The corporations opposing Proposition C say that the move would imperil jobs. This is not an analysis, it’s a threat. What they’re saying is that if the city reaches too far into their pockets, they’ll take their business elsewhere, draining the region of jobs and revenue as punishment for government overreach. It’s a mobster’s insinuation: Nice economy, shame if something happened to it. Meanwhile thousands of people sleep in the streets, even though the money to shelter them is within the city’s borders.

    Of course, in every struggle over taxes and industry regulation there may be a few canny corporate outliers looking to ingratiate their brand to the public by bucking the trend. In the case of Proposition C, it’s Salesforce, whose CEO Marc Benioff has made a public display of support for the ballot measure. But before you rush to praise Benioff, consider that only two months ago he lauded Trump’s tax cuts for fueling “aggressive spending” and injecting life into the economy.

    You could spend your life as an engaged consumer hopping from brand to brand, as liberals often do, pledging allegiance to this one and protesting that one to the beat of the new cycle drum. You could delete Lyft from your phone the same way you did with Uber, and find another rideshare app that you deem more ethical, until that one inevitably disappoints you too.

    Or you could press pause, stop scrambling for some superior consumption choice to ease your conscience, and entertain the socialist notion that deep down all corporations are objectively the same. They all exist to maximize return on investment for the people who own them. They are all in competition with each other to plunder our commons most effectively, with the lowest overhead, which means compensating the least for employees’ work. And when the rubber meets the road, they will all prioritize private profits over the wellbeing of those who own no productive assets, which is the vast majority of the people on the planet. They will demonstrate these priorities on a case-by-case basis, and on a massive global scale so long as capitalism prevails.

    “We’re woke,” said Lyft CEO John Zimmerman at the height of the Uber scandal. It was horseshit — it always is. And until liberals stop believing than any brand can be truly “woke,” or can offer a genuine alternative to the predatory behavior they observe in other “unwoke” brands, they’ll be unable to mount a meaningful resistance to anything.

    Whether we want to ensure clean drinking water for the residents of Flint or to shelter the homeless of San Francisco, we have to draw clear battle lines that are up to the challenge. The fight can’t be good corporations against bad corporations. It has to be working people against capitalism.

    #USA #Lyft #Uber #Arbeit


  • The U.S. Is Not Being Invaded: Fact-Checking the Common Immigration Myths

    Myth #1: Immigrants cost the U.S. “billions and billions” of dollars each year.

    Immigration puts much more money into U.S. public coffers via taxes than it takes out via benefits, as determined last year by a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission of leading immigration economists, across the political spectrum, convened by the National Academy of Sciences. It found that the average immigrant to the U.S., reflecting the country-and-skill composition of recent U.S. immigrants, makes a net positive fiscal contribution of $259,000 in net present value across all levels of government: federal, state, and local (see page 434 at the link).

    Myth #2: The U.S. is being “violently overrun” by immigrants.

    Immigrants to the United States, whether or not they have legal authorization, commit violent crimes at much lower rates than U.S. natives do. That is why violent crime is way down in the places where unauthorized immigrants go. For example, since 1990 the population of unauthorized immigrants in New York City has roughly tripled, from about 400,000 to 1.2 million, while during the same period the number of homicides in New York City collapsed from 2,262 (in 1990) to 292 (in 2017).
    Myth #3: The U.S. has the “most expansive immigration program anywhere on the planet.”

    In both Canada and Australia, some of the most prosperous and secure countries in the world and in all of history, immigrants are more than 20% of the population. That is far higher than the United States, where immigrants are 14% of the population.
    Myth #4: Immigrants are moving to the U.S. because it has the “hottest economy anywhere in the world.”

    Violence is a massive driver of undocumented immigration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Data provided to us by the Department of Homeland Security showed that from 2011 to 2016, unaccompanied child migrants apprehended at the U.S. border moved from Central America due to a roughly equal mix of economic conditions and violence in their communities. The violence is significant. Every 10 additional homicides in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras caused more than six additional unaccompanied child minor apprehensions.
    Myth #5: A “strong border” will cause immigrants to “turn away and they won’t bother” trying to migrate.

    Enforcement alone is not an effective migration deterrent. To be effective, it must be paired with enhanced legal pathways for migration. People will move if they have to and because of dire situations in their origin communities, they will be more willing to accept the risks of apprehension. There are interrelated migration pressures that drive people to move---including violence in the home country, economic conditions at home, and demographic realities. In Central America, these factors are interacting in complex ways and are driving much of the migration we see at the U.S. border. More protection at the border isn’t a deterrent without addressing the push factors that drive migration and providing sufficient legal channels for migration.

    https://www.cgdev.org/blog/us-not-being-invaded-fact-checking-immigration-myths
    #préjugés #mythe #invasion #coût #afflux #migrations #asile #réfugiés #USA #Etats-Unis #pull-factors #pull_factors #facteurs_push #push-pull_factors #facteurs_pull #fermeture_des_frontières #dissuasion


  • Can ICE Legally Force Immigrants to Cheer for Donald Trump ?
    https://theintercept.com/2018/10/27/ice-first-amendment-rights-ravi-ragbir

    Do the First Amendment’s protections prevent the government from targeting its most vocal critics for deportation ? That’s the central question that three judges for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals will be considering Monday, when lawyers for Ravi Ragbir, a New York City immigration activist, will argue for a preliminary injunction to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials from deporting him before he can press his First Amendment claim in court. In the case, which comes before (...)

    #ICE #activisme #migration #surveillance


  • American journeys

    Sixty years ago, John F. Kennedy presented his vision of an America proud to be a ‘nation of immigrants’. His campaign helped shape the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, opening America’s doors to the world. But in 2018, in the age of a very different President, immigration is presented as a problem, a threat and an imposition upon American generosity. Immigration policy is focused on exclusion and separation – the building of walls, issuing of travel bans, separating of children from their parents.

    I’ve studied immigration and refugee issues for over a decade. Then, in 2014, I became an American immigrant myself. As debates on immigration in the US became increasingly fraught, I found myself wanting to understand better how immigration has shaped – and is continuing to shape – American identity. So, in March 2018, I left San Francisco and spent the next two months driving cross-country to New York City. Along the way, I spoke to dozens of people of every political persuasion and background, listening to their thoughts about immigration and what it means to be an American citizen today.

    https://www.odi.org/american-journeys
    #voyage #USA #Etats-Unis #migrations #nation_of_immigrants #identité #représentations
    ping @reka


  • The Crime Machine

    https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/127-the-crime-machine-part-i
    https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/128-the-crime-machine-part-ii

    New York City cops are in a fight against their own police department. They say it’s under the control of a broken computer system that punishes cops who refuse to engage in racist, corrupt policing. The story of their fight, and the story of the grouchy idealist who originally built the machine they’re fighting.

    A good example of Goodhart’s law in practice and of the misuse of stats in policy making.
    #podcast #replyall #GoodhartsLaw #compstat


  • Why Data Privacy Based on Consent Is Impossible
    https://hbr.org/2018/09/stop-thinking-about-consent-it-isnt-possible-and-it-isnt-right

    For a philosopher, Helen Nissenbaum is a surprisingly active participant in shaping how we collect, use, and protect personal data. Nissenbaum, who earned her PhD from Stanford, is a professor of information science at Cornell Tech, New York City, where she focuses on the intersection of politics, ethics, and values in technology and digital media — the hard stuff. Her framework for understanding digital privacy has deeply influenced real-world policy.

    HBR senior editor Scott Berinato spoke with Nissenbaum about the concept of consent, a good definition of privacy, and why privacy is a moral issue. The following excerpts from their conversation have been edited for clarity and length.

    HBR: You often sound frustrated when you talk about the idea of consent as a privacy mechanism. Why?

    Nissenbaum: Oh, it’s just such a [long pause] — look, the operationalization of consent is just so, so crummy. For example, as part of GDPR, we’re now constantly seeing pop-ups that say, “Hey, we use cookies — click here.” This doesn’t help. You have no idea what you’re doing, what you’re consenting to. A meaningful choice would be, say, “I’m OK that you’re using cookies to track me” or “I don’t want to be tracked but still want to enjoy the service” or “It’s fine to use cookies for this particular transaction, but throw unnecessary data out and never share it with others.” But none of these choices are provided. In what sense is this a matter of choosing (versus mere picking)?

    The farce of consent as currently deployed is probably doing more harm as it gives the misimpression of meaningful control that we are guiltily ceding because we are too ignorant to do otherwise and are impatient for, or need, the proffered service. There is a strong sense that consent is still fundamental to respecting people’s privacy. In some cases, yes, consent is essential. But what we have today is not really consent.

    Even if you tried to create totally transparent consent, you couldn’t. Well-meaning companies don’t know everything that happens with the data they collect, particularly those that have succumbed, against their better judgment, to the pressures of online tracking and behavioral targeting. They don’t know where the data is going or how it will be utilized. It’s an ever-changing landscape. On the one hand, requiring consent for every use isn’t reasonable and may prevent as many good outcomes as bad ones. Imagine if new science suggests a connection between a property, or cluster of properties, and a particular cancer treatment. Returning for consent may impose obstacles that are impossible to overcome.

    But on the other hand, what exactly does it mean to grant consent no matter what uses may come up in the future? Think about a surgeon explaining a procedure to a patient in great medical detail and then asking, “Are you OK with this?” We kid ourselves if we believe that consent is all that stands in the way of surgery and outcome. Most of us say OK not because we deeply grasp the details and ramifications but because we trust the institutions that educate and train surgeons, the integrity of the medical domain, and — at worst — the self-interest of the hospitals and surgeons wishing for positive acclaim and to avoid being sued.

    It’s not that we don’t know what consent means; it’s that getting to a point where we understand the true sense of what consent means is impossible.

    Annexe : devinez chez quel éditeur le livre Obfuscation d’Helen Nissenbaum va paraître cet automne ?

    #Helen_Nissenbaum #Vie_privée #Consentement


  • Austrian Cultural Forum New York: EXHIBITION OPENING | WOMEN.NOW
    http://www.acfny.org/event/womennow

    Exhibition: Women.Now
    September 26, 2018 - February 18, 2019
    Austrian Cultural Forum New York
    open daily, 10 AM - 6 PM
    11 East 52nd Street, between Fifth Avenue and Madison Avenue, New York City

    The group exhibition Women.Now showcases seventeen contemporary female artists based in Austria and the United States. The artworks on display unite artists from different generations and offer a poignant commentary on women’s role in society and the arts, using a wide range of media including film, painting, pottery, and installation art.

    The exhibition pays homage to several anniversaries: In 1918 and 1920 women in Austria and the U.S., respectively, were given the right to vote, a milestone in political equality. It also recalls 1968, a year in which social norms defined by patriarchal structures saw a radical upheaval as the feminist avant-garde was formed. In Women.Now, curator Sabine Fellner sheds light on the legacies of these historic developments and how they impact current artistic discourse.

    Join us on Tuesday, September 25th for an artist talk at 6pm with curator Sabine Fellner, Wendy Vogel, and exhibiting artists Uli Aigner and Sevda Chkoutova, followed by the possibility to view the exhibition for the first time. Starting at 7pm, the reception will feature live music with Dida Pelled (guitar, vocals). She will present The Lost Women of Song, where she interprets remarkable songs by underground female artists whose work is hardly known, from Connie Converse and Elizabeth Cotton to Molly Drake and Norma Tanega.

    Uli Aigner | Smolka Contemporary – Galerie Elisabeth Melichar – Wien
    http://smolkacontemporary.at/de/kuenstler/uli-aigner

    #art #Autriche #USA


  • Subway Policing in New York City Still Has A Race Problem.
    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/09/12/subway-policing-in-new-york-city-still-has-a-race-problem
    https://external.fham1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDwYIwTyBduVL7Q&w=540&h=282&url=https%

    or New York City police, turnstile jumping has long been much more than a class A misdemeanor. The strict policing of people evading the fare on public transit was justified as an all-purpose solution to the rampant crime that plagued the city’s subways in the 1980s. It became one of the first examples for the New York Police Department that cracking down on minor offenses—the controversial “broken windows” theory of policing—might restore order to the city.

    This story was produced in partnership with Gothamist.
    But New York might be changing its mind about turnstile jumping. With broken windows strategies increasingly discredited by many criminologists, a more lenient approach to this minor offense has taken root in New York’s courts, and perhaps from there found its way onto subway platforms across the city. Last year, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. announced that his office would stop prosecuting most cases of fare evasion, which includes riding public transit without paying the fare through any number of means: jumping over or under a subway turnstile, boarding a bus through the back door or failing to pay for a cab. Public defenders across the city observe that the vast majority of fare evasion cases come from the subways. Since Vance’s announcement, such arrests dropped from a high of 25,000 in 2016 and are now on track to be fewer than 10,000 this year. The NYPD has said that the majority of turnstile jumpers are issued civil summonses, not arrested. Some city leaders wonder though—should turnstile jumping be a crime at all?


  • Quand des vandales transforment New York City en Jewtropolis sur les cartes de plusieurs applications mobiles

    http://www.fredzone.org/quand-des-vandales-transforment-new-york-city-en-jewtropolis-sur-les-carte

    a Snap Map du site de médias sociaux Snapchat permet aux utilisateurs de découvrir du contenu dans des endroits spécifiques, comme l’actualité ou les évènements sportifs. Grande fut donc la surprise des utilisateurs lorsqu’ils ont découvert que New York City avait disparu subitement de la carte. En fait elle n’avait pas vraiment disparu, elle avait simplement été remplacée par « Jewtropolis », qu’on pourrait traduire par « la patrie des Juifs ».

    #cartographie #manipulation #détournement #perversion_de_la_carte #antisémitisme #racisme #débilité


  • ICE Has Conducted Hundreds of Raids in New York Since Trump Came to Power. Here’s What Those Operations Look Like.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/07/23/ice-raids-in-new-york

    It was approximately 6:30 a.m. on a Tuesday morning in early April when the pounding on the front door began. The sun was still coming up over New York City as a man The Intercept will call Michael jumped out of bed to investigate the commotion. Michael opened the door and found three men and one woman wearing tactical vests standing outside. They were accompanied by a man with a camera, already recording. The law enforcement officials, who Michael assumed were New York City police (...)

    #ICE #migration #surveillance


  • Data vandal changes name of New York City to “Jewtropolis” across multiple apps [Updated] | Ars Technica
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/08/data-vandal-changes-name-of-new-york-city-to-jewtropolis-across-multipl

    Update, 12:20 pm: In a prepared statement sent to press, a Mapbox spokesperson said that Mapbox has “a zero tolerance policy against hate speech and any malicious edits to our maps.”  The label change was deleted within an hour.  “The malicious edit was made by a source that attempted several other hateful edits,” the spokesperson said. “Our security team has confirmed no additional attempts were successful.”

    Mapbox data comes from more than 130 sources, and the Mapbox spokesperson said that the company has  "a strong double validation monitoring system."  A machine learning system flagged the change for review; this change was one of more than 70,000 that are flagged on a daily basis, according to the company. “While our AI immediately flagged this,” the spokesperson said, “in the manual part of the review process a human error led to this incident. Security experts are working to determine the exact origin of this malicious hate speech. We apologize to customers and users who were exposed to this disgusting attack.”

    #trolls #nazis #cartographie #mapbox via @archiloque


  • Ethereal underworld: exploring Helsinki’s colossal new art bunker | Art and design | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/aug/27/helsinki-amos-rex-art-museum

    In a vast expanse beneath the Finnish capital lies a soaring circus-top culture hub. Will the €50m Amos Rex art museum put the city at the forefront of Europe’s art scene?
    Oliver Wainwright

    Oliver Wainwright in Helsinki

    Mon 27 Aug 2018 08.00 BST

    Bulging white mounds rear up out of the ground in the middle of Helsinki, tapering to circular windows that point like cyclopean eyes around the square. Children scramble up the steep slopes while a skateboarder attempts to glide down one, past a couple posing for a selfie at the summit.

    This curious landscape of humps and funnels signals the arrival of Amos Rex, a €50m (£45m) art museum for the Finnish capital, which opens this week in a vast subterranean space that was once a bus station parking lot.

    “It is as if the museum didn’t quite agree to go underground,” says Asmo Jaaksi of local architecture firm JKMM, which masterminded the project, “and it’s somehow bubbling up into the square.”

    #art #musées #helsinki #finlande


  • What Do We Teach Our Students About #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki?
    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/07/what-do-we-teach-our-students-about-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

    I have worked in four different high schools in New York City, and have hardly heard these nuclear disasters mentioned. The few lines of a history book devoted to the stories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki get skimmed over and are quickly forgotten. We would be shocked to hear of a school not teaching its students about the attacks of September 11th, in which nearly 3,000 died, but we gloss over the stories of the more than 200,000 people who died as a result of the U.S. bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When we choose to not fully teach this portion of our country’s history, we fail more than just the victims and survivors in Japan, we fail our own students by depriving them of knowledge that might move them to accomplish what other generations have not—a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons.

    #occultation #mémoire #états-unis #histoire #manuels_scolaires #enseignement


  • “The Hatpin Peril” Terrorized Men Who Couldn’t Handle the 20th-Century Woman | History | Smithsonian
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/hatpin-peril-terrorized-men-who-couldnt-handle-20th-century-woman-18

    “The Hatpin Peril” Terrorized Men Who Couldn’t Handle the 20th-Century Woman
    To protect themselves from unwanted advances, city women protected themselves with some sharp accessories

    On the afternoon of May 28, 1903, Leoti Blaker, a young Kansan touring New York City, boarded a Fifth Avenue stagecoach at 23rd Street and settled in for the ride. The coach was crowded, and when it jostled she noticed that the man next to her settled himself an inch closer to her. She made a silent assessment: elderly, elegantly dressed, “benevolent-looking.” The horse picked up speed and the stage jumped, tossing the passengers at one another again, and now the man was touching her, hip to hip, shoulder to shoulder. When he lifted his arm and draped it low across her back, Leoti had enough. In a move that would thrill victim of modern-day subway harassment, she reached for her hatpin—nearly a foot long—and plunged it into the meat of the man’s arm. He let out a terrible scream and left the coach at the next stop.

    “He was such a nice-looking old gentleman I was sorry to hurt him,” she told the New York World. “I’ve heard about Broadway mashers and ‘L’ mashers, but I didn’t know Fifth Avenue had a particular brand of its own…. If New York women will tolerate mashing, Kansas girls will not.”

    Newspapers across the country began reporting similar encounters with “mashers,” period slang for lecherous or predatory men (defined more delicately in Theodore Dreiser’s Sister Carrie as “one whose dress or manners are calculated to elicit the admiration of susceptible young women”). A New York City housewife fended off a man who brushed up against her on a crowded Columbus Avenue streetcar and asked if he might “see her home.” A Chicago showgirl, bothered by a masher’s “insulting questions,” beat him in the face with her umbrella until he staggered away. A St. Louis schoolteacher drove her would-be attacker away by slashing his face with her hatpin. Such stories were notable not only for their frequency but also for their laudatory tone; for the first time, women who fought back against harassers were regarded as heroes rather than comic characters, as subjects rather than objects. Society was transitioning, slowly but surely, from expecting and advocating female dependence on men to recognizing their desire and ability to defend themselves.
    Hatpin-defence.jpeg
    (San Francisco Sunday Call, 1904)

    Working women and suffragists seized control of the conversation, speaking out against mashers and extolling women’s right to move freely—and alone—in public. It was true, as social worker Jane Addams lamented, that “never before in civilization have such numbers of young girls been suddenly released from the protection of the home and permitted to walk unattended upon city streets and to work under alien roofs.” Dating rituals and sexual mores were shifting. A man no longer called at a woman’s parlor and courted her under the close eye of her parents, but took her to a show or a dance hall, where all manner of evil lurked. The suffragists rejected the notion, advanced by the Chicago Vice Commission, that unchaperoned women should dress as modestly as possible—no painted cheeks or glimpse of ankle—in order to avoid unwanted attention. The issue lay not with women’s fashion or increasing freedoms, one suffragist countered, but with “the vileness of the ‘masher’ mind.”

    Instead of arguing with the suffragists, some detractors took a more subtle approach, objecting not to women’s changing roles but to their preferred mode of self-defense: the hatpin. Tales abounded of innocent men—no mashers, they—who fell victim to the “hatpin peril.” A 19-year-old girl in Scranton playfully thrust her hatpin at her boyfriend and fatally pierced his heart. A young New York streetcar passenger felt a sharp pain behind his ear—an accidental prick from a stranger’s hatpin—and within a week fell into a coma and died. Also in New York, a hundred female factory workers, all wielding hatpins, attacked police officers who arrested two of their comrades for making allegedly anarchistic speeches. Even other women weren’t safe. In a suburb of Chicago, a woman and her husband’s mistress drew hatpins and circled each other, duel-style, until policemen broke it up. “We look for the new and imported Colt’s hatpin,” one newspaper sarcastically opined, “or the Smith and Wesson Quick-action Pin.” By 1909, the hatpin was considered an international threat, with the police chiefs in Hamburg and Paris considering measures to regulate their length.

    In March 1910, Chicago’s city council ran with that idea, debating an ordinance that would ban hatpins longer than nine inches; any woman caught in violation would be arrested and fined $50. The proceedings were packed with curious spectators, men and women, and acrimonious from the start. “If women care to wear carrots and roosters on their heads, that is a matter for their own concern, but when it comes to wearing swords they must be stopped,” a supporter said. Cries of “Bravo!” from the men; hisses from the women. Nan Davis, there to represent several women’s clubs, asked for permission to address the committee. “If the men of Chicago want to take the hatpins away from us, let them make the streets safe,” she said. “No man has a right to tell me how I shall dress and what I shall wear.”

    Despite Davis’ impassioned speech, the ordinance passed by a vote of 68 to 2. Similar laws subsequently passed in several other cities, including Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and New Orleans. Ten thousand miles away, in Sydney, Australia, sixty women went to jail rather than pay fines for wearing “murderous weapons” in their hats. Even conservative London ladies steadfastly refused to buy hatpin point protectors.

    “This is but another argument for votes for women and another painful illustration of the fact that men cannot discipline women,” argued the suffragist Harriot Stanton Blatch, a daughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. “Women need discipline; they need to be forced, if not led, out of their barbarisms, but women never have and never will submit to the discipline of men. Give women political power and the best among them will gradually train the uncivilized, just as the best among men have trained their sex.”

    The furor over hatpins subsided at the onset of World War I, and died entirely when bobbed hair and cloche hats came into fashion—at which point emerged a new “social menace”: the flapper. It wouldn’t be long, of course, before politicians grew less concerned with what women wore than with how to win their votes.

    pas encor lu