The logic used to explain the faults in the judicial paradigms we rely on in our society was extremely interesting in Reel Time/Real Justice, and very telling of not only the racism it allowed for in the case of Rodney King but also how it extends into todays legal landscape. The most poignant case made was the narrative nature of legal proceedings, which according to the ideologies explained in this piece are approached outside of racial contexts, allowing for the aforementioned narratives to imply individual suspicion without the inclusion of the overt racial prejudices from which these suspicions are born. The piece illustrates that the evidence that makes up these narratives is always up for interpretation and deconstruction, and that this malleability makes for a legal process that resembles the political sphere in which those reliant on its infallibility are instead subject to the stories born out of their situation and the subsequent marketability of said narratives. That is to say, given the racist societal views prevalent during Rodney Kings time, it was easy to take obvious evidence suggesting racially charged police aggression and sell it as an angry and defensive black man, and all it took was the legal re structuring of the narrative. The same way that selling a scared white cop protecting himself from a black thug is easier to sell to certain juries than a racist killer.

The strange parallelism between an aesthetically “clean” environment and the imaginary safety of said environment resulted in a wave of harmful legislation and policing policies. I believe that these abusive policies are the issue, as far as the issues we have covered in class, that directly impacted my experience in New York City. I have been a direct witness to police tactics aimed at “cleaning” a neighborhood up, that simply result in antagonized citizens already at a severe disadvantage within the community. Friends of mine with otherwise completely clean records ending up suspended from high schools in which they were performing appropriately because principles catch wind of their arrest for graffiti. A violation whose consequence could’ve been a ticket was escalated to the point of trial, and although the charges were immediately dropped, the resounding consequences in that young man’s life affected the level of eduction to which he was exposed. Alienating and disenfranchising misdemeanor offenders seems to me like a counter productive strategy, as it only fuels the cycle of poverty and distrust of police. Cleanliness of walls and of citizens does not translate to safety, but they are telling of much deeper issues that must be solved as opposed to making the victims of these problems disappear. A 17 year old with a marker should not be held overnight in the same cell as dangerous criminals, taught to equate himself to them, and then stripped of opportunity, and to think that this strategy is helping the city move forward is foolish.

The information presented in these articles is of great concern to our society, and are representative of many of the social structures that our generation has come to loathe. It is unfortunate to see the growing influence of the rich in the politics of this country, and how money is in fact a more powerful force than the government in charge of representing the will of the people. The idea that the development of public spaces, whose very name is indicative of it role as a physical extensions of the people’s common will, is to be controlled by those with the wealth for development seems to be a corruption of the very concept. How to combat this development is another question, as we are witness to the very short-lived effects of the Occupy movement, although the powerful language displayed in the reading “Chapter 7, “#OWS: The Party of Wall Street Meets its Nemesis” serves as a representation of the impassioned frustration we are beginning to see as a result of these negative shifts. What we haven’t seen is concrete steps taken in order to reverse these steps. There need to be systems put in place in order to separate purchasing power from political and social influence.

The issues we face as a society in todays world are subject to an intimidating number of factors, factors whose subtlety at times require a nuanced approach in which intellectual creativity must be applied in order to truly asses all the catalysts and results of said issues. Racism is one such issue, and the recognition of environmental racism as a hurtful paradigm made apparent by the natural disasters of recent history proves to be a step in the right direction in the process of addressing the not so obvious connection between race and income, and the government protection received in the face of tragedy.The failure of protecting agencies to justly care for the victims, instead falling back on the institutional racism and classism, especially given the gravity of the situation these communities faced, is a blaring example of the country’s backward approach to race and the environment. The fact that organizations are using these tragedies as a crutch for their abusive city planning is inexcusable, as we should not as a society accept that profit in the face of disaster is an acceptable facet of capitalist opportunism. The Toxic Soup article was a clear summary of how this racism directly affected those who went through Hurricane Katrina, where as the New York Times article demonstrated how it is communities come together in the face of this injustice in order to make up for the lack of federal assistance.

What these readings afforded me was a concrete understanding of the processes and systems behind gentrification. Paradigms whose purposefulness I was more or less ignorant too, and having been educated as to their realities I am more or less shocked by how simultaneously devious and pragmatic an institution it is from an industry standpoint. It was also extremely interesting to see the birth of gentrification culture and the values for which pioneer gentrifiers stood, which to me seemed ironic given that the results of the gentrification they brought about were often times the exact opposite of these values. The reading regarding the complex nature of gentrification borders and it’s spread confirmed many of my own suspicions regarding the nature of gentrification, as it is only logical that something as complex as a neighborhoods make up, given all the social, political, and economic factors, would not change in an even and consistent manner.

The Hacksworth reading was an insightful and detailed description of neo-liberalism, it’s development and ideological specificities, and more importantly the potentially disastrous role it is playing in the way in which our legislation is currently dealing with housing. The foundations of this form of thought seem to be conducive to an environment in which the standard quality of life of tenants is habitually sacrificed. This philosophy is based around an individual’s responsibility to provide for themselves, which is easily twisted into being a rationalization for the abuse of ownership and financial power. That is the overall gist I extracted from the reading, however I became lost in a lot of the minutia and jargon which unfortunately resulted in a lot of the examples flying right over my head. I became especially lost when comparisons and contrasts were being made between neoliberalism and its various philosophical counterpoints, more notably neo-conservatism. It seemed to me like a lot of time was spent stretching these comparisons without enough of a clear singular definition of certain terms in order to contextualize the arguments.

Question- What is the solution to the neo-liberal tendencies within our system? How do we avoid it as a society?