Bring in the dead horse again

Mar 26th, 2019 11:52 am | By

But her emails.

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Monday that he will use his authority as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to potentially “look into the other side” of the story now that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is complete.

Mueller’s report into the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 presidential election did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia, according to a letter to Congress from Attorney General William Barr.

It did not find evidence that etcetera. We tend to hear and read “did not find that” as “found that not” when the two are quite different. News organizations need to be careful to use precise language on these subjects.

Graham, one of President Donald Trump’s staunchest allies on Capitol Hill, said he would like to “find somebody like a Mr. Mueller” to look into several other grievances, which he laid out to reporters during a press conference, including why the FBI spied on Trump associate Carter Page, and the 2016 airport tarmac meeting between former attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton.

“When it comes to the FISA warrant, the Clinton campaign, the counterintelligence investigation, it’s pretty much been swept under the rug … those days are over,” he said. “I’m going to get answers to this.”

But there is no Clinton administration running the country off a cliff. There is a Trump administration doing that. There is far more pressing need, right now, to make sure Trump isn’t selling us to Volodya and MBS than there is to make sure Clinton has been beaten up enough over the email issue.

He added: “If the shoe were on the other foot, it would be front page news all over the world. The double standard here has been striking and quite frankly disappointing.”

See above. That’s such a ridiculous thing to say. It’s not a double standard, it’s a matter of one person in a position to destroy everything and another in a position to write books and give talks to bankers. Clinton’s email account is not a live issue now because she is not in government now.



A Chicago story

Mar 26th, 2019 11:12 am | By

The BBC notes that Michelle Obama’s memoir is knocking down all the records.

Becoming, first published just five months ago, has already sold more than 10 million copies, Bertelsmann said.

“We believe that these memoirs could well become the most successful memoir ever,” said Thomas Rabe, chief executive of the German firm.

She has one hell of a story to tell, and she knows how to write.

Michelle Obama’s book, which explores her experience from childhood, her work, motherhood and her time in The White House, has been praised for its universal appeal across genders and ages.

And races, it would seem.

I don’t see that happening with any memoir by Melania Trump, or any other Trump. They wouldn’t be any good, obviously, but also, people who like to read and think tend not to be fans of the Trump gang, even Republicans.



Speaking of humility…

Mar 26th, 2019 10:25 am | By

I keep forgetting – how did David Brooks become a thing, again? Is it because he’s so mediocre and conventional and uninteresting?

Today he’s telling us we owe Donnie Two-scoops an apology.

“You have a president who, in my opinion, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sought to, however ham-handedly, collude with the Russian government, a foreign power, to undermine and influence our elections.” — Beto O’Rourke, presidential candidate

“I think there’s plenty of evidence of collusion and conspiracy in plain sight.” — Adam Schiff, chairman of House Intelligence Committee

“I called [Trump’s] behavior treasonous, which is to betray one’s trust and aid and abet the enemy, and I stand very much by that claim.” — John Brennan, former C.I.A. director

Then one from Rob Reiner, because hey let’s just be random.

Maybe it’s time to declare a national sabbath. Maybe it’s time to step back from the scandalmongering and assess who we are right now.

Democrats might approach this moment with an attitude of humility and honest self-examination. It’s clear that many Democrats made grievous accusations against the president that are not supported by the evidence. It’s clear that people like Beto O’Rourke and John Brennan owe Donald Trump a public apology. If you call someone a traitor and it turns out you lacked the evidence for that charge, then the only decent thing to do is apologize.

But we don’t lack the evidence. Just for one thing: Helsinki. Remember that? He met with Putin alone except for the interpreter; the interpreter has as far as I know never been interviewed about what went on in that meeting, nor has any other information about it been forthcoming. That isn’t normal, and it isn’t even an absence of evidence of treason.

There’s that Oval Office meeting the day after he fired Comey, with only Kisliak and Lavrov and some Russian media people. There’s the firing of Comey. There are the other solitary chats with Putin. There’s the Trump Tower Moscow project.

David Brooks needs to go soak his head.



But why would you tweet your views when it upsets the community?

Mar 26th, 2019 9:27 am | By

Well, that’s putting it right out there. “Just don’t talk about political issues and you’ll be fine. Except issues around women, of course; that’s always permitted.”

https://twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/1110503946915733505

Wait a second. Why the trans “community”? Why is UK officialdom so quick to use that word whenever they want to shut up dissenters and impose conformity? The BBC used to babble about “the Muslim community” in exactly the same way when what it actually meant was “the very conservative end of the spectrum of people from majority-Muslim bits of the empire.” The Islamist, Rushdie-threatening MCB always spoke for “the Muslim community” in the BBC’s eyes, and liberal or secular or ex-Muslims never ever did. This is that all over again. Not all trans people think the entire world has to be bludgeoned into agreeing that men are women if they say they are, but Inspector Shutup wants us to think they do, so he calls them “the community.” To intimidate a dissenter.

And to ask a staggeringly impertinent question. “Why would you tweet that?” Er, none of your fucking business?

https://twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/1110503952477376512

“You do have the right. I, a police inspector, am just asking you why you feel the need to engage in hate.”

https://twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/1110503956499693571

Wait wait wait wait. Inspector School 101: first day of class: the police are not there to grill people about why they utter dissenting opinions on Twitter. That’s not only not their job, it’s a billion miles AWAY from being their job.

I’m not saying everybody has the Absolute Right to say absolutely anything and everything on Twitter; I think threats and harassment and abuse should be against the rules of Twitter and dealt with by Twitter. I think police involvement should be confined to credible threats (and no I haven’t the least idea how one separates credible from not credible). The idea that it’s the job of the police to impose the most extreme flavor of trans ideology on everyone who uses Twitter is beyond ludicrous, and horrifying.

https://twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/1110503960828248069

Meanwhile…have the UK police ever phoned a man who spends most of his waking hours harassing women on Twitter to tell him he should stop doing that? Maybe, maybe, but I think it would be front page news if so, and we would have heard about it.



A list of guests it suggested should no longer be booked

Mar 25th, 2019 6:17 pm | By

What?!

Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey in The Post:

President Trump and his allies signaled Monday that they intend to use the broad conclusions of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation — which found no criminal conspiracy with Russia to influence the 2016 election — to forcefully attack perceived opponents they say unfairly accused the president of wrongdoing.

The targets are diffuse, ranging from specific Democratic lawmakers to the media more generally. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway called on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) to resign immediately, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) urged Schiff to relinquish his committee chairmanship. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he planned to investigate what he dubbed “all of the abuse by the Department of Justice and the FBI” during the 2016 presidential election. And the Trump campaign sent a memo to television hosts and producers that included a list of guests it suggested should no longer be booked because they “made outlandish, false claims” on air.

Emphasis added.

Who do they think they are?!

In addition to Graham, other Trump allies have begun to call for investigations into some of the president’s rivals, including former president Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. “Time to investigate the Obama officials who concocted and spread the Russian conspiracy hoax,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted Monday.

Yes, sure, get Obama locked up; that’ll happen.

Amid all the finger-pointing, there was at least one person toward whom the president seemed to have changed his tone. After months of berating Mueller on Twitter and elsewhere for overseeing a “witch hunt” staffed by “angry Democrats,” the president took a more measured stance toward the special counsel Monday.

Asked by a reporter whether he believed Mueller had behaved “honorably,” Trump responded, simply, “Yes, he did.”

Naturally.



Fundamental expectations of presidential conduct

Mar 25th, 2019 5:51 pm | By

There are laws, and there are norms.

A special counsel’s investigation of a president is first and foremost a mechanism for addressing strictly legal questions. But it is necessarily always more, and the investigative process and the ultimate legal and factual findings reflect, help shape and often reinforce the state of key norms — fundamental expectations of presidential conduct.

The process norms, Bob Bauer writes, have come out of this pretty well.

But the Mueller report marked a low point for more substantive norms of presidential conduct. It shows that a demagogic president like Donald Trump can devalue or even depart radically from key norms, just short of committing chargeable crimes, so long as he operates mostly and brazenly in full public view. For a demagogue, shamelessness is its own reward.

Such a president can have openly, actively encouraged and welcomed foreign government support for his political campaigns, and his campaign can reinforce the point in direct communications with that government’s representatives. The Barr summary reveals that the special counsel uncovered not just a couple but “multiple offers” of support from the Russians, and yet neither Mr. Trump nor his campaign reported them to counterintelligence or law enforcement authorities. Mr. Trump went further still — while in office, he dictated a statement for his son and campaign aide, Donald Trump Jr., that falsely represented the purposes of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign representatives and a Kremlin-connected representative (and others) offering assistance in the 2016 election.

But it’s not enough to prosecute.

Similarly, the letter notes that much of the president’s obstructive behavior during the investigation was in “public view.” This was apparently a significant consideration in the decision by Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein not to prosecute (along with the determination that there was no underlying “collusion” legal offense). Here, once again, the president who is a demagogue — who is fully prepared to flout well-established, vitally important expectations about how American presidents faithfully execute the laws — can safely bring self-interested, self-protective pressure on the Department of Justice and undermine its public standing and authority.



They can always play in the street

Mar 25th, 2019 5:19 pm | By

Keeping the rabble out:

At least one multimillion-pound housing development in London is segregating the children of less well-off tenants from those of wealthier homebuyers by blocking them from some communal play areas.

Guardian Cities has discovered that developer Henley Homes has blocked social housing residents from using shared play spaces at its Baylis Old School complex on Lollard Street, south London. The development was required to include a mix of “affordable” and social rental units in order to gain planning permission.

Henley marketed the award-winning 149-home development, which was built in 2016 on the site of a former secondary school, as inclusive and family-friendly. It said the “common areas are there for the use of all the residents”.

But the designs were altered after planning permission was granted to block the social housing tenants from accessing the communal play areas.

“Just kidding about the ‘for the use of all the residents’ part!”

Salvatore Rea, who lives in a rented affordable flat with his wife, Daniella, and their three children, says the residents of the complex are very aware of the disparity. “My children are friends with all the other children on this development – but when it is summer they can’t join them.”

Well if the children would just get jobs as stockbrokers they’d be welcome on the playground.

Dinah Bornat, an architect and expert on child-friendly design who advises planners, local authorities and the mayor of London, called the development “segregation” and said she has raised it with senior planners at the Greater London Authority.

“Everyone I have told, at the highest level, has been absolutely horrified to hear that our planning system is not robust enough to stop this happening,” she said.

“To see hedges where plans showed gates, to see a segregated small play area for the social housing residents, while their children directly overlook a much nicer play area is appalling.”

She says it is an abuse of the planning process if developers make such fundamental alterations after the plans have been through a public consultation.

“They are allowed to make minor changes,” she noted. “But what they have done here is altered the layout to block access to social housing residents. We have to ask: was this a cynical move?”

Changing the design after approval, cynical? Oh surely not.



The weasel words and what they’re hiding

Mar 25th, 2019 12:00 pm | By

William Saletan does a close reading of Barr’s letter:

The letter says the Justice Department won’t prosecute Trump, but it reaches that conclusion by tailoring legal standards to protect the president. Here’s a list of Barr’s weasel words and what they’re hiding.

“The Russian government.” The letter quotes a sentence from Mueller’s report. In that sentence, Mueller says his investigation didn’t prove that members of the Trump campaign “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The sentence specifies Russia’s government. It says nothing about coordination with other Russians.

Like for instance Kilimnik and Veselnitskaya.

“In its election interference activities.” This phrase is included in the same excerpt.
It reflects the structure of the investigation. Mueller started with a counterintelligence probe of two specific Russian government operations: the production of online propaganda to influence the 2016 U.S. election, and the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. These are the two operations Mueller targeted in his indictments of Russians last year.

But there are others. Mueller may have confined his investigation that way but it doesn’t follow that that’s all there is.

“Agreement—tacit or express.” A footnote in Barr’s letter says the special counsel defined coordination as “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.” The letter doesn’t clarify whether this definition originally came from Mueller or from the Justice Department. This, too, limits the range of prosecutable collusion. We know, for example, that in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. was told in an email that “the Crown prosecutor of Russia” had “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary … and would be very useful to your father.” The email said the offer was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. wrote back: “If it’s what you say I love it.” Apparently, by the standards asserted in the letter, this doesn’t count as even “tacit agreement … on election interference.”

Barr has narrowed things down to a point and Trump-Fox are claiming he’s included the whole universe.

Barr’s letter mixes two different authors. On questions of conspiracy and coordination, Barr summarizes Mueller’s findings. But on the question of whether Trump obstructed justice, Barr draws his own conclusion: “Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” That’s Barr’s opinion, not Mueller’s. As the letter concedes, Mueller “did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” That’s for the rest of us to decide.

But is it? Morally, yes, but actionably? Barr has the power, and he can just block us from deciding in such a way that consequences result.

One reason to be suspicious of Barr’s conclusions is that in the course of the letter, he tweaks Mueller’s opinion to look more like his own. Mueller’s report, as excerpted by Barr, says “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” Barr quotes that line and then, in the same sentence, concludes that “the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.” But the excerpt from Mueller’s report doesn’t refer to an absence of evidence. It refers to a presence of evidence, and it says this evidence isn’t enough to prove a crime. Throughout the investigation, this has been a standard Republican maneuver: misrepresenting an absence of proof as an absence of evidence. Barr’s use of this maneuver in his letter is a red flag that he’s writing partisan spin.

All together now: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We all learned that song in the cradle.

There’s more; it’s all interesting.



Very, very evil things, very bad things

Mar 25th, 2019 10:53 am | By

Trump is making threats now. Of course he is.

President Donald Trump says his enemies who did “evil” and “treasonous things” will be under scrutiny after he was absolved of colluding with Russia.

Speaking in the Oval Office, he said no other president should have to be investigated over “a false narrative”.

Mr Trump was hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House on Monday when a reporter asked him about the outcome of the Mueller report.

“There’s a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, very bad things,” Mr Trump said, “I would say treasonous things, against our country.”

“And hopefully people that have done such harm to our country, we’ve gone through a period of really bad things happening.

“Those people will certainly be looked at, I’ve been looking at them for a long time.

“And I’m saying, ‘why haven’t they been looked at?’ They lied to Congress – many of them, you know who they are – they’ve’ done so many evil things.”

Mr Trump did not name the alleged culprits.

He added: “It was a false narrative, it was terrible thing, we can never let this happen to another president again, I can tell you that. I say it very strongly.”

Threat threat threat, but his language is so impoverished nobody can tell what he’s talking about. “Very bad things”; ok then, we’ll get right on that.



While not determinative

Mar 25th, 2019 10:36 am | By

Aaron Blake at the Post asks, in guarded language, if the fix is in.

A big question hanging over William P. Barr’s nomination to be attorney general this year was whether, once he got the job, he would do President Trump’s bidding. Barr had made statements critical of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, and he even wrote a long memo rejecting the need for the obstruction of justice portion of Mueller’s inquiry. Trump also repeatedly made clear his desire for a loyalist to oversee the investigation.

On Sunday, Barr made a big decision in Trump’s favor. And he did so in a way legal experts say is very questionable.

In his summary, Barr wrote that Mueller didn’t conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice but also that he didn’t conclude that he didn’t.

So Barr did it for him.

“After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions,” Barr wrote, “Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

He further explained. “In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

So the idea is that the lack of evidence that Trump was involved in the Russian interference is a reason to think Trump didn’t try to obstruct?

Well that’s ridiculous.

This is Trump. A rational person with a good grasp of all the facts and a clean record would probably refrain from trying to obstruct an investigation of the kind Mueller did, but Trump is not that person.

Legal experts say it’s odd that he emphasized the lack of an underlying, proven crime, given that’s not necessary for obstruction of justice.

“I think this is the weakest part of Attorney General Barr’s conclusions,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “You do not need to prove an underlying crime to prove obstruction of justice. Martha Stewart is quite aware of this fact.”

There have been Martha Stewart jokes on Twitter this morning.

“For example,” added former federal prosecutor David Alan Sklansky, now of Stanford University, “if the President wrongfully tried to block the investigation into Russian interference in the election because he wanted to protect the Russians, or because he didn’t want people to know that a foreign government had tried to hack the election in his favor, that would constitute obstruction.”

Barr’s argument is that the lack of an underlying crime suggests there’s less reason to believe Trump had a “corrupt intent” behind his actions regarding the investigation. But if you set aside collusion, there would seem to be plenty for Trump to want to cover up. Even if these proven and alleged crimes didn’t involve criminal activity by Trump personally, he would seem to have a clear interest in the outcomes of these investigations, both because of his sensitivity about the idea that Russia assisted him and because of the narrative it created of a president surrounded by corruption.

He, personally, likes the image of himself surrounded by corruption. He likes being the godfatha. But he doesn’t want to have to live in a small cell because of it.



One more

Mar 25th, 2019 9:54 am | By

And a third:

A father dedicated to helping prevent mass shootings after his daughter was killed in the Sandy Hook massacre has died of an apparent suicide.

The body of Jeremy Richman was found in his Connecticut office building Monday morning, Newtown police said.

His death is the third suicide in the past week related to school massacres.

Richman, 49, was the father of 6-year-old Avielle Richman, who was among 20 children and six adults killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

You know…Sandy Hook was the one and only time Obama asked Michelle to come back to the White House from an engagement because he couldn’t deal.

After the Sandy Hook massacre, Richman tried to help make sure shootings like the one that killed his daughter wouldn’t happen again.

The neuroscientist co-founded the The Avielle Foundation, which calls attention to mental health issues through research and community engagement.

“The Avielle Foundation’s mission is two-sided. On the one side we have research. We are funding neuroscience research aimed at understanding the brain’s chemistry, structure, and circuits that lead to violence and compassion,” the foundation’s website states.

The other side is “focused on community education and engagement.”

It’s a strange and sad and puzzling thing that the US is so big on violence and so weak on compassion.



Adjust and submit

Mar 25th, 2019 8:57 am | By

It sounds so familiar…

https://twitter.com/Godstopper1981/status/1110067426786529280

McKinnon blocked me on Twitter but Google finds the tweet easily.

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/689798240095571968?lang=en

That ONE tweet. Fancy being silly enough to focus on that! Just because McKinnon refers to lesbians as “cis” and then refers to their sexual orientation as “genital hangups” and then says they can “cope” just fine with penis. Silly silly cis lesbians, refusing to be charmed by giant arrogant medal-stealing DOCTOR Rachel McKinnon when they could simply “cope” or “adjust” or “deal with it” or “shut up and spread them.”



How exonerated is he, kids?

Mar 24th, 2019 4:45 pm | By

Walter Shaub says yes but we already know he’s a criminal.

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906362664972288

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906366628548608

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906370839658497

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906373075222528

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906375352700928

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906378045489155

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906379677093890

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906381732282368

https://twitter.com/waltshaub/status/1109906383426719744

Put like that it all seems a bit damning, doesn’t it.



Does not exonerate

Mar 24th, 2019 4:28 pm | By

Word is the Mueller report says they didn’t find evidence that Trump conspired with Russia but they’re not exonerating him either. Naturally Trump interpreted that as “Complete and Total EXONERATION,” because in Trumpland “not exonerating=TOTAL EXONERATION.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find Donald Trump’s campaign or associates conspired with Russia, Attorney General William Barr said Sunday.

Mueller’s investigation of whether the President committed obstruction of justice did not conclude the President committed a crime, but it also “does not exonerate him,” Barr quoted from Mueller’s report.

Not proven but not disproven. Not the same as totally exonerated.

Trump and his allies charged that Mueller’s report fully vindicated the President, while Democrats were already raising questions about Barr making the decision on obstruction, a signal that the fight and the fallout from Mueller’s investigation is far from over.

Mueller did not make the decision himself on whether to prosecute the President on obstruction. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made the determination the evidence was “not sufficient” to support prosecution.

But Barr is dirty. Barr wrote that memo, on his own initiative, for free.

Meanwhile we watch Trump obstructing justice every day right in front of us, but whatever.



Return of Parkland

Mar 24th, 2019 9:20 am | By

Oh no no no no no.

The Miami Herald:

A second Parkland shooting survivor has killed himself, Coral Springs police confirmed on Sunday.

Investigators told the Miami Herald that a current Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student died in “an apparent suicide” on Saturday night.

The death comes just about a week after a recent Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School graduate, Sydney Aiello, took her own life after being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Broward County Medical Examiner’s Office told NBC News that Aiello died from a gunshot wound to the head.

Ryan Petty, father of Alaina Petty, a 14-year-old freshman who was one of 17 people murdered on Feb. 14. 2018, told the Miami Herald the student who died Saturday also died from a gunshot wound to the head.

As if compelled to do the murderer’s work for him.

Petty founded a suicide prevention foundation called the Walk Up Foundation after his daughter’s death. He said “the issue of suicide needs to be talked about.”

“This is another tragic example,” Petty said, who has partnered with Columbia University for his Foundation.

“When you look at Columbine as an example, almost just as many students killed themselves after the fact than in the actual shooting. That needs to change,” he said. “We need to get them the help they need.”

I didn’t know that. It’s horrifying.



I cut down trees, I wear high heels, suspendies and a bra

Mar 24th, 2019 9:02 am | By

If you want to get people’s attention to a safety campaign, there’s only one way to do it: dangle a woman in underwear in front of them. That works, and nothing else does.

An advertising campaign by Germany’s transport ministry to persuade cyclists to wear helmets has sparked accusations of sexism, as it features a model wearing just a helmet and underwear.

With the slogan: “Looks like shit. But saves my life,” the advert features a profile-shot of Alicija Köhlera competitor in the gameshow Germany’s Next Topmodel, sporting a violet coloured helmet and a lacy bra.

Women pointed out that it’s possible to advertise things without waving stripped women around like sparklers.

Defending the advert, a transport ministry spokesman said: “A successful road safety campaign should jolt people and can be polarising.”

Well a road safety campaign could always jolt people by staging a fatal encounter between a cyclist and a car.



Who shouts the loudest

Mar 23rd, 2019 4:23 pm | By

Survivors’ Network proudly announces it is throwing women to the wolves:

We have recently received a huge increase in attention and interest in our inclusion of trans women in our women-only services. We are happy to make it explicitly clear: Survivors’ Network recognises trans women as women, and we welcome them to use all of our services.

You might as well say you recognize wolves as daffodils. Trans women are men, and they don’t belong in women-only services, especially those for survivors.

We know, through groundbreaking research, that trans people are disproportionately impacted by sexual violence, and we consider a trans inclusive feminism to be key to our values and central to our service as the Rape Crisis Centre for Sussex.

They “know” something that isn’t true (and what is this “groundbreaking research”?): women are the people most affected by sexual violence, not trans people.

Our policies will not be changed by who shouts the loudest.

Shouts the loudest? Really? Louder than Morgan Oger, louder than Rachel McKinnon, louder than the Degenderettes with their axes and threats?

So women in Brighton won’t be able to go there for help.



The me me me me me me foundation

Mar 23rd, 2019 11:12 am | By
The me me me me me me foundation

I’m curious about the “Morgane Oger Foundation” now, so looking into it. Pretty funny so far.

It has its very own Facebook page!

Which of course Morgane Oger could have set up all by xirself.

It sure does look as if Oger is providing all the content. It shares articles from…the Morgane Oger Foundation. For instance, it shares one with the stirring headline “Morgane Oger Foundation Applauds City of Vancouver Putting Inclusion First.” What does Oger mean by that? You already know.

We are concerned that public-funding organizations are closing their eyes to discrimination they enable by funding programs delivered by service providers which do not live up to the funding organization’s expectations. We urge all funders to address this through language in grant contracts with service providers and other funding recipients. On 13 March 2019, Morgane Oger addressed the City of Vancouver for our organization asking that the city enforce its own rules on inclusion and discrimination.

“Permission to discriminate on prohibited grounds is given to some non-profits by the competent agency and should never be assumed to be in place. Charities and non-profit organizations with one exception from a prohibition to discriminate do not automatically have any right to discriminate on any other explicitly prohibited grounds”, said Oger.

The Morgane Oger Foundation applauds the City of Vancouver for its decision to grant Vancouver Rape Relief (VRR) the requested 2019 Direct Social Services Grant funding as a non-extensible or renewable termination grant and for requiring that VRR meet the inclusion criteria set out in City of Vancouver policy before it can be funded again.

Vancouver Rape Relief has a long-documented history of excluding, and advocating for the exclusion from women’s spaces, of Transgender women and other persons who are not what they deem to be born women.

It’s not about their “deeming” anything, it’s about reality. Women are women, and men are not women, however uncomfortable they may feel about being men. Men don’t get to use their discomfort with being men as a battering ram to smash women’s rights to bits.

The “Foundation” is funny; what Oger says is not.

Capture

 

I wouldn’t want a punch from those hands.



Another eponymous “foundation”

Mar 23rd, 2019 10:12 am | By

And here’s a bad idea in the making:

An advocacy organization says it wants to map hatred and discrimination across Canada in a move that is prompting warnings of caution from one civil liberties group.

The Vancouver-based Morgane Oger Foundation has issued a call for volunteers to help build the Canadian Atlas of Populist Extremism, to be known as CAPE.

Founder Morgane Oger said the mapping tool would tie together extremist groups and people regularly associated with them, and also map incidents involving hate across Canada.

Is it actually an organization, or is it just Morgane Oger?

The idea is to shed light on how hatred is propagated, she said, while being mindful that allegations can’t be tossed out willy-nilly.

“We can’t say someone is a murderer unless they are in fact a murderer, but maybe it would be interesting to see it’s always the same dozen people who are doing anti-trans advocacy in the (B.C.) Interior or the white supremacy groups are working with each other,” said Oger, a former provincial NDP candidate and a member of the party’s executive.

Oooh nice poisoning of the well, although I have to say it’s a little too obvious. “Let’s talk about murderers, wouldn’t it be interesting to see who is doing “anti-trans advocacy” and by the way aren’t they exactly like white supremacists?”

What Oger means is “let’s make it even more impossible for women to defend their own rights by covertly calling them murderers and white supremacists.”

Oger said the project is in its infancy and the foundation has not yet determined exactly what types of actions, groups or individuals would be documented, but it believes the data could be useful to academics, law enforcement and others.

It could include a rating system to categorize incidents by severity, she said, giving hate-motivated murders and discriminatory graffiti as examples that would receive different grades.

How very scrupulous.

I think Morgane Oger is pretty much the last person in the world who should be doing this.



Until justice rolls down like dollars

Mar 23rd, 2019 9:52 am | By

The SPLC is back in the news, and not in a good way. Its president Richard Cohen resigned yesterday. The New Yorker has a bandaid-rippingoff article on the truth behind the myth by Bob Moser, who was a staffer there from 2001 to 2004.

In the days since the stunning dismissal of Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on March 14th, I’ve been thinking about the jokes my S.P.L.C. colleagues and I used to tell to keep ourselves sane. Walking to lunch past the center’s Maya Lin–designed memorial to civil-rights martyrs, we’d cast a glance at the inscription from Martin Luther King, Jr., etched into the black marble—“Until justice rolls down like waters”—and intone, in our deepest voices, “Until justice rolls down like dollars.”

In short: the SPLC is extremely rich, and a lot of that wealth goes to the top staff, who are almost all white men.

Moser was surprised first of all by the headquarters, a new, vast, modernist glass-and-steel fortress.

The entrance was through an underground bunker, past multiple layers of human and electronic security. Cameras were everywhere in the open-plan office, which made me feel like a Pentagon staffer, both secure and insecure at once. But nothing was more uncomfortable than the racial dynamic that quickly became apparent: a fair number of what was then about a hundred employees were African-American, but almost all of them were administrative and support staff—“the help,” one of my black colleagues said pointedly. The “professional staff”—the lawyers, researchers, educators, public-relations officers, and fund-raisers—were almost exclusively white. Just two staffers, including me, were openly gay.

He forgot something. He forgot women. It’s strange how regularly people forget that. He gets to it later in the piece but it’s odd to leave it out at the beginning. The professional staff were almost exclusively white and male.

In the decade or so before I’d arrived, the center’s reputation as a beacon of justice had taken some hits from reporters who’d peered behind the façade. In 1995, the Montgomery Advertiser had been a Pulitzer finalist for a series that documented, among other things, staffers’ allegations of racial discrimination within the organization. In Harper’s, Ken Silverstein had revealed that the center had accumulated an endowment topping a hundred and twenty million dollars while paying lavish salaries to its highest-ranking staffers and spending far less than most nonprofit groups on the work that it claimed to do. The great Southern journalist John Egerton, writing for The Progressive, had painted a damning portrait of Dees, the center’s longtime mastermind, as a “super-salesman and master fundraiser” who viewed civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals. “We just run our business like a business,” Dees told Egerton. “Whether you’re selling cakes or causes, it’s all the same.”

It’s not that they don’t do any good work, but it is that the people at the top got rich doing it, which donors probably don’t realize.

Co-workers stealthily passed along these articles to me—it was a rite of passage for new staffers, a cautionary heads-up about what we’d stepped into with our noble intentions. Incoming female staffers were additionally warned by their new colleagues about Dees’s reputation for hitting on young women. And the unchecked power of the lavishly compensated white men at the top of the organization—Dees and the center’s president, Richard Cohen—made staffers pessimistic that any of these issues would ever be addressed.

Now he’s remembered about the women; good.

“I expected there’d be a lot of creative bickering, a sort of democratic free-for-all,” my friend Brian, a journalist who came aboard a year after me, said one day. “But everybody is so deferential to Morris and Richard. It’s like a fucking monarchy around here.” The work could be meaningful and gratifying. But it was hard, for many of us, not to feel like we’d become pawns in what was, in many respects, a highly profitable scam.

Then Morris Dees was fired.

One day later, the Los Angeles Times and the Alabama Political Reporter reported that Dees’s ouster had come amid a staff revolt over the mistreatment of nonwhite and female staffers, which was sparked by the resignation of the senior attorney Meredith Horton, the highest-ranking African-American woman at the center. A number of staffers subsequently signed onto two letters of protest to the center’s leadership, alleging that multiple reports of sexual harassment by Dees through the years had been ignored or covered up, and sometimes resulted in retaliation against the women making the claims. (Dees denied the allegations, telling a reporter, “I don’t know who you’re talking to or talking about, but that is not right.”)

Emperors tend to expect access to the females of their choice, without any backtalk.

Read on.