There was this today:

https://twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1004682774920523776

Terry Miller of Bulkeley wins the 100m girls dash i. 11.72 (meet record). Andraya Yearwood of Cromwell 2nd, RHAM’s Bridget Lalonde 3rd #cttrack pic.twitter.com/4GmLRyicDI

— GameTimeCT (@GameTimeCT) June 4, 2018

And there was a piece by Colleen Flaherty at Inside Higher Ed with the subhead

Is philosophy really ignoring important questions about transgender identity, specifically what it means to be a woman?

As last year’s Hypatia debate revealed, writing philosophy about being transgender is tricky. There are outstanding debates about which questions actually matter and who is best situated to philosophize about transgender identity, along with pitfalls to avoid — arguably facile comparisons among them. (As you may recall, Hypatia’s editors and associate editorial board split over an essay comparing being transgender to being transracial).

So Flaherty implies that comparing transgender to transracial is facile, but why is it facile? She doesn’t say.

In a new, talked-about series of essays, Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, in Britain, brings another set of tricky question to the fore: If there are inherent differences in interests between cisgender women and trans women, why aren’t academics debating them?

“Something is afoot in academic philosophy,” Stock wrote in one essay she published on Medium. “Beyond the academy, there’s a huge and impassioned discussion going on, around the apparent conflict between women-who-are-not-transwomen’s rights and interests, and transwomen’s rights and interests. And yet nearly all academic philosophers – including, surprisingly, feminist philosophers – are ignoring it.”

It’s not surprising at all though. Last year’s Hypatia “debate” revealed why – it’s because of the colossal amount of bullying, shaming, dogpiling, ostracizing, and backstabbing that goes on if a feminist philosopher doesn’t ignore it. It’s not a genuine debate; it’s a highly dogmatic and pugnaciously enforced doctrine.

Stock suggests that part of the problem may be fear of being labeled transphobic for asserting that there are important differences between cisgender women and trans women — what is called the “gender-critical” position.

“May be”? Get serious.

Jenny Saul, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sheffield in Britain and a moderator of Feminist Philosophers, borrowed a comment Audrey Yap had posted about another article on “trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” or TERFs, as cisgender women who don’t count trans women among their ranks are sometimes called. Saul said Yap, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Victoria in Canada, did a “great job of explaining why many of us [are] very hesitant to have these discussions.”

Here’s what Yap said: “What I do have a serious problem with are people who are happy to speculate about gender identity, and whether trans women are really women, as though it were an abstract philosophical puzzle to be solved, and not something that is about actual living people. When taking one side of an argument involves the invalidation of a lot of people’s identity and lived experience I think it’s right that we be extremely hesitant to take it.”

These are philosophers, remember. Philosophy as a discipline is generally quite rigorous about defining terms, especially the terms that are at the core of what is being analyzed. Given that fact, I think it’s bizarre that Saul finds Yap’s comment “a great job of explaining.” To make sense of her comment we need to know what she means by “identity” and “lived experience” and how either or both can be “invalidated” by one side of an argument.

That is, after all, the pulsating spitting third rail of the whole thing – you may not try to figure out what all this means and how people back it up because if you do you are doing something very wicked to people’s “identity.” But what does that even mean? And in what sense is it political? Why is it a political absolute that “identity” must be respected? And is it even the case that identity in general must be respected or is it only this one kind, and if so, on what grounds? But don’t ask, because that invalidates…and around the circle we go again.

No more consumer protection for you!

Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was expected to meet on Wednesday with members of its consumer advisory board, which provides feedback on the bureau’s rules and policies.

Instead, one of his deputies dismissed the board’s members.

By law, the bureau must convene the advisory board and hold at least two in-person meetings with its members a year. The bureau canceled a meeting scheduled for February, and last week it canceled one planned for this week.

Instead it put on a conference call and fired them. Boom.

The consumer advisory board’s members are consumer activists, academics, entrepreneurs who run financial start-ups and industry representatives from companies including Citi, Discover, and Mastercard. Also participating on the call Wednesday were members of two other groups that advise the bureau, one representing credit unions and the other representing community banks.

“We suspected this might be coming,” said Josh Zinner, a member of the consumer advisory board and the chief executive of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. “This is a further signaling that the new leadership is almost obsessively dismantling the bureau’s accomplishments and taking it in a decidedly different, industry-friendly direction.”

Friendly to industry at the expense of consumers. Will it still call itself the Consumer Protection Bureau?

A community banking representative on the call criticized the bureau’s leadership for ousting the group’s members without meeting with them even once.

“The bureau has not fired anyone,” John Czwartacki, a bureau spokesman, said after the call. The agency will meet its legal obligation to convene meetings of the consumer advisory board and current members will be allowed to serve out the year, he said.

The changes to the advisory groups are the latest in a flurry of moves under Mr. Mulvaney’s leadership. He is trying to reduce the bureau’s power and responsibilities, which he has previously complained were too broad.

In other words, he’s simply demolishing the bureau he’s supposed to be directing.

But at least he’s fixed the patriotism problem.

Only a few of the Super Bowl-winning Philadelphia Eagles were going to show up at the White House to meet the president, so the White House emitted a Very Strongly Worded Statement saying that the Eagles had been disinvited because they were not willing to respect the national anthem. No, the statement said, the president could not bear to see the flag and the troops and this amber grain-waving land so sorely disrespected, so therefore they would be having an afternoon of patriotic singing and troop saluting with no Philadelphia Eagles whatsoever, just regular eagles, if any were available, that fans of the sports franchise (or White House staff) would be free to attend (whichever filled the venue in a lifelike manner first).

…

The incident poses the same problem as most Trump-era incidents, in which what actually occurred is more ridiculous than anything you could liken it to. This is more palpably absurd than if the president had decided to declare Tuesday Good Speling day. It is like if the first lady decided that her pet issue would be stopping people from being mean to other people online. No, it is like if the president had a special event expressly to exhibit what True Patriots Singing looked like and failed to sing some of the words to “God Bless America,” a song with 47 words, nine of which are just “God bless America” repeated three times.

Well that leaves 38 and 38 is very many words to remember. Very.

But what is patriotism, anyway? Is it a genuine love for country, a belief in its ideals even at personal cost, a desire to honor those who have sacrificed to keep it safe, a willingness to help it move closer to its ideals? Or is it weaponizing the symbols of your country in order to trample over human beings, and becoming very, very upset whenever a black athlete engages in political speech? Is there anything more patriotic than insisting that you, the president, can pardon yourself (but, of course, have nothing to pardon)?

As the song goes, America. America. Something something.

God mumble mumble.

Donald Trump is America’s biggest fake fan. He doesn’t know any of the hits (“Lincoln … he did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time“; “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more.”) But he owns all of the gear.

His is the patriotism of valorizing empty forms of devotion, mouth-honor, military bands and bunting. It’s swaddling yourself in the flag and trying to get a tank to drive down Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s crying “America” whenever anyone criticizes something that is not America — our legacy of racism, or the Trump presidency.

He’s all about the symbols, and pig-ignorant about the substance. What little he does “know” is wrong.

Trump’s patriotism is the pernicious notion of America as something distinct from the people and the ideas that compose it, the notion that the symbols themselves are inherently worthy of honor whether or not they stand for anything.

That; that’s what I’ve been getting at. Standing up “with hand on heart” for a song is the emptiest kind of “patriotism” there could possibly be. Trump might as well stage a ceremony to honor his ugly Trump living room every night; it’s just as relevant. Genuine patriotism worth anything would be about making America better, not singing a song in a particular bodily position.

The many ironies in Trump’s whining about news reports on Melania Trump’s long absence from public view…

President Trump engaged in characteristic hyperbole when he tweeted Wednesday that the media “reported everything from near death, to facelift, to left the W.H. (and me) for N.Y. or Virginia, to abuse” — as if reputable journalists had presented various conspiracy theories as fact.

Moreover, the president ignored or failed to see the multiple ironies in his grievance.

For starters, the president’s tweets amount to a complaint about conspiracy theories from the man who spent years promoting the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and who touted the “amazing” reputation of Infowars founder Alex Jones, a 9/11 “truther” who has suggested the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., was a “false flag.” Trump’s standing to police rumor and conjecture is diminished, to say the least.

“Irony” isn’t the right word for that, actually. It needs a much harsher word. What is the word for treating people like shit yourself but also pitching a huge fit when other people are mildly critical or questioning toward you? What’s the name of that cognitive distortion that thinks “I can abuse people as much as I like but people may not so much as look askance at me”? That bloated regard for the self and hostile contempt for everyone else? Is there a name for it?

Then there is President Trump’s rich objection to the notion that the first lady could have had a facelift; he hurled the same charge at MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski last year. Brzezinski and co-host Joe Scarborough tweeted reminders on Wednesday.

I can’t even imagine. https://t.co/WrwlEc37OH

— Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) June 6, 2018

I don’t know of an exact word for it, but I do know it’s not as benign as mere “irony.”

Sean Illing at Vox talks to feminist philosopher Kate Manne about what’s really so great about Jordan Peterson anyway?

Sean Illing

Peterson has this recurring interest in identifying social hierarchies, which resonates with people who think they’re in danger of losing their privileged position or are resentful about having lost it. This is something you really home in on in your review of his book.

Kate Manne

Yeah. I mean, it’s striking. There’s an interesting moment in the book where Peterson talks about resentment as a “revelatory” emotion that can mean one of two things. One, you feel it because you’re immature, in which case you just need to buck up. Two, you feel resentment because you really are being oppressed or taken advantage of somehow. Your resentment shows you that something needs to change or that you need to assert yourself in relation to other people.

But there is clearly a third possibility. People often feel resentful because they appear, based on historically entrenched social norms, to be getting a bad bargain, when what’s actually happening is that others are getting a somewhat fairer deal. When you’re accustomed to unjust privilege, equality feels like oppression, as the saying goes.

In that third case, some sort of regret- or dislike-based emotion may be reasonable, while resentment is not. If there’s some oversight at the picnic such that I get an extra brownie and someone else gets no brownie, I may feel passionate sorrow as I hand the extra brownie over for transfer, but I really have no business feeling resentment. I have a feeling humans in general aren’t very good at separating those two things.

Sean Illing

I know that Peterson received some criticism recently for endorsing, or appearing to endorse, “enforced monogamy.” To be fair, this is a very particular anthropological term that doesn’t imply that the government is literally forcing people into monogamous relationships, but instead refers to social policies that incentivize monogamy.

What does he actually say about this in the book?

Kate Manne

He said that subsequently, in a New York Times piece, I believe, in response to the point that school shooters are often sexually, romantically, and socially frustrated young men. This suggestion is classic, straight-up misogyny, according to my definition of it.

Peterson has since waffled about what he meant, but I’m mostly interested in how the proposal would naturally be understood by ordinary readers, which leaves little room for charitable interpretation or plausible deniability in this case.

Peterson is very close-mouthed about the prevalence of domestic violence, marital rape, and intimate partner homicide in the context of the idea of enforced monogamy. So if you’re trying to prevent male violence, enforcing heterosexual monogamy seems a remarkably poor way to go about it — as well as obviously infringing on women’s entitlement to orient themselves toward whatever and whomever they wish (other women, multiple partners, and their own projects and ambitions). Monogamous relationships are just one potentially valid option among many, all of which have risks and rewards, costs and benefits.

And given the current state of patriarchal views of women, they probably shouldn’t be enforced, even via social policies.

Now here’s a wild and crazy idea:

EPA must produce the opposing body of science Administrator Scott Pruitt has relied upon to claim that humans are not the primary drivers of global warming, a federal judge has ruled.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat? Produce actual reasons for making a claim? Produce actual evidence and argument and statistics? That’s unAmerican!

The EPA boss has so far resisted attempts to show the science backing up his claims. His critics say such evidence doesn’t exist, even as Pruitt has called for greater science transparency at the agency.

Now, a court case may compel him to produce research that attempts to contradict the mountain of peer-reviewed studies collected by the world’s top science agencies over decades that show humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace through the burning of fossil fuels.

Now look here, it’s Pruitt’s opinion, his sincere and honest opinion, and it’s lèse-majesté for a judge to say he has to back it up.

Not long after he took over as EPA administrator, Pruitt appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” where he was asked about carbon dioxide and climate change. He said, “I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

The next day, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the studies Pruitt used to make his claims. Specifically, the group requested “EPA documents that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change.”

On Friday, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, ordered the agency to comply.

But Pruitt said he doesn’t agree. He’s the boss of that agency so that’s all that counts. Being a boss means you get to disagree with any claim you don’t like, no questions asked.

“Particularly troubling is the apparent premise of this agency challenge to the FOIA request, namely: that the evidentiary basis for a policy or factual statement by an agency head, including about the scientific factors contributing to climate change, is inherently unknowable.”

Wellll I think by “inherently unknowable” they mean “nonexistent because it’s just what he thinks because it’s what suits him.”

Climate scientists have established that the planet is warming at an unprecedented pace because of humanity’s consumption of fossil fuels. Pruitt and other Trump administration officials have questioned those findings but have never produced any research backing up their assertions.

Because, of course, it has nothing to do with research; it’s about power. That’s all. “I have the power now so I get to contradict your science because I want to.”

Well, you see, it’s not about free speech, at least not according to Trump.

The White House press secretary today said the president doesn't consider the protected free speech of NFL players against police brutality to be free speech. Which is a totally accurate reflection of how he sees it and a pretty remarkable statement.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 5, 2018

Yep, she said that.

“The president doesn’t think that this is an issue simply of free speech,” Sanders responded when reporters questioned why the White House supported the Supreme Court’s decision to protect the rights of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple but not those of NFL players kneeling during the anthem.

“He thinks it’s about respecting the men and women of our military, it’s respecting our national anthem, and it’s about standing out of pride for that,” Sanders continued.

Involuntarily. On command. No dissent or refusal permitted.

Besides which, why is standing for a song at a football game in particular about respecting the men and women of our military and respecting our national anthem? Why is that and that alone a situation in which one is commanded by the president of the US to show highly symbolic “respect” for the military and the song being sung? Not lacrosse games, not picnics, not Halloween, not shopping, not sailing, not shoveling snow off the roof – just football games. What’s the connection? Is it the violence? Is that it? Is Trump thinking football is actually a branch of the military, because of all the players who end up disabled from playing it?

Trump’s Spite the Eagles party was a dud.

Donald Trump’s “celebration of America” at the White House, hastily put together on Tuesday in the absence of Super Bowl winners the Philadelphia Eagles, proved that rare thing in the Trump era: an anti-climax.

“I was surprised from the ordeal to get here that it was only a 12-minute shindig,” said Emma Wittstruck Call, 30, who did not vote for the president. “I thought it would be longer.”

Trump handed more ammunition to critics who compare him to a tinpot dictator wrapping himself in the flag and appealing to cheap patriotism. He did not mention the Eagles or attempt to heal divisions.

The event on the south lawn had been intended to follow the tradition of US presidents welcoming the national football champions to the White House. But on Monday night Trump disinvited the Eagles after learning that fewer than 10 players planned to attend, reopening his feud with American athletes over protests during the national anthem.

So there were some flags, and Trump said words for four minutes, and then the US marine band and the US army chorus played “God Bless America” so that we could see mandatory patriotism and mandatory godbothering combined in one crap song.

At the daily White House briefing on Tuesday afternoon, Sanders seemed to attempt again to cast the NFL team in a bad light with its followers, saying “the Eagles are the ones that changed their commitment at the last minute … and the president thinks that the fans deserve better than that.”

“Certainly,” she added, “we would hope that all of the people of Pennsylvania would share the Potus’s commitment to the national anthem and pride that we have in the country.”

No. We’re not required to demonstrate pride in the country, especially when it’s under the thumb of an ignorant sadistic crook. We’re even less required to share “commitment” to any particular song, even if people do label it “the national anthem.” It’s just a song. It’s just a symbol. It’s just advertising. We don’t have to share it or be committed to it or bend the knee to it or anything else. It’s none of Sarah Sanders’s or Donald Trump’s business whether or not we show deference to a song. Sanders shouldn’t be spending official time trying to shame us into it.

More shame and disgust.

German politicians have called for Donald Trump’s envoy in Berlin to be expelled from the country after he said in an interview that he wanted to “empower” conservative forces throughout Europe.

Ambassador Richard Grenell, who has been in office for less than a month, has caused irritation in Berlin with a series of perceived breaches of diplomatic etiquette.

On Monday, the former Fox News contributor further strayed beyond his ambassadorial remit by requesting a short meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu at Berlin’s airport following the Israeli prime minister’s meeting with Angela Merkel.

…

In Germany, Grenell’s series of unorthodox moves is drawing mounting criticism. Sahra Wagenknecht, the co-chair of leftwing party Die Linke, called for the envoy to be recalled to the US.

“If people like US ambassador Richard Grenell believe they can dictate like a lord of the manor who rules in Europe and who doesn’t, they can no longer remain in Germany as a diplomat,” Wagenknecht told Die Welt.

He’s not there to empower conservative forces. That’s not what ambassadors are supposed to do.

Martin Schulz, the former leader of the Social Democratic party, told German news agency dpa that he thought Grenell’s position as US ambassador was untenable in the long term.

“What this man is doing is unheard of in international diplomacy,” said the former leader of the European parliament, who failed to unseat Angela Merkel at federal elections in Germany last year.

Schulz said Grenell had acted like the representative of a political movement rather than a country, and punned that next week’s meeting with the Austrian leader Kurz, which means “short” in German, would lead to a shortening of the US envoy’s stint in Berlin.

In the Breitbart interview, Grenell said: “I absolutely want to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders.

“I think there is a groundswell of conservative policies that are taking hold because of the failed policies of the left.”

Nah it’s because the right has no shame about lying.

Frivolous lawsuit department:

A former Navy sailor who is one of five people to receive a pardon from President Donald Trump is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials, alleging that he was subject to unequal protection of the law.

Specifically, Kristian Saucier, who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine on which he worked, argues that the same officials who meted out punishment to him for his actions chose to be lenient with Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server and handling of classified information.

MO-OM IT’S NOT FAIR Jeffy stole two cookies and you punished me for burning the house down, IT’S NOT FAIR.

His lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others.

“They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free.”

I spy fertile territory here. Just point out Person X who is still walking free after [your random example here] while you got locked up for doing exactly the same thing apart from a few small differences like action, place, outcome, motivation, etc. Score!

“We’ll highlight the differences in the way Hillary Clinton was prosecuted and how my client was prosecuted,” Daigle said. “We’re seeking to cast a light on this to show that there’s a two-tier justice system and we want it to be corrected.”

While campaigning, and after taking office, Trump frequently voiced support for Saucier, who in March became the second person he pardoned.

Trump often compared the Obama administration’s handling of Saucier’s case with that of Clinton.

Well in that case no doubt they will win big $$$$$.