Dallas yesterday, Richmond tomorrow

Sep 15th, 2017 5:48 pm | By

A statue of Lee was removed from an eponymous park in Dallas yesterday, without incident.

The 14 foot- (4.3 meter) tall statue in Dallas of Lee on horseback riding with an unnamed soldier has been at a city park since 1936, with then President Franklin D. Roosevelt on hand for its dedication.

Workers in yellow vests took down the Lee statue and hauled it away on a trailer pulled by a pick-up truck, during an operation lasting about four hours, according to a Reuters Witness. Dozens of bystanders watched while police, including some officers armed with rifles, stood guard.

The park may be renamed.

Earlier this month, a U.S. judge dismissed a lawsuit from the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who were seeking court protection to keep the statue in place in the park.

Opponents of Confederate memorials view them as an affront to African-Americans and ideals of racial equality. But supporters of such symbols argue they represent an important part of history, honoring those who fought and died for the Southern states that sought to secede in the Civil War.

Yes, and that’s the problem – we shouldn’t honor people who fought and died to preserve slavery. That would be like honoring SS guards who worked at Auschwitz.

White supremacists are heading to Richmond, Virginia for a rally tomorrow to “defend” Confederate monuments.

CSAII: The New Confederate States of America is planning an unpermitted “Heritage not Hate” rally to defend Richmond’s Robert E. Lee Monument following the deadly “Unite the Right” rally to defend Charlottesville’s Robert E. Lee statue.

“I hope nobody loses their lives tomorrow, on either side, I really do,” CSA II organizer and Three Percenter militia organizer Tara Brandau told WTVR. “That’s not why we are here.”

Friday morning, Brandau posted photos of her in a pickup truck, flashing a Three Percenter gang-sign while wearing a ‘POLICE’ hat and confederate fingerless gloves.

Two long rifles appear to be displayed in a rear window rack.

Just a good-will gesture.

Following the violence in Charlottesville, CSAII’s official statement said they would continue to defend “at all costs” confederate monuments, like the statues in Charlottesville and Richmond.

“We pride ourselves in honoring and protecting our Proud Confederate Heritage as well as our Confederate Monuments and Cemeteries to honor our past heros (sic) and not let their memory fade away as is being done by a lot of our government officials today,” the CSAII Commanding General wrote on Facebook. “CSA II® will continue to honor our heros (sic) memory by protecting our monuments to their memory at all cost and assisting our fellow members of the Heritage ~ Not Hate Movement to stop the oppressive tactics done by these above mentioned hate groups and government officials.”

The “heritage” is slavery and white supremacy, imposed and defended with force.



4 rules to help him not get fired

Sep 15th, 2017 4:21 pm | By

California Representative Ted Lieu wrote a memo to Steven Mnuchin.

 



Help from Fox and Friends

Sep 15th, 2017 3:32 pm | By

Trump probably got that stupid and venomous claim that the tube bombing was carried out by “sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard” from Fox and Friends.

At 6:42 a.m., Mr. Trump tweeted that “sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard” carried out the explosion, which left 29 people injured in the blast and ensuing panic. It was not clear where Mr. Trump had gotten that information, though 23 minutes earlier, “Fox and Friends,” a program Mr. Trump regularly watches, broadcast a report in which an outside security analyst said the London police probably already knew the identity of the attackers.

“Can someone tell Scotland Yard?” asked Brian Kilmeade, one of the hosts of the program.

So that’s probably what put the idea in Trump’s empty head. Fox said it so it must be true, because Fox said it.

White House officials said they did not know whether “Fox and Friends” was the source for Mr. Trump. They tried to play down the contretemps, saying Mr. Trump’s tweet was referring to the longstanding efforts of British law enforcement authorities to investigate would-be terrorists, not to anyone involved in Friday’s attack.

“What the president was communicating is that obviously all of our law enforcement efforts are focused on this terrorist threat for years,” said the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster. “Scotland Yard has been a leader, as our F.B.I. has been a leader.”

Nope. That’s not what he was communicating at all.

The police in London also alluded to the president’s Twitter post. “This is a live investigation and we will provide further updates as it progresses,” the Metropolitan Police said in a statement.

“Any speculation is extremely unhelpful at this time,” the statement said.

Well that’s Trump – here to be unhelpful!



Different rules

Sep 15th, 2017 11:29 am | By

David Graham at the Atlantic asks a necessary question – why is Trump so speedy at jumping to conclusions about what he takes to be Islamist terrorism and so slow and cautious about a bit of white supremacist terrorism caught on video?

For the second time in a month, President Trump has rushed to condemn a terrorist attack abroad as the work of Islamist terrorists, speaking out before the facts are known even to local officials. Trump’s remarks came just a day after he once again insisted he was right to cast blame on both sides after violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August. And they renew the question of why he is so quick to speak with such clarity in cases involving Islamist terrorism and yet so deliberate and equivocating in a clash involving white supremacists.

Sadly, it’s not even a question. He likes the white supremacists. He likes what they’re doing. He made Jeff Sessions Attorney General so that he Sessions could suppress the black vote as he’s spent his whole career trying to do. He’s an active, enthusiastic racist.

Shooting from the hip is not unusual for Trump. After an attack in Barcelona last month, Trump quickly condemned it as terror and resurrected an old and slanderous falsehood about General John Pershing’s handling of Muslim fighters in the Philippines. Earlier this year, he got into a tiff with London Mayor Sadiq Khan over the response to terror, also drawing chastisement from British authorities. And during the presidential campaign, he was quick to label the downing of an EgyptAir flight as terror, even though few facts were then known.

The London attack and Trump’s speculative response to it comes the day after he reaffirmed his “both sides” response to Charlottesville. On Wednesday, Trump met with Senator Tim Scott, a black Republican from South Carolina who had been critical of Trump’s response to the attacks. Scott tried to impress upon Trump the long history that fed into the clash.

“I shared my thoughts of the last three centuries of challenges from white supremacists, white nationalists, KKK, Nazis,” Scott said. “So there’s no way to find an equilibrium when you have three centuries of history versus the situation that is occurring today.”

And Trump listened, and finally got the point?

Scott did not seem optimistic that Trump had grasped the lesson. Asked whether Trump expressed regret, the senator said, “He certainly tried to explain what he was trying to convey.” He also offered caution about future statements, using the soft condescension that allies often use when discussing the president: “Anyone that expects an epiphany or a transformation to happen overnight because somebody walks in a room, I think you don’t understand human nature.”

Human nature is one thing, and Trump nature is another. It’s a bit insulting to humans to imply that Trump stands for all of us. Trump is exceptionally uninformed, and thick, and narcissistic, and callous.



Thank you for mouthing off please stop

Sep 15th, 2017 11:07 am | By

Even Trump’s semi-friends, such as Theresa May, aren’t thanking him for his “proactive!” tweets.

British officials rebuked President Donald Trump on Friday for claiming that the individuals responsible for setting off explosives in the London subway had been “in the sights of” law enforcement who failed to be “proactive.”

Prime Minister Theresa May reproached Trump for his rhetoric in the wake of what police are investigating as a terrorist attack that injured at least 18 people.

“I never think it’s helpful for anybody to speculate on what is an ongoing investigation,” she said. “As I’ve just said, the police and security services are working to discover the full circumstances of this cowardly attack and to identify all those responsible.”

And Donald Trump, in particular, is a stupid loudmouth bully who knows nothing about the situation. Even if he’s been briefed he knows nothing, because he doesn’t pay attention, or care, or listen, or remember.

A White House official said on Friday that chief of staff John Kelly wasn’t with the president when he fired off his tweets about “loser terrorists” before 7 a.m. Kelly has tried to bring structure to the West Wing and contain some of the president’s impulses by serving as a gatekeeper to what people and what information make it into the Oval Office.

But there is of course a limit to what Kelly can do. He can’t sleep on a cot in the Trump bedroom and he can’t barge in at 6 a.m.

Nick Timothy, a former aide to May, echoed the prime minister’s sentiment. He said the tweet is “so unhelpful from leader of our ally and intelligence partner.”

Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden later Friday morning that the attack is “a terrible thing” and reiterated his calls for America to “be very smart” and get “very, very tough.”

With all the eloquence of a three-year-old.

“We’re not nearly tough enough,” said Trump, who added that he would call May on Friday. “That is just an absolutely terrible thing.”

With all the thoughtfulness of an enraged ten-year-old boy. “WE’RE NOT TOUGH ENOUGH. WE HAVE TO HIT MORE PEOPLE.”

Earlier on Friday Trump had followed up his tweets on the London incident with one criticizing the administration of former President Barack Obama while claiming success against fighting terrorists.

“We have made more progress in the last nine months against ISIS than the Obama Administration has made in 8 years,” he said in the tweet. “Must be proactive & nasty!”

He’s got the nasty part down.



Trump demands more toughness

Sep 15th, 2017 8:06 am | By

Trump is parading his id on Twitter again.

Must be proactive! he says – meaning, no doubt, that once someone is “in the sights” of Scotland Yard (actually MI5), that someone should be arrested and held indefinitely, no matter how slim or shaky the evidence. Never mind human rights, never mind the law, never mind probabilities: when in doubt throw people in prison and leave them there.

We must cut off the Internet! And use it better! Both at the same time!

Trump himself is doing a lot of recruiting. Trump himself likes to incite people to hatred and violence. Trump is not the guy to tell anyone how to use the Internet.

Trump’s beloved travel ban should be far larger – it should ban all Muslims from everywhere. It should be tougher – it should ban them instantly, starting right now, and tough shit if they’re already on planes in the air. It should be more specific – it should ban all Muslims.

But “stupidly” we think that banning some 20% of the world’s people from immigrating to the US would be both religious discrimination and racist, and the label for that is “not politically correct.” To foul narcissistic callous shits like Trump it’s bad to reject racism and religious discrimination, it’s bad and weak and contemptible. To foul narcissistic callous shits like Trump the right thing to be is proudly, rudely, unashamedly racist and hostile.

That’s the president of the US.



A lot of people are saying

Sep 14th, 2017 4:53 pm | By

Trump has returned to his “both sides” vomit.

Mr. Trump was characterizing his side of a conversation on Wednesday with Senator Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, during which Mr. Scott, the Senate’s only black Republican, said he confronted the president on his claim that “both sides” were responsible for the violence that followed a torchlight protest against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee.

“Especially in light of the advent of Antifa, if you look at what’s going on there, you know, you have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also,” Mr. Trump said, referring to the anti-fascist group that clashed with neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

But what you did not have was some pretty good dudes on the racist side. See? Yes, there are some violence-loving jerks on the anti-racist side, but there are no fairness-loving goodies on the racist side.

On Thursday, speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Mr. Trump reverted to the unapologetic stance he took in a news conference last month at Trump Tower.

“Now because of what’s happened since then, with Antifa, you look at really what’s happened since Charlottesville — a lot of people are saying — in fact, a lot of people have actually written, ‘Gee, Trump might have point,” Mr. Trump said. “I said, ‘You’ve got some very bad people on the other side, which is true.’”

But you also said there were some good people on the racist side, which is not true, you lying toad.

In his remarks to reporters a day earlier, Mr. Scott made it clear he went to the White House to rebut Mr. Trump’s claim that “both sides” were responsible.

“My response was that, while that’s true, I mean I think if you look at it from a sterile perspective, there was an antagonist on the other side,” Mr. Scott said. “However, the real picture has nothing to do with who is on the other side.”

“It has to do with the affirmation of hate groups who over three centuries of this country’s history have made it their mission to create upheaval in minority communities as their reason for existence,” he continued. “I shared my thoughts of the last three centuries of challenges from white supremacists, white nationalists, KKK, Nazis. So there’s no way to find an equilibrium when you have three centuries of history versus the situation that is occurring today.”

And Trump responded by saying the same stupid thing all over again. Useful.



Guest post: Freedom of the press is freedom of mass communication

Sep 14th, 2017 11:49 am | By

Originally a comment by journalist Bruce Gorton on Off with their heads.

Is the potential of losing a free press more significant than the potential loss of individual liberty?

The free press is an individual liberty.

When you get right down to it, when you post a comment on a website or on your Facebook page or whatever, you’re essentially engaging in editorial. If you post anything with the intent to inform people in that public space, there is no real difference between you doing it, and a journalist doing it. It’s still fundamentally the same thing.

Freedom of the press, is essentially the same thing as freedom of your Facebook profile. It extends beyond the traditional media, into everyone else, because there is no real way to divorce one from the other.

This is part of the problem with the ANC’s moves to restrict press freedoms in South Africa, a lot of people didn’t begin to realise what was going on right up until the Film and Publications Board started talking about requiring people to pay them to check their Facebook posts or YouTube videos.

What freedom of the press really amounts to is freedom of mass communication. It is more insidious than taking away freedom of speech on a personal level because people don’t think about it that way, and thus don’t realise what is going on right up until they’re the ones getting arrested for having insulted the president on Twitter.



Abuse of power

Sep 14th, 2017 11:19 am | By

Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes on presidential abuse of power in the matter of James Comey:

This afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, from the White House podium, declared that former FBI Director James Comey may have “violated federal law” in sharing a memo documenting a conversation with the president:

The memos that Comey leaked were created on an FBI computer while he was the director. He claims they were private property, but they clearly followed the protocol of an official FBI document. Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case, regardless of classification, violates federal laws, including the Privacy Act, standard FBI employment agreement and nondisclosure agreements that all personnel must sign. I think that’s pretty clean and clear that that would be a violation.

While conceding it was “not up to [her] to decide,” Sanders opined that “the facts of the case are very clear” and that “the Department of Justice has to look into whether something’s illegal or not.” (Comey shared one memo, according to his testimony, by the way, not “memos.”)

This follows Sanders’s accusation Monday, that Comey had given “false testimony,” another matter she suggested DOJ should “look at.” Then on Tuesday, she said that Comey’s “actions were improper and likely could have been illegal” and that while the ultimate decision to investigate Comey was for the Justice Department to make, “I think if there’s ever a moment where we feel someone has broken the law, particularly if they’re the head of the FBI, I think that’s something that certainly should be looked at.”

Life is too short to rebut every individual outrage or idiocy to emerge from the White House. But Sanders’s remarks bear attention because they are clearly part of a coordinated plan to maliciously besmirch an individual.

Her remarks were not really remarks; they were not spontaneous and unplanned but prepared in advance.

So this is not an impulsive, on-the-spot type slime job. This is a deliberate, planned effort of the type that reflects the Trump White House’s considered views of how it should respond to Comey. That is, with months to think about the matter, the White House has decided that it wants to respond to Comey’s testimony by falsely accusing him of criminal activity—and to offer no evidence to support its slanders.

It is a prototypical abuse of power—and particularly pernicious because of the White House’s attempts to involve the Justice Department in the project.

They go on to explain why Comey’s sharing of his memo was neither illegal nor immoral.

Here’s a hint for the President in the future: If you want your employees to keep your confidences on non-classified matters, a good rule of thumb is that you shouldn’t fire them and then lie about them in public.

Casting aspersions on the behavior or veracity of key witnesses is more norm than exception in defense lawyering. What is different here is that Trump is using the office of the presidency to bully, defame, and discredit his [critics] and bolster his own defense. Frivolously accusing individuals of crimes and then threatening them with Justice Department action by stating that the Justice Department should investigate their conduct is not acceptable White House behavior. It is not merely a gross civil liberties violation with respect to the individuals. It also threatens the integrity of law enforcement—by effectively directing law enforcement action against a disfavored individual, in this case, one who has already given derogatory testimony about the President and is expected to do so in the future. It’s what Trump threatened to do throughout the campaign when he promised prosecution of his opponent.

This is what it looks like when the White House itself plays in these waters. It’s the stuff of petty strong-man dictatorships for the President to pronounce an individual guilty of a crime without having to proffer any evidence, offer a legal theory, or convince a jury.

A petty strong-man dictatorship is what we have, except that the resources he can command are not petty at all.



Nobody call Fox News racist!!

Sep 14th, 2017 10:29 am | By

And here are some more people who are not at all white supremacist or racist whatsoever: Sean Hannity plus everyone else at Fox News.

During his Thursday evening show, Fox News’ Sean Hannity convened an all-white panel to talk about Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ denunciation of a black ESPN host from the White House podium.

Photo published for Hannity to all-white panel: ‘We are not racist’

After introducing the panel — which included Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren, “psychology expert” Gina Louden, and commentator Danielle McLaughlin — Hannity ignored Trump’s recent defense of white supremacists and said he’s sick of liberals calling Trump supporters racist.

I’m glad those four people set us straight.



Nobody call Trump a white supremacist! Right now!!

Sep 14th, 2017 10:21 am | By

Now why would anyone anywhere ever call Trump a white supremacist? I just can’t imagine, can you?

Nobody can.

Donald Trump became a household name by “firing” people on national television; now, it seems his administration is trying to fire people they don’t even employ.

Earlier this week, while ESPN host Jemele Hill was interacting with her followers on Twitter, she called President Trump a “white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists.”

Whereupon the world came to a crashing halt as everyone stared in amazement.

Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about Hill’s tweets during her daily briefing on Wednesday, and said they should be considered a “fireable offense.”

“I’m not sure if [Trump’s aware of the comments.] That is one of the more outrageous comments that anyone could make and is a fireable offense by ESPN,” Sanders said.

When pressed about why influential African American figures such as Hill believe that Trump — who hirespromotes, and defends white supremacists — was a white supremacist, Sanders noted that Trump had met black people before.

“I’m not going to speak for that individual,” she said. “I know the president has met again with people like Senator Scott, who are highly respected leaders in the African American community. He’s committed to working with them to bring the country to work together. That’s where we need to be focused, not on outrageous statements like that one.”

He talks to them, too. Remember that early press conference? Where journalist April Ryan asked him if he’d talked to the Congressional Black Caucus and he interrupted her to demand that she arrange a meeting with them? You know, because she’s black and black people all know each other and it’s their job to arrange things for white people?

Meanwhile

Just a day after the Senate unanimously passed a joint resolution condemning the acts violence and domestic terrorism by white supremacists and neo-Nazis over the weekend of August 11 in Charlottesville, Virginia, the House of Representatives unanimously passed it by a voice vote Tuesday evening.

Has POTUS signed it? Funny story: no he has not.

The joint resolution was introduced last week by the Congressman who represents Charlottesville, Rep. Tom Garret (R-VA), and calls on Trump to “speak out against hate groups that espouse racism, extremism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and White supremacy; and use all resources available to the President and the President’s Cabinet to address the growing prevalence of those hate groups in the United States.” Additionally, the measure calls on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to work with the Secretary of Homeland Security and other Federal agencies to “investigate thoroughly all acts of violence, intimidation, and domestic terrorism by White supremacists, White nationalists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and associated groups.”

The White House’s hesitancy to come out in support of a joint resolution that explicitly condemns white supremacists and affiliated groups is notable in light of Trump’s comments immediately after the violence in Charlottesville, when he equated white supremacists with the people who gathered to protest them.

Well, you see, they’re very busy over there, working on getting a reporter fired for calling him a white supremacist.



Off with their heads

Sep 13th, 2017 5:35 pm | By

The White House press secretary isn’t shy about using her pulpit to attack people.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders set aside some time during the daily press briefing Wednesday to declare that former FBI director James B. Comey should face criminal punishment for allowing negative information about the president to be leaked to the New York Times, and that ESPN reporter Jemele Hill should be fired for her comments about Trump and race.

The Comey comment came in response to a question from a reporter, following up on Sanders’s comment Tuesday that Comey had broken the law in asking a friend to leak information from a memo that he’d prepared after a conversation with the president.

Sanders explained her rationale for claiming that the law had been broken: The memos Comey wrote about his interactions with the president were written on an FBI computer and “clearly followed the protocol of an official FBI document.” Leaking such a memo “violates federal laws, including the Privacy Act,” as well as employee agreements. (Those, of course, are likely moot, since Trump already fired Comey.) “I think that’s pretty clean and clear that that would be a violation,” she said.

Asked what she thought should happen, she said it was “not up to me to decide” but that “the Department of Justice has to look into any allegations of — whether something’s illegal or not.”

There’s no evidence that the information leaked was classified and, as Sanders noted, Comey has argued that they were his personal — not professional — notes. The Times’s Peter Baker points out that no memo was leaked, just the contents of one, detailing a request Trump made of Comey to drop the investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

The thing is, Trump was abusing all these rules about secrecy and not leaking and yadda yadda to try to strongarm Comey. That’s why Trump made Sessions get out when he wanted to bully Comey again, and it’s why Comey told Sessions he must never leave him alone with Trump again. It’s a bit much to expect Comey to respect the rules about secrecy after all that.

More broadly, though, it’s extremely unusual for the White House to hint that a political opponent — which Comey unquestionably is — should face a criminal inquiry. When Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump repeatedly suggested that he would have Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton prosecuted if he won the election, Fortune interviewed a slew of legal experts and former attorneys general to gauge the appropriateness of such a move.

The responses were nearly uniform: The attorney general would make the call on any prosecution (as Sanders stated) — and that it’s inappropriate for the president to push the attorney general to take such an action.

But they simply don’t care. They’re Assistants to the Narcissist in Chief, so they are not in a position to care about what’s appropriate.

A short while later, Sanders offered her thoughts on ESPN’s Hill who, on Monday, tweeted among other things that “Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists.”

Asked about the comment by The Post’s David Nakamura, Sanders replied, “I think that’s one of the more outrageous comments that anyone could make, and certainly something that I think is a fireable offense by ESPN.”

Beyond the White House suggesting that criticism of the president should result in a person losing his or her job, it’s worth remembering that Hill is a member of the media. Sanders is suggesting, then, that a journalist be fired by a media outlet for offering her opinion — a slightly more significant argument than if Hill had simply been an average citizen who said the same thing.

Plus, of course, it’s true. Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has surrounded himself with many other white supremacists.

Sanders’s suggestions — which she’ll no doubt soon emphasize were only that — were abnormal comments that echoed a common theme. Criticism of the president and drawing attention to unpopular political decisions he makes results in the White House telling reporters that they should face punishment.

To put it mildly: This isn’t usually how the presidency works.

It’s how a criminal gang works.



Oops, back you go

Sep 13th, 2017 5:07 pm | By

A judge has revoked Martin Shkreli’s bail. I guess offering to pay people to grab Hillary Clinton’s hair wasn’t such a good idea after all.

A federal judge on Wednesday revoked the $5 million bail of Martin Shkreli, the infamous former hedge fund manager convicted of defrauding investors, after prosecutors complained that his out-of-court antics posed a danger to the community.

While awaiting sentencing, Shkreli has harassed women online, prosecutors argued, and even offered his Facebook followers $5,000 to grab a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair during her book tour.

Those aren’t “antics.” Those people who punched a woman in the face and knocked her down at a discussion on gender weren’t performing “antics” and neither was Martin Shkreli. Threats and intimidation are not “antics.”

Shkreli, who faces up to 20 years in prison for securities fraud, apologized in writing, saying that he did not expect anyone to take his online comments seriously, and his attorneys pleaded with the judge Wednesday to give him another chance.

“The fact that he continues to remain unaware of the inappropriateness of his actions or words demonstrates to me that he may be creating ongoing risk to the community,” said U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, in revoking his bond.

His actions were threatening, intimidating, and harassing. “Inappropriate” is a mild word for that.

“This is a solicitation of assault. That is not protected by the First Amendment.”

There you go. That’s how to say it.

Shkreli, wearing a lavender button-down shirt and slacks, was taken into custody immediately after the hour-long hearing. He did not appear to react at the judge’s decision though he appeared more nervous than when he entered court and refused to ride the elevator with one reporter because they were “fake news.” He will be sent to a maximum-security prison until his sentencing hearing in January.

I think he’s more fake news than the reporters are.

Shkreli’s lawyers compared his online comments to the political humor of Kathy Griffin, who once held up a photograph of a faux bloody head of President Trump. They also compared him to Trump himself. During the campaign, Trump used “political hyperbole,” Shkreli’s attorneys said, when he said that Clinton, his Democratic opponent, would abolish the Second Amendment if elected. “By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know,” Trump said.

“He did not hold up the severed head of the president of the United States like Kathy Griffin,” Brafman said.

But prosecutors argued that Shkreli already had been given plenty of opportunities to act appropriately. His posts about Hillary Clinton and female journalists show an “escalating pattern of violence against women that is incredibly disturbing,” Jacquelyn Kasulis, the lead prosecutor said. “It is clear that he is reckless. He knew exactly what he was doing. He has to go in. … He doesn’t respect the rule of law.”

And it’s not as if nobody ever acts on threats against women.

Matsumoto appeared particularly concerned that one of Shkreli’s Facebook followers could take his offer of $5,000 for a strand of Clinton’s hair seriously. Shkreli said he wanted the hair — with a follicle — to compare Clinton’s DNA to a sample he already had. His attorneys said the post was satire and could not be taken seriously.

“What is funny about that,” a visibly frustrated Matsumoto said. “He doesn’t know who his followers are. He doesn’t know if someone is going to take his offer seriously. … He is soliciting an assault on another person for $5,000.”

And it’s not as if nobody ever acts on threats against women. It’s really not.



Non-metaphorical violence

Sep 13th, 2017 4:42 pm | By

There was a talk / discussion event scheduled this evening in London, Miranda Yardley and Julia Long on the meaning of gender identity. It was originally scheduled to be held at New Cross Learning, which used to be New Cross People’s Library which is a much cooler name…but yesterday NCL canceled.

Discussions of gender are scary things.

https://twitter.com/TerrorizerMir/status/907979183959273472

Someone found a new venue, so the speakers and attendees arranged to meet at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park and go to the (undisclosed) venue from there.

When they did, this happened:

A 60-year-old woman has just been beaten up by 4 Trans Rights activists. To smash up her camera originally, but was then set upon by at least 4 men and women who punched her and kicked her to the floor and continued. Footage out soon.

Do you think this is liberationary? Beating up a grandma. Really?

This left photo is the side of her that got punched repeatedly and you can also see her cut hand. She was also strangled as you can see round the base of her neck on the right photo.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup

Image may contain: 2 people, closeup

“Activists” followed the scary feminists to the venue, tried to rush the door, and then stood outside shouting throughout the talk. The women inside were afraid to leave.

All because some people think “gender identity” is thoughts and feelings. I don’t see the need to punch women in the face for that.



Clovis hitch

Sep 13th, 2017 11:06 am | By

About Trump’s candidate to be “chief scientist” at the Department of Agriculture – Pro Publica last May:

The USDA’s research section studies everything from climate change to nutrition. Under the 2008 Farm Bill, its leader is supposed to serve as the agency’s “chief scientist” and be chosen “from among distinguished scientists with specialized or significant experience in agricultural research, education, and economics.”

Does that describe Sam Clovis? No.

Clovis has never taken a graduate course in science and is openly skeptical of climate change. While he has a doctorate in public administration and was a tenured professor of business and public policy at Morningside College for 10 years, he has published almost no academic work.

Plus public administration and business are not sciences. Also…what’s Morningside College?

Morningside College is a private, liberal arts college affiliated with the United Methodist Church located in Sioux CityIowa.

Ok, it’s a small bible college in Iowa, so not obviously the sort of credential that puts one in a top government job.

Clovis is better known for hosting a conservative talk radio show in his native Iowa and, after mounting an unsuccessful run for Senate in 2014, becoming a fiery pro-Trump advocate on television.

So in other words his nomination is insultingly random.

Catherine Woteki, who served as undersecretary for research, education and economics in the Obama Administration, compared the move to appointing someone without a medical background to lead the National Institutes of Health. The USDA post includes overseeing scientific integrity within the agency.

“This position is the chief scientist of the department of agriculture. It should be a person who evaluates the scientific body of evidence and moves appropriately from there,” she said in an interview.

Which should be someone qualified to do that. It’s insulting to the citizenry to nominate someone who is in no way qualified to that sort of job.

Clovis has a B.S. in political science from the U.S. Air Force Academy, an MBA from Golden Gate University and a doctorate in public administration from the University of Alabama. The University of Alabama canceled the program the year after Clovis graduated, but an old course catalogue provided by the university does not indicate the program required any science courses.

Clovis’ published works do not appear to include any scientific papers. His 2006 dissertation concerned federalism and homeland security preparation, and a search for academic research published by Clovis turned up a handful of journal articles, all related to national security and terrorism.

As undersecretary for research, education and economics, Woteki directed additional resources to helping local farmers and agricultural workers address the impacts of severe drought, flooding and unpredictable weather patterns. She chaired the “Global Research Alliance to Reduce Agricultural Greenhouse Gasses,” which brings together chief agricultural scientists from across the globe. Under her leadership, the USDA also created “Climate Hubs” across the country to help localized solutions for adapting to climate change.

Clovis has repeatedly expressed skepticism over climate science, and has called efforts to address climate change “simply a mechanism for transferring wealth from one group of people to another.” He has indicated the Trump administration will take a starkly different approach at the USDA. Representing the campaign at the Farm Foundation Forum in October, Clovis told E&E News that Trump’s agriculture policy would focus on boosting trade and lessening regulation and not the impact of climate change.

Trump clearly hates knowledge and expertise of any kind. He’s a bluffer, and he wants to fill his entire administration with bluffers. That’s a funny way to make America great again.

The USDA’s undersecretary for research, education and economics has historically consulted on a wide range of scientific issues. Woteki, for example, said she was asked for input on the Zika and Ebola outbreaks because of the USDA’s relevant research and was frequently called upon to offer guidance on homeland security issues related to food safety.

“Access to safe food and clean air and water is absolutely fundamental to personal security,” she said, adding that a scientific understanding of food safety is critical to success in the job. “Food systems are widely recognized by the national security community as being part of critical infrastructure.”

Clovis’ academic background includes years of study on homeland security, but focused almost exclusively on foreign policy. A biography he provided to the 2016 Fiscal Summit at which he was a speaker indicates he is “a federalism scholar” and “an expert on homeland security issues,” with “regional expertise in Europe, the former Soviet Union, and the Middle East.” Neither this biography nor any other publicly available biographies list any experience in food safety, agriculture or nutrition.

Whatever. It’s just agriculture. Who cares, right?



Teach the controversy

Sep 13th, 2017 8:35 am | By

From June but still of interest:

Rep. Terese Berceau, a Madison Democrat, was quizzing Rep. Jesse Kremer, her Republican colleague from Kewaskum, at a hearing for his proposed Campus Free Speech Act before the state Assembly’s Committee on Colleges and Universities recently.

Berceau wondered what would happen under the bill — which requires University of Wisconsin System institutions to be neutral on “controversies of the day” — if a student in a geology class argued the Biblical theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

“Is it okay for the professor to tell them they’re wrong?” Berceau asked during the lengthy session on May 11.

“The earth is 6,000 years old,” Kremer offered.  “That’s a fact.”

Pause for the mind to reel at the fact that a state legislator – someone who makes the laws – is that ignorant, not just of what the facts in question are, but what a fact is.

Then pause again for the mind to reel at the fact that that same staggeringly ignorant legislator is promoting a bill that would require Wisconsin state universities to be “neutral” on what he, the ignorant legislator, considers “controversies” as opposed to “facts.”

But, he said, “this bill stays out of the classroom.”

Yet Kremer immediately speculated that students who felt intimidated from expressing their opinions in class could bring their complaints to the Council on Free Expression, an oversight board created in the bill. So the law could potentially cover things that happen in the classroom, he suggested.

So then students could bring official complaints against geology professors who taught their subject, on the pretext that there is “controversy” over whether or not the earth is 6 thousand years old.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, is a sponsor of the bill. He spoke at the hearing about the importance of presenting all views on controversial topics on campus.

“Probably the biggest debate is global warming,” Vos said. “A lot of people think it’s settled science and an awful lot of people think it isn’t. I think both sides should be brought to campus and let students decide.”

But which people? Vos is counting people in general, lining them up as if it were an election as opposed to a large complex technical subject that relies on evidence, not opinion. The fact that “an awful lot of people think it isn’t” is not relevant on subjects of that kind, because an awful lot of people think all kinds of things that aren’t true simply because they don’t know enough about them.



It’s not the legs, it’s the narcissism

Sep 12th, 2017 6:13 pm | By

Jacob Tobia in Playboy explains the wonders of being objectified. There was this bar Tobia used to go to as a Duke undergraduate.

It was the place where basketball players, sorority queens, frat stars, gay boys and queer girls alike congregated to bump, grind and…bump-n-grind.

I didn’t go all that often, but when I did choose to grace Shooters with my presence, it was an all-out affair. I’d wear my shortest skirt, a crop top, and, if you were lucky, my biggest heels. I’d arrive just a touch after midnight, strut in already buzzed, head straight to the bar and climb on top of it. On any given visit, I’d spend at least 50-percent of my time dancing on the bar: swaying my hips, dropping it low, tearing it up and trying not to kick off anyone’s drink.

Halfway through my year, I started to notice something. When my friends who were women or gay men danced on the bar, they’d get a lot more bang for their buck (literally) than I did. When they danced, people were watching. Upon their dismount from the bar, they’d get approached by potential partners, fielding propositions and advances left and right. Fast forward ten minutes, and half of them were grinding up on a partner, mid-DFMO (dance floor make-out). Fast forward an hour, and they’d be leaving together to hook up.

While my savvy dance moves and expert gyrations were appreciated by my classmates on a performative level, they never seemed to lead to anything. Unlike my peers, when I dismounted the bar, I rarely had the opportunity to mount anything else. Instead of attracting potential hook-ups, I only seemed to attract drunken cries of “YES QUEEN!” and “YOU BETTER WERK!”

My friends were being looked at in a different way than me. I was being appreciated as entertainment; they were being appreciated sexually. I was being watched; they were being sexually objectified.

Ok, but…isn’t that something to think about before you get up on the bar and start dancing? Tobia presents all this as if he’s completely unaware that only some people are considered sexy and attractive, and that therefore only some people are a welcome sight dancing on a bar. It’s not as if everybody can just hop up on the bar and expect to please. It’s as if Tobia thinks the shortest skirt, the crop top, and the (if you’re lucky) biggest (highest?) heels are all that’s required. It’s not so.

The message that being considered as a “sex-having and desiring” individual is universally negative is mostly based in the experiences of white, cis, thin, able-bodied people who have regular, and often too much, experience with sexual objectification.

Well, whether that’s true or not, it’s not really relevant when talking about people who dance on bars and those who hook up with them. That bar is clearly not a place to go if you don’t like sexual objectification. But that doesn’t seem to be relevant to Tobia.

As a trans person, that has never been my experience and I’m not alone in that. So how do we retool the conversation about objectification to more accurately represent the experiences of everyone?

We…don’t?

It’s not possible to “represent the experiences of everyone.” That’s a ludicrous question, and also a stunningly entitled one. Tobia would like to be objectified, please, so how do we take the conversation feminists want to have about objectification and make it more pleasing to Tobia? We don’t, because the conversation feminists want to have about objectification isn’t about Tobia, and doesn’t need to be, and shouldn’t be. Tobia’s experience doesn’t change women’s experience of unwanted objectification.

Tobia explains what his “feminist training” (his wot?) has taught him about objectification. He seems impatient – yeah yeah, interruption at work, yadda yadda. Sorry to bore you.

As such, my feminist training taught me that sexual objectification is categorically undesirable, categorically patriarchal. Therefore, we must fight against sexual objectification in any form and create a world where no one is sexually objectified again.

Yet, here’s the rub: if sexual objectification is so categorically awful, then why do I want it so badly?

Probably because you’re not a feminist, and because you’re horny, and because you’re not attractive to the people you want to be attractive to.

The idea that being seen as a “sex object”–at any time, ever–is universally a bad thing is too simple, like many tenets of straightforward, non-intersectional feminism. As a gender nonconforming person, I’m sexually objectified basically, well, never. When it comes to being viewed as a purely sexual being, I don’t get any.

Well ok then, let’s change feminism to make it about Jacob Tobia. Why not after all?

In a society that either desexualizes or hypersexualizes trans and gender nonconforming people, my whole existence is pretty much devoid of good sexual energy. While many of my cis women friends are trying to figure out how to drain out a swamp of unwanted male attention, I’m stuck in a desert trying to suck water from a cactus.

I can show literally my entire leg and get nothing. I can wear a skimpy dress to a club and people just look the other way. I can wear five inch heels and, while I might get lots of attention, it won’t be sexual attention.

And that is apparently the fault of feminism, the “straightforward, non-intersectional” kind as opposed to the kind that’s for Jacob Tobia.

I want to be sexually objectified and it never happens. I want people to appreciate the time and effort that I put into my body and my look. I want people to look at my perfectly applied lipstick and want me because of it. I want my long legs to give people feels. I want to dance on the bar and leave boys breathless, panting, and desperate to talk to me.

In other words he wants to be an extraordinarily sexy gorgeous woman. I suspect a lot of women want that too, especially when very young, but guess what, they don’t get what they want either. Life is like that. Disappointment and frustration happen. They’re not unique to Jacob Tobia or to trans people.



He felt he had an obligation to do what was right

Sep 12th, 2017 5:11 pm | By

Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been explaining to the assembled journalists what a dangerous criminal James Comey is and why the Justice Department should arrest him immediately.

The Justice Department should consider prosecuting former FBI director James B. Comey for actions that “were improper and likely could have been illegal,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday.

“I think if there’s ever a moment where we feel someone’s broken the law, particularly if they’re the head of the FBI, I think that’s something that certainly should be looked at,” Sanders said.

Mind like a steel trap, she’s got.

Asked to clarify, Sanders said this:

“Anybody that breaks the law, whatever that process is that needs to be followed, should certainly be looked at,” Sanders said. “If they determine that that’s the course of action to take, then they should certainly do that, but I’m not here to ever direct DOJ in — in the actions that they should take.”

Nonetheless, Sanders ticked through a list of actions or alleged actions by Comey that she said justified his firing by Trump, in May, and some of which, she said, may be illegal.

Sanders got her tertiary education at Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. I haven’t been able to find any source that says she has any legal training.

“The president is proud of the decision that he made. The president was 100 percent right in firing James Comey. He knew at the time that it could be bad for him politically, but he also knew and felt he had an obligation to do what was right, and do what was right for the American people, and certainly the men and women at the FBI,” Sanders said at a White House press briefing.

Ah what a liar. Her narcissistic boss must be so pleased with her.

“I think there’s no secret. Comey, by his own self-admission, leaked privileged government information weeks before President Trump fired him. Comey testified that an FBI agent engaged in the same practice, they’d face serious repercussions,” Sanders continued. “I think he set his own stage for himself on that front. His actions were improper, and likely could have been illegal.”

Comey leaked memos to the New York Times, and “politicized an investigation by signaling he would exonerate Hillary Clinton before he ever interviewed her or other key witnesses,” Sanders added. She also asserted that Comey had given false testimony to Congress.

She’s been studying Trump’s tweets too closely.

Sanders’ comments left unclear what federal law she thought the former FBI director might have violated. She mentioned the disclosure of a memo by Comey to a law professor friend,  but at the time that happened the memo was not classified.

She also cited his apparent preparation of remarks explaining his decision not to charge anyone in the case months before that decision was announced, and before Clinton herself had been interviewed about the matter. It was unclear from Sanders’ comments what about that conduct might constitute a crime.

Again – too much Trump’s Twitter, not enough anything else. She’s as ignorant as Trump, and as willing to lie. Mystery solved.



Rigging the panel

Sep 12th, 2017 4:30 pm | By

The Campaign Legal Center reports:

Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) learned through a response to a FOIA Request from Feb. 15, 2017 that an employee with the Heritage Foundation pushed back on naming a single Democrat to the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity.

The employee wrote personally to Attorney General Jeff Sessions pushing back on even a single Democrat being named to the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity and discouraging the White House from naming mainstream Republican officials and/or academics to the commission.

You remember what this presidential commission is, right? It’s a faked-up pseudo-commission to dig up bogus “evidence” of massive voter fraud, so that Trump and his enforcers can get new voting restrictions passed that will keep Undesirables from voting.

The Heritage Foundation employee, whose name has been redacted by the Department of Justice, complained that the White House did not consult with their “experts” who “have written more on the voter fraud issue than anyone in the country on our side of the political aisle.” A few months later, President Donald Trump appointed Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation to the Pence-Kobach Commission. Mr. von Spakovsky is widely considered the architect of the voter fraud myth. These emails add to the mounting evidence that the commission has no interest in true bipartisanship or an open discussion of how to solve the real problems in our elections.

As if we ever thought they did. Trump has been lying about this issue since before he decided to run.

“Any commission tasked with looking at the integrity of our elections should be bipartisan and should not be trying to make voting harder,” said Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and a former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). “Yet Secretary Kris Kobach, the vice-chair of the commission, continues to use his position to further his quest to undermine citizens’ right to vote. His demonstrably false claims about election results in New Hampshire leading up today’s meeting impugned the dignity of that state and were clearly intended to undermine our democracy rather than strengthen it.”

“Instead of addressing the numerous serious issues facing our democracy, the commission met today for a second time to discuss the same tired anecdotes and debunked methodology that it has already decided to use to justify new restrictive voting laws. These farcical meetings continue to validate the worst suspicions about the commission: that it is designed to shrink the electorate for partisan advantage.”

“One of the stated goals of this meeting was to discuss the effect of election integrity issues on voter confidence. If the commissioners were really interested in pursuing this, they might look at a genuine, demonstrated threat to American election integrity, such as foreign interference. For example, the recent revelations about Russian nationals illegally buying political ads on Facebook during the 2016 presidential campaign raise a serious issue that could legitimately undermine public confidence. This is a true issue of election integrity.”

This commission has no meaningful bipartisan credentials and its purpose is based on false charges of voter fraud that have already been repeatedly disproven.

A five-year long search during the George W. Bush administration turned up ‘virtually no evidence of voter fraud,’ according to the New York Times.

H/t Ari Berman:



The SPLC demands a correction

Sep 12th, 2017 10:41 am | By

Hey, it turns out the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t like it when someone lies about them.

The SPLC is currently facing a coordinated attack by far-right extremist groups we’ve named as hate groups because they vilify the LGBT community, immigrants and Muslims. Their latest megaphone is none other than FOX News.

On the show The Five, the FOX pundits made the outrageous claims that we spend only $61,000 on legal work, that we, indeed, do “hardly any law,” and that we’re “laundering money.” Anyone remotely familiar with our work, including our tax returns and audited financial statements on our website, would know that these claims are false. You can read the full letter to FOX News demanding a correction below.

Interesting, because anyone remotely familiar with the work of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali would not put them on a list of “Anti-Muslim Extremists” – yet the SPLC did exactly that.

The SPLC tweeted its indignation, and got quite a lot of replies that pointed out the relevance of what the SPLC did to Maajid and Ayaan.

https://twitter.com/Ned_Farr/status/906331899492048896

https://twitter.com/slinafirinne/status/906318351210868737

There are many more like that.

Last week the public radio show On the Media did a segment on the SPLC, and Bob Garfield mentioned the lie about Maajid and Ayaan, but unfortunately he left it at that – mentioning it. He interviewed Richard Cohen but talked only about the endowment and fundraising issue on the one hand, and the Family Research Council on the other.