The wrong panels

Jun 18th, 2017 4:50 pm | By

Oh guess what, the cladding on Grenfell Tower that went up like a torch wasn’t supposed to be there.

The cladding used on Grenfell Tower, which has been widely blamed for spreading the blaze, is banned in the UK on buildings of that height, Philip Hammond has said.

The chancellor told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show: “My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.

“So there are two separate questions. One: are our regulations correct, do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials? The second question is: were they correctly complied with?

“That will be a subject that the inquiry will look at. It will also be a subject that the criminal investigation will be looking at.”

Regulations are there for a reason…



Exciting the unstable

Jun 18th, 2017 3:47 pm | By

Dayum, talk about one-sided…

Peggy Noonan has a think piece at the Wall Street Journal deploring all this uncontrolled rage.

What we are living through in America is not only a division but a great estrangement. It is between those who support Donald Trump and those who despise him, between left and right, between the two parties, and even to some degree between the bases of those parties and their leaders in Washington. It is between the religious and those who laugh at Your Make Believe Friend, between cultural progressives and those who wish not to have progressive ways imposed upon them. It is between the coasts and the center, between those in flyover country and those who decide what flyover will watch on television next season.

That’s all very hackneyed and not terribly applicable to the rage we’re seeing right now, but maybe she gets better as she goes on?

She says that violent art, unlike witty art, excites unstable young men.

They don’t have the built-in barriers and prohibitions that those more firmly planted in the world do. That’s what makes violent images dangerous and destructive. Art is art and censorship is an admission of defeat. Good judgment and a sense of responsibility are the answer.

That’s what we’re doing now, exciting the unstable—not only with images but with words, and on every platform. It’s all too hot and revved up. This week we had a tragedy. If we don’t cool things down, we’ll have more.

We had tragedies before this week, too. But no doubt she’s getting to that?

Tuesday I talked with an old friend, a figure in journalism who’s a pretty cool character, about the political anger all around us. He spoke of “horrible polarization.” He said there’s “too much hate in D.C.” He mentioned “the beheading, the play in the park” and described them as “dog whistles to any nut who wants to take action.”

“Someone is going to get killed,” he said.

That was 20 hours before the shootings in Alexandria, Va.

The gunman did the crime, he is responsible, it’s fatuous to put the blame on anyone or anything else.

But we all operate within a climate and a culture. The media climate now, in both news and entertainment, is too often of a goading, insinuating resentment, a grinding, agitating antipathy. You don’t need another recitation of the events of just the past month or so. A comic posed with a gruesome bloody facsimile of President Trump’s head. New York’s rightly revered Shakespeare in the Park put on a “Julius Caesar” in which the assassinated leader is made to look like the president. A CNN host—amazingly, of a show on religion—sent out a tweet calling the president a “piece of s—” who is “a stain on the presidency.” An MSNBC anchor wondered, on the air, whether the president wishes to “provoke” a terrorist attack for political gain. Earlier Stephen Colbert, well known as a good man, a gentleman, said of the president, in a rant: “The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c— holster.” Those are but five dots in a larger, darker pointillist painting. You can think of more.

Hm. Striking, isn’t it – it’s all about angry rhetoric hostile to Donald Trump – none of it is about angry rhetoric issuing directly from Trump’s stubby thumbs on the Twitter machine.

It takes some fucking gall to point the Finger of Rebuke at people who react with rage to Trump while ignoring Trump’s countless public fits of rage before an audience of billions.

Trump, don’t forget, paid for a full page ad in the New York Times to demand the death penalty for the Central Park 5 – who were later demonstrated not to have committed the crime at all.

Trump promoted birtherism for years. How many acts of racist violence do we suppose that inspired? We of course don’t know, but then neither does Noonan know whether or not the Alexandria shootings were inspired by Stephen Colbert.

We have been seeing a generation of media figures cratering under the historical pressure of Donald Trump. He really is powerful.

They’re losing their heads. Now would be a good time to regain them.

They have been making the whole political scene lower, grubbier. They are showing the young what otherwise estimable adults do under pressure, which is lose their equilibrium, their knowledge of themselves as public figures, as therefore examples—tone setters. They’re paid a lot of money and have famous faces and get the best seat, and the big thing they’re supposed to do in return is not be a slob. Not make it worse.

By indulging their and their audience’s rage, they spread the rage. They celebrate themselves as brave for this. They stood up to the man, they spoke truth to power. But what courage, really, does that take? Their audiences love it. Their base loves it, their demo loves it, their bosses love it. Their numbers go up. They get a better contract. This isn’t brave.

If these were only one-offs, they’d hardly be worth comment, but these things build on each other. Rage and sanctimony always spread like a virus, and become stronger with each iteration.

And it’s no good, no excuse, to say Trump did it first, he lowered the tone, it’s his fault. Your response to his low character is to lower your own character? He talks bad so you do? You let him destabilize you like this? You are making a testimony to his power.

Fine, but it’s hardly fair to rebuke the tone of the Griffins and Colberts while not even mentioning Trump’s long long history of abusive public rhetoric.



The details of mental capacity

Jun 18th, 2017 12:45 pm | By

What qualities does one need to be a good leader? Prudence Gourguechon discovered that it’s not easy to find definitive answers to that question.

Although there are volumes devoted to outlining criteria for psychiatric disorders, there is surprisingly little psychiatric literature defining mental capacity, even less on the particular abilities required for serving in positions of great responsibility. Despite the thousands of articles and books written on leadership, primarily in the business arena, I have found only one source where the capacities necessary for strategic leadership are clearly and comprehensively laid out: the U.S. Army’s “Field Manual 6-22 Leader Development.”

That makes sense. They really need to know.

The Army’s field manual on leadership is an extraordinarily sophisticated document, founded in sound psychological research and psychiatric theory, as well as military practice. It articulates the core faculties that officers, including commanders, need in order to fulfill their jobs. From the manual’s 135 dense pages, I have distilled five crucial qualities:

Trust

According to the Army, trust is fundamental to the functioning of a team or alliance in any setting: “Leaders shape the ethical climate of their organization while developing the trust and relationships that enable proper leadership.” A leader who is deficient in the capacity for trust makes little effort to support others, may be isolated and aloof, may be apathetic about discrimination, allows distrustful behaviors to persist among team members, makes unrealistic promises and focuses on self-promotion.

I assumed before I read the paragraph that “trust” meant the trust of others in the leader, but no, it means the leader’s ability to trust other people. That’s very interesting.

Discipline and self-control

…The disciplined leader does not have emotional outbursts or act impulsively, and he maintains composure in stressful or adverse situations.

…In psychiatry, we talk about “filters” — neurologic braking systems that enable us to appropriately inhibit our speech and actions even when disturbing thoughts or powerful emotions are present. Discipline and self-control require that an individual has a robust working filter, so that he doesn’t say or do everything that comes to mind.

Aka impulse control aka self-inhibition. It’s that prefrontal thing that takes so long to develop.

Judgment and critical thinking

These are complex, high-level mental functions that include the abilities to discriminate, assess, plan, decide, anticipate, prioritize and compare. A leader with the capacity for critical thinking “seeks to obtain the most thorough and accurate understanding possible,” the manual says, and he anticipates “first, second and third consequences of multiple courses of action.” A leader deficient in judgment and strategic thinking demonstrates rigid and inflexible thinking.

The fourth is self-awareness, aka knowing one’s own faults.

Empathy

Perhaps surprisingly, the field manual repeatedly stresses the importance of empathy as an essential attribute for Army leadership. A good leader “demonstrates an understanding of another person’s point of view” and “identifies with others’ feelings and emotions.” The manual’s description of inadequacy in this area: “Shows a lack of concern for others’ emotional distress” and “displays an inability to take another’s perspective.”

It’s not all that surprising, really, since a leader by definition has to interact with people. An engineer can do without empathy, but a leader not so much.



Outta there

Jun 18th, 2017 12:21 pm | By

People are walking away.

Six members of the group that advises the White House on HIV and Aids have quit their posts – claiming that the Trump administration does not care about the issue.

In a letter of resignation that was published on a US news site, the experts claimed the government had no meaningful policy on tackling Aids, failed to listen to advice from those working in the field, and actually promoted legislation that harmed individuals living with the disease.

Other than that, everything’s great.

“We have dedicated our lives to combating this disease and no longer feel we can do so effectively within the confines of an advisory body to a president who simply does not care,” wrote Scott Schoettes, project director at Lambda Legal, a New York-based LGBTQ-rights group and a member of the advisory panel.

The council members said that Mr Trump took down the Office of National Aids Policy website when he took office and had failed to appoint anyone to lead the White House Office of National Aids Policy.

“We will be more effective from the outside, advocating for change and protesting policies that will hurt the health of the communities we serve and the country as a whole if this administration continues down the current path,” the letter said.

Don’t worry, he’s making Murica great again.



Patterns? What patterns?

Jun 18th, 2017 11:45 am | By

Inside Higher Ed reports:

The Department of Education last week outlined changes to civil rights investigations that advocates fear will mean less consistent findings of systemic discrimination at colleges.

Under the Obama administration, certain types of civil rights complaints would trigger broader investigations of whether a pattern of discrimination existed at a school or college.

But Candice Jackson, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, told regional directors for the Office for Civil Rights in a memo that the Department of Education would no longer follow those guidelines. In detailing the latest civil rights shift under Secretary Betsy DeVos, Jackson wrote that the department was setting aside existing rules and empowering investigators with more discretion to clear case backlogs and address complaints in a timely manner.

Ah yes. Treating everything as a one off does indeed speed things up. Consider Grenfell Tower for instance. If there’s no need to see it as part of a pattern of saving money by not getting the fire retardant building material, then it becomes just a matter of tidying up and moving on.

The shift is significant because many of the violations OCR has found in recent years have involved systemic issues that go beyond the original complaint that prompted investigators to look into a college or school.

Former department officials and advocates for victims of discrimination say it’s critical to examine individual cases in the context of wider practices at an institution — and to apply that standard consistently across various OCR offices.

That’s critical unless you’re a libertarian. If you’re a libertarian, there’s no such thing as a “wider practice.” All is random and uncaused, a matter of free people freely choosing, and there’s no need to look for patterns and explanations.



And then stood like this

Jun 17th, 2017 5:23 pm | By

Joe Biden was on Fresh Air the other day. There was this one bit that started with Twitter…

GROSS: So, like, what are the rules for communication? Like, ’cause he – is it OK – did you have social media when you were vice president? And, like, what rules were you expected to follow?

BIDEN: Not that old. Yes, I…

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN: I had social media.

GROSS: I thought they take that stuff away from you.

BIDEN: I have social media – had it. And we have millions of people following us. But there’s a difference between using the modern media and the means of communication than there is being irresponsible or irrational in the way you do it and just venting. You know, words matter. Words matter. When presidents speak, the world listens. And look, the idea that somebody, no matter what they do – no matter what their profession or their interest is – that gets up at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning and tweets vitriol, what it does – it fundamentally alters the view of the character of the presidency in the rest of the world.

You know what I heard? I was just in Greece and Italy and meeting a lot of national figures in each of those countries. You know the one thing that’s done the most damage? When the president of the United States stiff-armed and moved – no, I mean it. I’m not joking. I’m not – and then stood like this. That was the image of America, almost the image of the ugly American. That it just – it has such resonance.

It’s not a joke at all.

Image result for trump shoves duško marković

Image result for trump shoves duško marković



King was sure the letter had come from the FBI

Jun 17th, 2017 4:14 pm | By

Let’s look back at a little history: the FBI and the Kennedy brothers versus Martin Luther King.

Beveryl Gage starts with a typed anonymous letter sent to King in late 1964.

The unnamed author suggests intimate knowledge of his correspondent’s sex life, identifying one possible lover by name and claiming to have specific evidence about others. Another passage hints of an audiotape accompanying the letter, apparently a recording of “immoral conduct” in action. “Lend your sexually psychotic ear to the enclosure,” the letter demands. It concludes with a deadline of 34 days “before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.”

“There is only one thing left for you to do,” the author warns vaguely in the final paragraph. “You know what it is.”

When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. received this letter, nearly 50 years ago, he quietly informed friends that someone wanted him to kill himself — and he thought he knew who that someone was. Despite its half-baked prose, self-conscious amateurism and other attempts at misdirection, King was certain the letter had come from the F.B.I. Its infamous director, J. Edgar Hoover, made no secret of his desire to see King discredited. A little more than a decade later, the Senate’s Church Committee on intelligence overreach confirmed King’s suspicion.

Why? Because Communists.

The F.B.I.’s entanglement with King began not as an inquiry into his sex life but as a “national security” matter, one step removed from King himself. In 1961, the bureau learned that a former Communist Party insider named Stanley Levison had become King’s closest white adviser, serving him as a ghostwriter and fund-raiser. The following year, Attorney General Robert Kennedy approved wiretaps on Levison’s home and office, and the White House advised King to drop his Communist friend.

Or, according to John Meroney in The Atlantic in 2011, they told him to.

In the summer of 1963, Hoover wasn’t the only one preoccupied with King. So was the Kennedy White House. That was because one of King’s closest advisers, Stanley David Levison, and another man who ran one of King’s offices, Jack O’Dell, were secret Communist Party operatives. For at least a year, the president and his attorney general brother had been receiving classified data, transcripts of wiretapped telephone calls (which they sanctioned), and intelligence reports confirming the men’s affiliation with the Soviet-controlled Party. This information also chronicled the work they were then doing for King.

President Kennedy didn’t worry about an espionage leak, or that the men would necessarily insert propaganda into King’s speeches—although some King advisers apparently did see to it that King’s plans to criticize communism (“that it was an alien philosophy contrary to us,” is how King said he intended to describe it) were scrapped. Rather, the president feared the political fall-out that would come if it were revealed that the nation’s foremost civil rights leader had advisers with ties to the Soviet Union. In May, President Kennedy told his brother he didn’t want the minister anywhere near him. “King is so hot that it’s like Marx coming to the White House,” he says on a White House tape.

But by June, the president had grown weary of the risks King was causing him and decided to have a come-to-Jesus meeting with the minister in Washington. In the Rose Garden, he exhorted King that Levison, was, as Kennedy described him, a “Kremlin agent.” Get rid of him, demanded the president.

King said he would, but he didn’t. Meroney says it was Robert Kennedy’s idea to have King’s phones tapped.

“I asked the FBI to make an intensive investigation of Martin Luther King,” Robert Kennedy later privately acknowledged to journalist Anthony Lewis, “to see who his companions were and, also, to see what other activities he was involved in. This is also the reason that President Kennedy and I and the Department of Justice were so reserved about him, which I’m sure he felt. We never wanted to get close to him just because of these contacts and connections that he had, which we felt were damaging to the civil rights movement and because we were so intimately involved in the struggle for civil rights, it also damaged us. It damaged what we were trying to do.”

Back to the Times account:

The following year, Attorney General Robert Kennedy approved wiretaps on Levison’s home and office, and the White House advised King to drop his Communist friend. But thanks to their surveillance, the bureau quickly learned that King was still speaking with Levison. Around the same time, King began to criticize bureau practices in the South, accusing Hoover of failing to enforce civil rights law and of indulging the racist practices of Southern policemen.

All true, as far as I know, which is why there was so much irritation when the movie Mississippi Burning portrayed the FBI as being allies of the civil rights activists.

This combination of events set Hoover and King on a collision course. In the fall of 1963, just after the March on Washington, the F.B.I. extended its surveillance from Levison and other associates to King himself, planting wiretaps in King’s home and offices and bugs in his hotel rooms. Hoover found out very little about any Communist subterfuge, but he did begin to learn about King’s extramarital sex life, already an open secret within the civil rights movement’s leadership.

Hoover and the Feds seem to have been genuinely shocked by King’s behavior. Here was a minister, the leader of a moral movement, acting like “a tom cat with obsessive degenerate sexual urges,” Hoover wrote on one memo. In response, F.B.I. officials began to peddle information about King’s hotel-room activities to friendly members of the press, hoping to discredit the civil rights leader. To their astonishment, the story went nowhere. If anything, as the F.B.I. learned more about his sexual adventures, King only seemed to be gaining in public stature. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act passed Congress, and just a few months later King became the youngest man ever to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

At this point Hoover decided to escalate his campaign. On Nov. 18, 1964 — 50 years ago this week — Hoover denounced King at a Washington news conference, labeling him the “the most notorious liar in the country.” A few days later, one of Hoover’s deputies, William Sullivan, apparently took it upon himself to write the anonymous letter and sent an agent to Miami, to mail the package to Atlanta.

That didn’t do them any good either.

Luckily, in 1964 the media were far more cautious. One oddity of Hoover’s campaign against King is that it mostly flopped, and the F.B.I. never succeeded in seriously damaging King’s public image. Half a century later, we look upon King as a model of moral courage and human dignity. Hoover, by contrast, has become almost universally reviled. In this context, perhaps the most surprising aspect of their story is not what the F.B.I. attempted, but what it failed to do.

The current F.B.I. director, James Comey, keeps a copy of the King wiretap request on his desk as a reminder of the bureau’s capacity to do wrong. But elsewhere in Washington, the debate over how much the government should know about our private lives has never been more heated: Should intelligence agencies be able to sweep our email, read our texts, track our phone calls, locate us by GPS? Much of the conversation swirls around the possibility that agencies like the N.S.A. or the F.B.I. will use such information not to serve national security but to carry out personal and political vendettas. King’s experience reminds us that these are far from idle fears, conjured in the fevered minds of civil libertarians. They are based in the hard facts of history.

Beverly Gage is a professor of American history at Yale.

Just a few years later it was Nixon’s turn.



He is strained by the demanding hours of the job

Jun 17th, 2017 12:17 pm | By

What will happen if Trump runs out of Justice Department people to fire? Will the gears just freeze and everything stop and time come to an end?

Since taking office, the Trump administration has twice rewritten an executive order that outlines the order of succession at the Justice Department — once after President Donald Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to defend his travel ban, and then again two months later. The executive order outlines a list of who would be elevated to the position of acting attorney general if the person up the food chain recuses himself, resigns, gets fired or is no longer in a position to serve.

In the past, former Justice Department officials and legal experts said, the order of succession is no more than an academic exercise — a chain of command applicable only in the event of an attack or crisis when government officials are killed and it is not clear who should be in charge.

But Trump has been burning through DoJ people as a hungry man burns through two scoops of ice cream. Sessions is recused from all the things, and Trump has fixed his beady eye on Rosenstein. There aren’t a lot of people left.

“We know Rachel Brand is the next victim,” said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor-in-chief of Lawfare, referring to the former George W. Bush official who was recently confirmed as associate attorney general, the third-highest position in the Justice Department.

“For those of us who have high confidence in Rachel — the more confidence you have in someone in this role, the less long you think they’ll last,” said Wittes, who said he considers Brand a friend. “That does put a very high premium on the question of who is next.”

That question, however, has become more complicated because the Trump administration has been slow to fill government positions and get those officials confirmed. Typically, the solicitor general would be next in line after the associate attorney general, followed by the list of five assistant U.S. attorneys, the order of which would be determined by the attorney general. But none of those individuals have been confirmed by the Senate, and they would be unable to serve as acting attorney general without Senate confirmation.

Well you can’t blame them for that, they’ve been terribly busy tweeting.

Some former Justice Department officials said they would find it inconceivable for Trump to clean house, or to fire Mueller — even taking into account the sometimes erratic behavior of the commander in chief.

“This president is so unpredictable, it’s hard to say,” said Emily Pierce, a former Justice Department official in the Obama administration. “It would be the craziest thing he’s done to date if he were to start firing the special counsel or Rosenstein. I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he realizes how much trouble he may be in — and that with the firing of Comey, he wouldn’t do that.”

A reasonable person wouldn’t do that. You can provide the next sentence without my help.

“I think the Watergate scenario would make most self-respecting lawyers loath to put themselves in the role that Bork ended up playing,” said Brian Fallon, a former Obama Justice Department and Hillary Clinton spokesman. “Most career-minded independent lawyers that have high regard for the Justice Department as an institution would be loath to be the modern-day equivalent to Bork.”

But Trump, too, is cognizant of the comparison to Nixon, according to one adviser. The president, who friends said does not enjoy living in Washington and is strained by the demanding hours of the job, is motivated to carry on because he “doesn’t want to go down in history as a guy who tried and failed,” said the adviser. “He doesn’t want to be the second president in history to resign.”

Oh Don. You’re so stupid. That ship has sailed. Best case scenario you’re going down in history as a joke. Best case.



All he’s gotta do’s fire him

Jun 17th, 2017 11:02 am | By

Newt Gingrich spelled out the core issue while chatting at the National Press Club:

By the way, technically, the president of the United States cannot obstruct justice. President of the United States is the chief executive officer of the United States: if he wants to fire the FBI director, all he’s gotta do’s fire him.

https://youtu.be/tztFP8e0UFU

And yet, as many many people rushed to point out, that’s sure as hell not what Gingrich was saying when it was Bill Clinton in the cross-hairs. At that time he said the opposite.

So, is it bullshit, or is it true?

Clearly as a matter of outcome, it depends on who has the votes. As a matter of brute fact, it depends on power, not law and not morality.

But as a matter of moral fact? Yes of course the president can obstruct justice, and obviously Trump is trying hard to do just that.

Absurdly, Gingrich goes on to give what he calls a “very good test”:

If John F Kennedy had fired J Edgar Hoover over investigating and wiretapping Martin Luther King Junior, would people have thought it was obstruction. [smug nod]

John F Kennedy wasn’t the same person as Martin Luther King, so no, that is not a “very good test”; it’s a ridiculous test. Trump is trying to obstruct an investigation of himself.



Congress must unite to stop him – but will it?

Jun 17th, 2017 10:20 am | By

Adam Schiff said a thing yesterday about Trump’s possible plans to fire Mueller.

It has become clear that President Trump believes that he has the power to fire anyone in government he chooses and for any reason, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller. That is not how the rule of law works, and Congress will not allow the President to so egregiously overstep his authority.

If President Trump were to try to replicate Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre by firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in addition to Mueller, Congress must unite to stop him – without respect to party, and for the sake of the nation.

Congress can defend our system of checks and balances by passing an independent counsel law that empowers an independent prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation and anything that arises from it. Such a law should allow for the reappointment of Bob Mueller, someone who has served Presidents of both parties and whom Democrats and Republicans have come to admire. We cannot allow the President to choose who will conduct this investigation or to interfere with its progress in any way.

I find that more unnerving than reassuring. Note that it doesn’t say Congress will unite to stop him – it says Congress must. Well, yeah, it must, but will it? It must do a lot of things, but it doesn’t.

It is being underlined every day that in reality the president has way too much absolute power and that the “checks and balances” are a fraud. It’s being constantly demonstrated that there are no checks and balances if the executive and Congress are both in the hands of the same party (and that party has no scruples or conscience or integrity). The truth is that Trump could fire Mueller and get away with it. The truth is that we don’t know that Republicans would join Democrats to stop him.

This country is a menace.



Budget cuts in departments that oversee civil rights

Jun 17th, 2017 9:57 am | By

Mueller and the FBI aren’t the only ones investigating Trump.

Not only did he allude through a tweet on Friday that he is the subject of an internal investigation by special counsel, but on the same day, an independent federal agency commissioned under Congress also said “grave concerns” were prompting an investigation into federal civil rights enforcement within his administration.

The United States Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan agency charged with advising the president and Congress on civil rights matters, unanimously approved a comprehensive two-year probe into the “degree to which current budgets and staffing levels allow civil rights offices to perform” their functions within the administration, said the agency in a statement.

The federal watchdog group became concerned about the Trump administration after several agencies announced budget and personnel cuts in departments that oversee civil rights. The “proposed cuts would result in a dangerous reduction of civil rights enforcement across the country, leaving communities of color, LGBT people, older people, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups exposed to greater risk of discrimination,” said the statement.

Huh. You mean Trump doesn’t have Absolute Power to defund all that and thus make it die and go away and get in the sea?

The commission, created under the Civil Rights Act and funded by Congress, expressed specific worry in seven agencies under the president, including the Department of Education and the Department of Justice.

The “repeated refusal” of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to commit to enforcing federal civil rights during Congressional testimony coupled with deep budget cuts within the agency’s Office of Civil Rights is “particularly troubling,” the agency added in the statement.

Well Trump could slash their budget some more and then there’d be no one left to issue statements.

The commission also wants to look into the Department of Justice, which it says has completely changed its priorities.

“Actions by the Department indicate it is minimizing its civil rights efforts,” the statement said. “For example, a majority of the Commission criticized DOJ’s decision to site Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers in courthouses as a dangerous impediment to access to justice for all Americans,” the statement said.

The investigation will also look into the departments of Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency and the Legal Services Corporation — which are all expected to slash budget and personnel that monitor civil rights.

But what about the civil rights of corporations? Those come first, surely.

While the commission does not have the ability to enforce the findings of its investigation, it will present the final report to Congress at the end of 2019. After that, it’s up to legislators to act.

Ah. Well we know where that will go then – straight into the bin. The trash bin; there won’t be any recycle bins by that time.



Ka-ching

Jun 17th, 2017 7:45 am | By

The political or public relations side of things may be going unsmoothly for Don, but the money-making side is flourishing. More gold-plated bathtubs for Don, and that’s what matters.

President Trump says he’s received tens of millions of dollars in income from the golf courses and resorts whose profile he boosted during frequent visits since taking office, according to filings released Friday by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

Being president is turning a big big profit. All he has to do is visit one of his resorts and the cash just pours in. It’s such a brilliant wheeze.

Properties that Trump frequently visited as president saw the largest boost in income. Trump claimed more than $37 million in income from Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach County resort in Florida he described as his “Winter White House,” as well as $20 million in income from the nearby golf club he owns in Jupiter, Florida. His claimed Mar-a-Lago income rose rapidly since his last two financial disclosures with the FEC: Trump reported more than $15 million in income from the resort in the 2015 report, followed by $29 million in the 2016 version.

Compared to $37 million for just half of 2017. Not too shabby, eh? Makes being president worth the trouble.

Golfing and vacationing are bipartisan presidential traditions, as are the partisan critiques of the presidents who partake in them. But Trump has taken his leisure time to new levels both in volume and location. A May 5 analysis by The Washington Post found that Trump visited at least one of the properties he owned in 36 of his first 108 days in office, or one-third of his presidency to that time. The trips include almost weekly visits to Mar-a-Lago and his Florida properties, where he mingles with guests and club members as well as hosts foreign dignitaries.

And he does it all at our expense. He collects the profits while we pick up the tab for his costs.

Royalties on his “book” are way up, too.



Women will die

Jun 16th, 2017 5:19 pm | By

Via Women’s Liberation Front on Facebook:

Sometimes a pregnancy half fails. The membranes rupture before viability and an infection sets up shop in the uterus. Medically, the pregnancy has to end; whether the fetus is still alive or not does not matter. If an infected uterus is left unevacuated, the bacteria will eventually spread to the blood stream and it will be fatal. This is fact.

At times the body offers a consolation and goes into labor. It doesn’t seem like it at the time but it is more than a small mercy. When the uterus does not start contracting the patient has to choose: drugs to induce labor or a surgical procedure called dilation and evacuation (D&E). It is like starring in a horror movie where you choose the weapon.

Labor is labor. It hurts and can take days. A premature uterus, especially an infected one, often does not cooperate. Days of both grieving and waiting to grieve break even the strongest. No one has assigned fault, in fact everyone has said the opposite, but the pathways of sadness and self-doubt and blame cut deeper and deeper with each taunting contraction. A brain fuddled by lack of sleep, medication side effects, days without fresh air, and the stench of sweat from the bed sheets cannot possibly reframe this experience. When women tell me they “can’t even get this right” I want to cry.

he other medical option is a D&E, a surgical procedure to remove the pregnancy through the cervix. It requires more skill, medically speaking, than the labor. You only come by this skill if you have done a lot of second trimester abortions because that is exactly what it is, but harder because an infected uterus has the consistency of soft butter. Your instruments are like a hot knife. You are using a hot knife to remove sharp fragments from a bed of soft butter. Do it incorrectly and you damage the uterus, puncture the bowel, or cause catastrophic blood loss. The fact that your patient is already ill with infection makes every potential sequelae worse.

A D&E bypasses all of the emotional trauma of the labor and the decisions that come afterward about holding the body. The patient gets an anesthetic and afterward the physical part of the nightmare is over. Sometimes, if the infection is advanced, the medical team may recommend a D&E up front. The risks of a D&E performed by a well-trained individual are very low.

Some women chose labor but after a day or so it is clear their body has a different idea. An infected uterus can’t always be whipped into shape with oxytocin and prostaglandins. A few even refuse a D&E even when they are very ill if there is still a fetal heartbeat. As they wait for the uterus to labor correctly they get sicker and sicker. Bacteria is showering the blood stream. Their heart rate is unbelievably fast. Their blood work is ominous. The staff all look at each other in that way medical people do when we know we are on the precipice of something very bad. Eventually, the patient agrees to the D&E and the relief is palpable.

When you are the person who will do the D&E the patient is always relieved to see you. She either knows she doesn’t want to labor, can’t handle any more labor, or she knows she is very sick. Sepsis makes you feel as if you are dying, which you are.

Sometimes her partner glares. “There is still a heartbeat,” he might say or if there is not, “How come we need someone special for this?” He knows the answer, but he wants me to say it. If I don’t, I can’t save the life of the person dying in the bed, so I tell him that you can’t do a D&E’s without abortions. This irritates many because their narrative is that abortions are never needed and yet here they are needing one or needing help from someone who can only help because of abortion training.

Without abortion training there will soon be no one with the skill to do a D&E and the option will be induction of labor or a hysterectomy or a hysterotomy (a C-section, but this early it often wrecks the uterus for future childbearing). Both a hysterectomy and a hysterotomy are major surgeries and much more likely to have serious and even fatal consequences than a D&E, especially for pregnant women with infections.

D&E’s are now illegal in Texas (because of Senate Bill 8, passed last week) unless the pregnant person is very ill. How ill? I’m a gynecologist and I don’t know.



One in, three out

Jun 16th, 2017 3:23 pm | By

Christine Berry on “deregulation” and Grenfell Tower:

In the wake of the horrifying Grenfell Tower disaster, people are starting to ask questions about why reports on housing safety were sat on and ignored. And the finger is being pointed towards the government’s ‘war on red tape’ – more specifically, towards a little-known policy called ‘one-in, three-out regulation’.

Oh that – the Republicans and Trump have been promoting that here, too. For every new “regulation” aka protection, you have to remove three. Wham, just like that – no questions asked about whether the three removed are actually a life or death necessity or not.

[H]ere’s a quick primer on what people are talking about when they talk about things like ‘one in, three out’. The architecture the government has put in place has three main pillars, each of which are systematically designed to prevent new laws being passed and to privilege the interests of big business over ordinary people:

  • ‘One in, three out’ (OITO). This means that no government department can introduce a new law that imposes a cost to business unless it can find another law to repeal that cuts costs to business by at least three times that amount. With the policy having been steadily ratcheting up for 7 years now, this basically means that new laws are nigh on impossible to introduce, because there is precious little left to cut.
  • Impact assessments. This is the way civil servants have to assess proposed new laws to comply with OITO. All potential impacts have to have a price put on them, which immediately undervalues things that are hard to put a price on – like the benefits of clean air or safe homes. But it doesn’t matter anyway, because as far as OITO is concerned, the only number that matters is the cost to business: the benefits to society are literally irrelevant.
  • The Regulatory Policy Committee. This is a quango with the power to give the green or red light to impact assessments, effectively vetoing new laws if they don’t think the OITO figures are good enough. It might sound like a bunch of technocrats, but it’s actually stuffed with corporate lobbyists. Stephen and I found that from 2013-2015 they met almost exclusively with other lobbyists, and boasted about being an “effective brake” on government’s ability to pass laws. Yes, we are putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

It just assumes that laws and regulations / protections are a bad, toxic thing, all of them, by definition.

The key thing to understand about this regime is that it applies to any law that costs businesses money. That includes the cost of paying the minimum wage, the cost of building diesel engines that don’t emit poisonous fumes – and, yes, the cost of making our homes safe to live in.

You know, laws that have made things slightly less shit over the past century or so, and could do more along those lines if it weren’t for these people who think laws are of the devil.

The appalling fate of the Grenfell residents has laid bare the human consequences of this inhuman policy. And they are not the first casualties in this war on protections. Scientists have found that handing control of plans to cut salt and sugar in food to the likes of McDonalds and Mars may have contributed to 6,000 deaths a year. The government raised the speed limit for lorries on single carriageways in order to cut costs for haulage companies, despite acknowledging it would likely cause a 14% increase in accidents.

As long as someone somewhere is making some money, that’s all that matters. Your health and safety? Pffft – not their problem, Snowflake.



He believes the rule of law doesn’t apply to him

Jun 16th, 2017 2:55 pm | By

Also…Trump’s lawyer has hired a lawyer. No really.

President Donald Trump’s longtime attorney and adviser Michael Cohen has hired a lawyer to represent him in the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, Cohen told CNN on Friday.

Cohen, who serves as Trump’s personal attorney, hired Stephen Ryan, a partner at the DC-based law firm McDermott, Will and Emery, to handle inquiries related to the investigations into Russian meddling in the election. News of the hire comes two weeks after Cohen was subpoenaed by the House intelligence committee as part of the committee’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Next week Trump’s lawyer’s lawyer will hire a lawyer and it will keep on this way until the whole thing is solid lawyers all the way to the horizon and then we go back to zero and start again.

Dianne Feinstein issued a statement:

Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) released the following statement on recent statements by the president:

“I’m growing increasingly concerned that the president will attempt to fire not only Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating possible obstruction of justice, but also Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein who appointed Mueller.

“The message the president is sending through his tweets is that he believes the rule of law doesn’t apply to him and that anyone who thinks otherwise will be fired. That’s undemocratic on its face and a blatant violation of the president’s oath of office.

“First of all, the president has no authority to fire Robert Mueller. That authority clearly lies with the attorney general—or in this case, because the attorney general has recused himself, with the deputy attorney general. Rosenstein testified under oath this week that he would not fire Mueller without good cause and that none exists.

“And second, if the president thinks he can fire Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and replace him with someone who will shut down the investigation, he’s in for a rude awakening. Even his staunchest supporters will balk at such a blatant effort to subvert the law.

“It’s becoming clear to me that the president has embarked on an effort to undermine anyone with the ability to bring any misdeeds to light, be that Congress, the media or the Justice Department. The Senate should not let that happen. We’re a nation of laws that apply equally to everyone, a lesson the president would be wise to learn.”

I wish she had said “The Senate must not let that happen.”



Picking them off

Jun 16th, 2017 2:34 pm | By

But hey, Rosenstein may have to recuse himself anyway.

ABC News is reporting that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “has privately acknowledged to colleagues that he may have to recuse himself from” his role as Acting Attorney General for the Department’s Russia Investigation. (Recall that Rosenstein assumed that role when Attorney General Sessions recused himself earlier.)  Rosenstein’s involvement in the case has grown untenable for many reasons. Most importantly, the substance of the investigation has apparently developed to include a potential obstruction of justice focus on the President in connection with (among other things) the President’s discussions with and firing of James Comey. In that matter, Rosenstein may be a witness because of his role in the firing, and thus he cannot at the same time be the supervisor of the investigation. (Noah Feldman makes a similar argument in BloombergView.) In addition, the President and his surrogates have viciouslyattacked Rosenstein’s choice of Special Counsel, Robert Mueller. This morning, the President also seemed to say that Rosenstein himself is responsible for what the President sees as a witch hunt against him…

So all in all: awkward.

Rosenstein’s potential recusal raises a number of important questions. First, how much longer can he stay on as Deputy Attorney General? He first seemed to compromise himself when, under apparent pressure from the President and the Attorney General, he wrote a pretextual memorandum for James Comey’s firing as FBI Director, only to see the President toss him under the bus and reveal how he was used. Rosenstein is Exhibit A for how working for Donald Trump in a legal capacity can tarnish one’s reputation. The President, who appears to lack respect for law and legal process, has now used Rosenstein for overtly political ends and both undermined his integrity by announcing the pretextual nature of his memorandum and attacked his integrity directly in the tweet this morning.

Americans should exercise caution before consenting to work for Donald Trump.



Americans should exercise caution before crossing the street

Jun 16th, 2017 2:18 pm | By

Rod Rosenstein issued a strange statement last night.

“Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated,” Mr. Rosenstein said in the statement.

He did not cite specific reports. The Justice Department released Mr. Rosenstein’s statement after 9 p.m., a few hours after The Washington Post reported that the special counsel was investigating the business dealings of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and adviser. That report was attributed to unnamed American officials.

Asked about the impetus for the statement, a Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. Mr. Rosenstein did not respond to an email seeking comment on Thursday night.

So maybe it had nothing to do with the Post story or Trump or Russia or in fact any specific thing at all, maybe it was just a piece of Good Advice he felt moved to share with us late one Thursday for no particular reason. Maybe he’s just a funny guy.

Preet Bharara seems not to think so.



Extinguished

Jun 16th, 2017 11:23 am | By

I just saw on the BBC that three victims have been named, and one of them is Khadija Saye. The artist Khadija Saye.

It’s been a real journey, tears shed, highs and lows, but mama, I’m an artist exhibiting at the Venice Biennale and the blessings are abundant!

Image may contain: outdoor

Her Facebook cover photo is also unbearably poignant:

Image may contain: sky, night, skyscraper, twilight and outdoor

Perhaps the view from the flat she shared with her mother on the 20th floor.

Isaac Shawo age 5:

Isaac Shawo

Syrian refugee Mohammed Alhajali

Mohammed Alhajali

 



Even as his staff tried to discourage him

Jun 16th, 2017 11:04 am | By

From a few days ago, the Times on Donald’s desperate thrashings.

Last month’s appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia enraged President Trump. Yet, at least initially, he holstered his Twitter finger and publicly said nothing.

But behind the scenes, the president soon began entertaining the idea of firing Mr. Mueller even as his staff tried to discourage him from something they believed would turn a bad situation into a catastrophe…

It’s a little bit like a psychological horror movie, those unhappy people cooped up with the lethal out-of-control manchild.

[P]eople close to Mr. Trump say he is so volatile they cannot be sure that he will not change his mind about Mr. Mueller if he finds out anything to lead him to believe the investigation has been compromised. And his ability to endure a free-ranging investigation, directed by Mr. Mueller, that could raise questions about the legitimacy of his Electoral College victory, the topic that most provokes his rage, will be a critical test for a president who has continued on Twitter and elsewhere to flout the advice of his staff, friends and legal team.

Because he’s so much smarter than they are.

The president, when asked by the pool of reporters covering a midday meeting with Republican lawmakers at the White House whether he supported Mr. Mueller, gave no answer, even though he often uses such interactions to make headlines or shoot down stories he believes to be fake.

That may have been by design, according to a person who spoke to Mr. Trump on Tuesday. The president was pleased by the ambiguity of his position on Mr. Mueller, and thinks the possibility of being fired will focus the veteran prosecutor on delivering what the president desires most: a blanket public exoneration.

Yes, that should definitely work.

Angered by reports in Breitbart News and other conservative news outlets that Mr. Mueller was close to Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump in recent days has repeatedly brought up the political and legal implications of firing someone he now views as incapable of an impartial investigation. He has told his staff, his visitors and his outside advisers that he was increasingly convinced that Mr. Mueller, like Mr. Comey, his successor as director of the F.B.I., was part of a “witch hunt” by partisans who wanted to see him weakened or forced from office.

But while the president is deeply suspicious of Mr. Mueller, his anger is reserved for Mr. Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia inquiry, and especially for Mr. Comey. Mr. Trump was especially outraged by Mr. Comey’s admission last week that he had leaked a memo with details of his interactions with the president in hopes of spurring the appointment of a special counsel.

That Mr. Comey, such a very bad man.

While the president’s aides have sought to sow skepticism about Mr. Mueller, whom they interviewed about the possibility of returning to the F.B.I. job the day before he accepted his position as special counsel, few have advocated his termination, reflecting the recognition that Mr. Trump’s angry reactions to the congressional and F.B.I. investigations now underway are imperiling his presidency.

The pushback also represented growing willingness among staff members to try to keep Mr. Trump from making damaging mistakes — an important internal change in a White House dominated by a president who often demands obeisance.

For all the talk of how no one in the West Wing tells the president “no,” many people do — though often unsuccessfully.

No, Donald, no, put the Twitter down, bad, nasty.



£2 cheaper per square metre

Jun 16th, 2017 10:32 am | By

The Guardian on that cheaper and more inflammable cladding chosen for the renovation of Grenfell Tower.

Material used in the cladding that covered the Grenfell Tower was the cheaper, more flammable version of the two available options, an investigation of the supply chain has confirmed.

Omnis Exteriors manufactured the aluminium composite material (ACM) used in the cladding, a company director, John Cowley, confirmed to the Guardian.

He also said Omnis had been asked to supply Reynobond PE cladding, which is £2 cheaper per square metre than the alternative Reynobond FR, which stands for “fire resistant” to the companies that worked on refurbishing Grenfell Tower.

But maybe that’s just normal? Everybody does it?

No.

German construction companies have been banned from using plastic-filled cladding, such as Reynobond PE, on towers more than 22 metres high since the 1980s when regulations were brought in to improve fire safety at residential blocks.

Why 22 metres? Because of the ladders on fire trucks.

Concerns that the panels could exacerbate the spread of fires led authorities to allow them only on buildings that can be reached by the fire brigade using fully-extended ladders from the ground. Taller buildings require panels with a more fire-resistant core and separate staircases for people to use if evacuation becomes necessary.

Frankfurt’s fire chief, Reinhard Ries, said he was appalled at the fire at Grenfell Tower and said tighter fire-safety rules for tower blocks in Germany meant that a similar incident could not happen there. US building codes also restrict the use of metal-composite panels without flame-retardant cores on buildings above 15 metres.

Now we have a very vivid demonstration of why.

In the UK there are no regulations requiring the use of fire-retardant material in cladding used on the exterior of tower blocks and schools. But the Fire Protection Association (FPA), an industry body, has been pushing for years for the government to make it a statutory requirement for local authorities and companies to use only fire-retardant material. Jim Glocking, technical director of the FPA, said it had “lobbied long and hard” for building regulations on the issue to be tightened, but nothing had happened.

Seraphima Kennedy had nightmares about it.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster, a harsh light now shines on the organisation that managed the block, and others in the area, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO).

People have said that this was “a disaster waiting to happen”. I shared their concerns. I saw them from the inside.

I remember the vote that led to the creation of KCTMO in 1996, because my mother was a tenant at the time and we received letters about it. I was born and brought up in the south of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, on benefits, in an overcrowded council flat.

She went to university and went to work for the KCTMO.

Though I didn’t manage Grenfell Tower itself, I was responsible for day-to-day housing management services on surrounding estates with similar structures and communities. The policies and procedures were, to my knowledge, the same, and these included mandatory annual fire safety training for caretakers and neighbourhood officers. In this training, the stakes of failure were made very clear; we were told that the CEO could go to prison for corporate manslaughter in the event of a major incident. We were also told about some of the recommendations from the Lakanal House fire in 2009, which claimed six lives in Southwark, south London.

But austerity steadily drained away their resources.

Our foreboding about calamity loomed large; I used to have nightmares about blocks burning down. We carried out quarterly block inspections, and a huge part of that work was checking the fire-safety of each block. Were the exits clear? Were the emergency lights working? Were all the fire doors in operation? We’d send letters to residents who left bikes and buggies blocking the communal exits, because it was our responsibility to make sure the means of escape were clear. But still I’d wake up in the middle of the night, asking myself if I’d sent that letter to that resident in flat 17 asking her to move her buggy. Buggies are highly flammable and it only takes one cigarette to start a fire.

When I heard how residents in Grenfell stayed put, I remembered one meeting with the residents on another of our estates who asked for information about their means of escape in the event of a fire. I was flabbergasted when our fire safety team confirmed the widely used “stay put” policy, confident in the belief that fire stops between each floor would prevent the flames from spreading, and that the fire doors fitted to every home in their block would give residents a full hour in which the fire brigade would rescue them. Thinking about it now brings a lump to my throat.

£2 cheaper per square metre.

H/t Gita Sahgal