Pawing, molesting and passing lewd remarks

Jan 6th, 2017 11:11 am | By

New Year’s Eve in Karnataka:

This New Year’s Eve, India’s Silicon Valley reared its ugly head. As thousands of revelers gathered in Bengaluru’s city center—MG Road and Brigade Road— to ring in 2017, hooligans infiltrated the celebratory crowd, and for many women, the joyful parade turned into a nightmare.

An unruly mob of men began “pawing, molesting and passing lewd remarks on women on the streets,” according to the Bangalore Mirror, whose photojournalists were on the ground when havoc broke out minutes before midnight. Women cried for help and ran with heels in hand as men, many inebriated, mauled them. Eyewitnesses described the horrific incident as a “mass molestation.”

But don’t worry, it turns out it was the women’s own fault.

The response from authorities and leaders was underwhelming. Instead of apologizing, Bengaluru home minister G. Parameshwara blamed the police’s failure on the “culture” of New Years celebrations: “A large number of youngsters gathered— youngsters who are almost like westerners…they try to copy westerners not only in mindset, but even the dressing, so some disturbance, some girls are harassed, these kind of things do happen.” Abu Azmi, a leader of the democratic socialist Samajwadi party, said these incidents occur because “women call nudity ‘fashion,’” adding that they would be better off if they stayed home on New Year’s eve.

So true. Let’s face it: women should stay home at all times.

India’s patriarchal culture has treated women as second-class citizens for centuries. Female babies are often killed—in the womb or after birth–or abandoned in India, leading to one of the world’s most skewed sex ratios: boys outnumber girls in many of the country’s 29 states. For women who escape violence in childhood, early adulthood can be dangerous and even deadly: jilted men sometimes attack women who refuse marriage proposals with acid. Although dowry has been banned in India for more than five decades, the practice is still rampant. Over 7,600 dowry deaths—where women are murdered or driven to suicide by harassment and torture by husbands and in-laws trying to extort further dowry—were reported in the country in 2015, according to the National Crime Records Bureau. And the country still doesn’t have a law against marital rape.

Maybe if they stayed home and locked themselves in a trunk? Would they be safe then?



Liar to narcissist

Jan 6th, 2017 10:30 am | By

Trump talked to the Times on the phone this morning.

Mr. Trump spoke to The New York Times by telephone three hours before he was set to be briefed by the nation’s top intelligence and law enforcement officials about the Russian hacking of American political institutions. In the conversation, he repeatedly criticized the intense focus on Russia.

“China, relatively recently, hacked 20 million government names,” he said, referring to the breach of computers at the Office of Personnel Management in late 2014 and early 2015. “How come nobody even talks about that? This is a political witch hunt.”

Ahhh yes, it’s a “political witch hunt,” because what valid reason could there possibly be to object to Russia’s meddling with the recent election?

In congressional testimony on Thursday, the intelligence officials rejected Mr. Trump’s longstanding skepticism about Russia’s cyberactivities and told lawmakers they had unanimously concluded that the Russian government used hacks and leaks of information to influence the American election.

It’s not “skepticism.” It’s denialism. It wasn’t skepticism when the tobacco CEOs said nicotine is not addictive, it’s not skepticism when anti-vaxxers babble about autism and mercury, it’s not skepticism when right-wing think tanks say global warming is bogus plus besides it’s a good thing. It wasn’t skepticism when Trump kept insisting that Obama wasn’t born in the US. Trump doesn’t do skepticism, he does assertion and denial.

Mr. Trump, who has consistently expressed doubts about the evidence of Russian hacking during the election, did so again on Friday. Asked why he thought there was so much attention being given to the Russian cyberattacks, the president-elect said the motivation was political.

“They got beaten very badly in the election. I won more counties in the election than Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Trump said during an eight-minute telephone conversation. “They are very embarrassed about it. To some extent, it’s a witch hunt. They just focus on this.”

Says the liar who was a noisy birther for years, and who said the Central Park five are guilty in October, despite the physical evidence that exonerated them.

Mr. Trump said he was looking forward to his meeting Friday afternoon about the hacking with Mr. Clapper; James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director; and other intelligence officials. He said that Mr. Clapper “wrote me a beautiful letter a few weeks ago wishing me the best.”

From Trump the liar to Trump the narcissist – the whole point of people is whether they say nice things about Trump or not.

It will be interesting to see what lies he tells after the intelligence briefing, which I believe is in progress now.



Spite

Jan 6th, 2017 9:06 am | By

Today in Trump being shitty.

President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements.

Thus demonstrating again what a hateful childish petty little shit he is.

W. Robert Pearson, a former ambassador to Turkey and a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said the rule was “quite extraordinary,” adding that it could undermine American interests and signal a hasty change in direction that exacerbates jitters among allies about their relationships with the new administration.

Well, relationships with hateful childish petty little shits tend to be unpleasant.

Derek Shearer, a professor of diplomacy at Occidental College who is a former United States ambassador to Finland, said it was difficult to see a rationale for the decision. “It feels like there’s an element just of spite and payback in it,” he said. “I don’t see a higher policy motive.”

Payback for what? That Correspondents’ Dinner when Obama humiliated Trump? Trump the birther, who was relentlessly promoting the stupid lie that Obama was not born in the US?

Oh well, it’s only diplomacy.



Another frenzy

Jan 5th, 2017 4:54 pm | By

The Working Class Movement Library in Salford (across the river from Manchester – I’ve been there, just barely, having crossed the bridge near the People’s History Museum in Manchester so I could say I’d set foot in Salford) is putting on an event with Julie Bindel.

We are pleased to welcome journalist, writer, broadcaster and researcher Julie Bindel to speak as we mark LGBT History Month. Julie has been active in the global campaign to end violence towards women and children since 1979, and has written extensively on topics such as rape, domestic violence, prostitution and trafficking. She is currently a Visiting Fellow at Lincoln University.

Julie’s 2014 book on the state of the lesbian and gay movement in the UK, Straight Expectations, has been praised for being thought-provoking and challenging.

Admission free; all welcome.

It’s a volunteer-run organization, with no money.

The event page has filled up with screaming outrage from people who heard from someone who heard from someone else who read in a Facebook comment once that Julie is an Unapproved Person. “Screaming outrage” doesn’t even describe it – it’s frothing raving deranged hatred, along with threats and dedicated efforts to damage both Julie and the Library.

The subset of the Green Party that calls itself LGBTIQA+Greens has posted a ridiculous account of this venomous explosion:

5 January 2017

February is the time of year that we remember and celebrate the achievements of LGBT people, which, let’s face it, are frequently swept under the carpet in discussions of the past.

To mark this year’s LGBT History Month, The Working Class Movement Library in Salford has announced that they are hosting Julie Bindel to speak at their event.

Julie Bindel has a long and troubling history of making transphobic and biphobic comments. In December 2012, she wrote an article titled ‘Where’s the Politics in Sex?’ where she rolled out tired and harmful stereotypes around bisexuality, including such sentiments as “if bisexual women had an ounce of sexual politics, they would stop sleeping with men.”. In 2004 she published an article called ‘Gender benders, beware’ in which she referred to a trans woman with quotation marks around “woman” and her pronoun “she” as if to suggest that her identity was invalid and something to be mocked.

This week, Bindel has even ridiculed trans people’s pronouns and the right that everyone has to choose their own in a tweet that read: “Pronouns – Martini/whitewine/Negroni.”

And that’s it! That’s all they offer! That’s all they offer by way of evidence for claiming she “has a long and troubling history of making transphobic and biphobic comments” and by way of justification for doing their utmost to bully the WCML and Julie into giving up this event. She made a joke about “pronouns” and they consider that justification for trying to destroy her.

The bullshit gets bullshitter every week. It’s sickening.



Only forty years

Jan 5th, 2017 3:35 pm | By

Amnesty International expelled the coordinator of its branch in Providence, Rhode Island for publicly disagreeing with Amnesty’s policy of decriminalizing pimping.

Marcia Lieberman, a freelance writer and member of local group 49 since 1976, received a certified letter Tuesday morning alerting her that her membership had been revoked, she said. Lieberman faxed a copy of the letter to the Providence Journal.

In the letter, Ann Burroughs, a board member for the global human rights organization, wrote: “Amnesty member leaders are not free to dissent from Amnesty’s policies and positions while identifying themselves as Amnesty volunteer leaders.”

Amnesty International’s policy on sex workers, which was published in May after a vote by chapters internationally, calls for “the decriminalization of all aspects of adult consensual sex work due to the foreseeable barriers that criminalization creates to the realization of the human rights of sex workers.”

Lieberman, and most of the members of the 10-person chapter she coordinated, disagreed with this, she said. They felt the research into the policy was scant and that it would embolden “pimps and johns” who were exploiting “mostly young women and girls.”

Lieberman first spoke out against the leadership in a Sept. 2015 letter to the editor published in the New York Times. Days later she received a phone call from David Rendell, the group’s Northeastern representative, and an email from Becky Farrar, a membership chairwoman, warning her that members are not allowed to speak against policies in public. If she continued, she was told, this could lead to expulsion.

Let’s read that letter. (Scroll down: it’s the fourth and last one on the page.)

Little has been heard from Amnesty International members who are opposed to the decriminalization of all aspects of sex work. In advance of a forthcoming “open” conversation call, Amnesty members have been officially reminded that although we are not required to agree with or defend this policy, we “are obligated to not convey a different message in the public arena.”

This gag order is contrary to one of the rights on which Amnesty International was founded: freedom of expression.

MARCIA LIEBERMAN

Providence, R.I.

The writer is coordinator of an Amnesty International group.

I was disgusted when Amnesty announced that policy, and this is even worse.

The irony of a local leader of a group dedicated to free speech, being disciplined for speaking out, is not lost on Lieberman, or her membership, she said.

Former AIUSA member Beth Anterni said removing Lieberman is “counterproductive.” She didn’t renew her $25 annual membership in June because she was upset the way Lieberman was treated. Many other members likely will do the same, she said.

“This is someone who has dedicated her life to this work,” said Anterni. “It’s close to her heart.”

Burroughs declined to be interviewed for this story, but issued a statement through Amnesty International’s press office: “Recently, our Board of Directors voted to revoke an individual’s membership after nearly two years of working with her to address multiple violations of our policies. We won’t publicly discuss this matter further in order to protect the privacy of the former member involved.”

Lieberman has the opportunity to appeal her expulsion, but she is not sure whether she will.

Amnesty for pimps, but not for Marcia Lieberman.



Serious biz

Jan 5th, 2017 9:40 am | By

Yesterday in Trump on Twitter:

Jackie Evancho’s album sales have skyrocketed after announcing her Inauguration performance.Some people just don’t understand the “Movement”



A spirited hearing

Jan 5th, 2017 9:37 am | By

Trump has been sneering and jeering at intelligence experts for days. This morning there was a hearing.

Senate Republicans and Democrats defended on Thursday the findings by the American intelligence community that Russia interfered in the United States election, during a spirited hearing before the Armed Services Committee just as President-elect Donald J. Trump has questioned foreign involvement.

Some highlights from the hearing:

■ Intelligence officials said Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, should not be given credibility.

■ In a comment aimed at Mr. Trump, the director of national intelligence said there was a difference between “skepticism” and “disparagement” of the findings.

That actually sums up the problem with Trump’s way of “thinking” in general: it’s all attitude and no inquiry. Skepticism is based on reasons, while disparagement is just emoting.

The hearing arrived at an explosive moment. Mr. Trump has continued to express doubts about Russia’s interference in the election, placing him at odds with the intelligence agencies he will soon command and with several leading members of his own party.

Plus of course there’s the obvious fact that he’s an interested party. He’s making it clearer every moment that he will always do what he considers good for him, Donald Trump, rather than fretting about any such triviality as what’s good for the people he’s supposed to be serving. He’s sneering at the claims about Russia’s hacking because they make him look bad, period end of story.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has made no secret of his belief that Russia was responsible for the election-related hacking, and his recent travels will not have eased his concerns about Russian aggression. He just returned from a New Year’s tour of countries that see themselves as threatened by Russia: Ukraine, Georgia and the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Yes but who cares about them when Donald Trump’s reputation is at stake?

Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, was the first to take direct aim at Mr. Trump, wondering aloud “who benefits from a president-elect trashing the intelligence community.”

Mr. Clapper said pointedly that there was “a difference between healthy skepticism” — a phrase Vice President-elect Mike Pence used in defending Mr. Trump’s criticism of the intelligence agencies — and “disparagement.”

“The intelligence community is not perfect,” Mr. Clapper added. “We are an organization of human beings and we’re prone sometimes to make errors.” But he referred to the wall of stars in the C.I.A. lobby commemorating the deaths of agency officers on duty and said the agencies’ efforts to keep the country safe are not always appreciated.

Ms. McCaskill said there would be “howls from the Republican side of the aisle” if a Democrat had spoken about intelligence officials as Mr. Trump has.

“Thank you for that nonpartisan comment,” Mr. McCain joked as she wrapped up.

Meanwhile Trump is on Twitter calling Senator Schumer a “clown.” Yes really.



Up for grabs

Jan 4th, 2017 4:10 pm | By

The Washington Post has more on the Congressional land giveaway move.

House Republicans on Tuesday changed the way Congress calculates the cost of transferring federal lands to the states and other entities, a move that will make it easier for members of the new Congress to cede federal control of public lands.

Many Republicans, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), have been pushing to hand over large areas of federal land to state and local authorities, on the grounds that they will be more responsive to the concerns of local residents.

Great – so if local residents want casinos in Yosemite or high rises in Yellowstone, they should be able to have them? Or is it possible that in fact places like Yosemite and Yellowstone should be preserved for everyone – not even just all Americans but all people?

[M]any Democrats argue that these lands should be managed on behalf of all Americans, not just those living nearby, and warn that cash-strapped state and local officials might sell these parcels to developers.

Like the one soon to be degrading the White House.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter Tuesday to fellow Democrats urging them to oppose the rules package on the basis of that proposal.

“The House Republican plan to give away America’s public lands for free is outrageous and absurd,” Grijalva said in a statement. “This proposed rule change would make it easier to implement this plan by allowing the Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people.”

Environmental groups were quick to criticize the move.

Alan Rowsome, senior government relations director for The Wilderness Society, said in a statement, “Right out of the gate, Congressional Republicans are declaring open season on federal lands… This is not Theodore Roosevelt-style governing, this move paves the way for a wholesale giveaway of our American hunting, fishing and camping lands that belong to us all.”

Next up: the move to privatize air.



Let’s give the Grand Canyon to Disney Corporation

Jan 4th, 2017 3:52 pm | By

Peter Walker on Facebook:

During the Republican National Convention in July, many were appalled to see that language supporting the transfer (a.k.a. giveaway, theft… etc.) of federal public lands was included in the official party platform. Many of us were uncertain whether this was serious. The answer appears to be yes. On its very first day, the new 115th Congress voted in favor of legislation by Utah Representative Rob Bishop to promote the transfer of public lands.

He posted the link to a story by Rich Landers at the [Spokane] Spokesman-Review:

The 115th Congress got off to an eye-opening start on Tuesday, looking to reduce outside ethics oversight and then voting in favor of facilitating transfers of some federal public lands and waters to state, local and private interests.

The vote, largely along party lines as part of a rules package, showed support for recalculating the costs of public lands transfers and easing current restrictions for shifting their oversight to individual states or private interests.

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is one group criticizing the measure, introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, and strongly criticized House members who voted in support of it.

The provision would designate any transfer legislation “budget neutral,” eliminating existing safeguards against undervaluing public lands, disregarding any revenue or economic benefits currently generated and paving the way for quick and discreet giveaways of valuable lands and waters – including national forests, wildlife refuges and BLM lands – historically owned by the American people.

It’s like a caricature of right-wing shittiness – giving away public lands to private interests. You’d think even the most far-right of right-wingers would be able to grasp the value of keeping some land public.

Updating to add:

They included a telling photo and caption:

Ryan Bundy, son of the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, rides an ATV into Recapture Canyon north of Blanding, Utah on Saturday, May 10, 2014, in a protest against what demonstrators call the federal government's overreaching control of public lands. The area has been closed to motorized use since 2007 when an illegal trail was found that cuts through Ancestral Puebloan ruins. The canyon is open to hikers and horseback riders. (Trent Nelson / The Salt Lake Tribune)

Ryan Bundy, son of the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, rides an ATV into Recapture Canyon north of Blanding, Utah on Saturday, May 10, 2014, in a protest against what demonstrators call the federal government’s overreaching control of public lands. The area has been closed to motorized use since 2007 when an illegal trail was found that cuts through Ancestral Puebloan ruins. The canyon is open to hikers and horseback riders. (Trent Nelson / The Salt Lake Tribune)

That’s what they stand for – the “right” to drive destructive machines onto public lands that are officially closed to motorized use because of the presence of Ancestral Puebloan ruins. They stand for: FUCK YOU I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT.



They don’t have their priorities straight

Jan 4th, 2017 11:38 am | By

Amy Davidson at the New Yorker explains why Trump failed to be enthusiastic about the Republicans’ move to kill the Office of Congressional Ethics.

The G.O.P. representatives were absolutely correct in thinking that the Trump years are shaping up to be a bitter farce, in terms of good government, and a tragedy in other ways—bereft, for example, of real efforts to improve the lives of the most vulnerable Americans. What they were confused about was the part that they are expected to play. This became clear on Monday night, as critics from all sides pelted the congressmen with their own absurdity, and, the next morning, when Trump began to tweet.

“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it,” Trump began, continuing in a second tweet, “may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS.”  “DTS” stands for “Drain the swamp,” one of the companion chants to “Lock her up!” during the Presidential campaign. It hasn’t been looking all that drained. What’s most telling about Trump’s tweet, and the possible source of the congressmen’s confusion, is that Trump is not objecting to the idea of “weakening” the watchdogs; he is just annoyed that the congressional Republicans are doing it on what he considers to be his time. They don’t have their priorities straight. This is not an office that would ever go after him, so why are they wasting his political capital crippling it? In the world as seen from Trump Tower, that’s practically political embezzlement.

Ah, of course. I didn’t think of that, and I did wonder why he was raining on their parade. How silly of me – it wasn’t about him, so of course he rained.

Don’t bother having any sympathy for Paul Ryan, she adds.

That is no reason to feel sorry for Ryan, who has lived by and fortified this culture. There were moments during the campaign when Ryan was critical of Trump. But in its last days he campaigned for Trump by name. Ryan seems to have his own gold-painted fantasies of what that means. He talks frequently about how much “Donald” likes his ideas. If, in his focus on getting Trump’s help in dismantling the safety net, he let himself be exposed to a day of humiliation, he can’t be surprised. Nor does he deserve much credit for his late effort, with the reversal of the rule change, to salvage his dignity. Indeed, by doing it so quickly after the Trump tweets he has made himself look all the more like the President-elect’s messenger, or maybe his intern.

Or his valet.



How Trump decides what’s true

Jan 4th, 2017 11:19 am | By

One for the Strange Bedfellows file: Trump and Assange.

President-elect Donald Trump has backed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in casting doubt on intelligence alleging Russian meddling in the US election.

Mr Assange said Russia was not the source for the site’s mass leak of emails from the Democratic Party.

Mr Trump has now backed that view in a tweet. He wrote: “Assange… said Russians did not give him the info!”

The president-elect has repeatedly refused to accept the conclusions of the US intelligence community.

Based on what? Nothing. Just his wishes. He doesn’t want it to be the case that Russia hacked DNC emails and helped sabotage Clinton, therefore he asserts that it’s not the case. He is Important, and the truth is not, therefore he gets to assert whatever he chooses to assert as truth, because he is The Big Dog, and the big dog is always right.

On Tuesday evening, Mr Trump said an intelligence briefing he was due to receive on the issue had been delayed.

“Perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!” he wrote.

But US intelligence officials insisted there had been no delay in the briefing schedule.

Liar liar liar liar liar liar. Trump is such a liar.



Category mistake

Jan 3rd, 2017 5:04 pm | By

Today in Trump Stupid on Twitter:

The Democrat Governor.of Minnesota said “The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is no longer affordable!” – And, it is lousy healthcare.

Democratic Governor. Democrat is the noun, Democratic is the adjective.

But that’s not the stupid. The stupid is “And, it is lousy healthcare.” It’s not healthcare at all you imbecile! It’s a system for distributing and financing healthcare, it’s not healthcare itself. College loans are not “lousy education” because they’re not education at all, they’re a (bad) system for distributing and financing higher education.

Plus of course there’s the fact that health care was not affordable before the ACA and it won’t be affordable after Trump and the Republicans trash it.

Other than that, right on the money.



Not just for pizza

Jan 3rd, 2017 3:33 pm | By

Also good: the kelp forest.

10 Facts You Didn’t Know About Sea Life Before Visiting the Monterey Bay Aquarium

Also, the anchovies:

Northern anchovy

They open their heads like that as they swim.



Sea Nettles

Jan 3rd, 2017 3:16 pm | By

I’m on the Monterey Peninsula for my job, and I was given a guest pass to the Aquarium, so I went there. I see why people say good things about it.

This for instance held me rapt:



Mr Exxon

Jan 3rd, 2017 10:28 am | By

Speaking of corruption, conflicts of interest, ethics, plutocrats – the Times reported a couple of weeks ago on how that whole tangle is slowing down the vetting of Trump’s cabinet o’ billionaires.

Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, sent letters to the top ethics officials at 17 government agencies, asking if they had been in touch with officials of the Trump transition, whether they had received financial disclosure statements, and whether any Trump pick “refused to provide any information that you believe is necessary to conduct a conflicts analysis as required by law.”

“Given the large and complex financial holdings and boundless, serious potential for conflicts of interest,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in an email, “these nominees need to turn over all relevant financial and background information so that senators can thoroughly review their record before going forward with any hearings.”

Several of Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks would be among the wealthiest public servants in modern history. That alone presents a significant financial-vetting challenge to Senate Republicans, who hope to begin confirmation hearings in a few weeks. Mr. Trump’s selection process — begun, unlike that of most predecessors, after his election rather than before — may have added to the challenge of moving quickly now.

“They need to step on the gas and get it done,” said Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush. “They need to tell the Senate what they are going to do with their assets.”

Many Republicans seem wedded to the idea that rich=good and very rich=super-good, and that that’s pretty much all there is to it. Trump himself is far more wedded to that idea than he’s ever been to any mere woman.

Cabinet nominees undergo rigorous background checks by the F.B.I. and the Office of Government Ethics, as well as a complicated process involving the agencies they are nominated to run. This is to ensure that nominees have no financial conflicts of interest or outstanding tax matters that could later expose them to criminal prosecution.

If they have lots of $ that can take weeks or even months.

Many of Mr. Trump’s nominees come with a complex web of financial interests and investments. They include Mr. Tillerson; Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs partner picked to head the Treasury; the billionaire investor Wilbur L. Ross Jr., chosen as commerce secretary; and Betsy DeVos, the president-elect’s choice to run the Department of Education.

Lawmakers have already raised questions about Mr. Tillerson’s seeming reluctance to turn over his personal financial information. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has tentatively set Jan. 11 for the start of Mr. Tillerson’s confirmation hearing.

In keeping with longstanding committee precedent, it has not asked Mr. Tillerson to provide his tax returns, Senator Corker said. “By all accounts, Mr. Tillerson is currently ahead of schedule in providing information to the committee,” he added. “He already has submitted a completed nominee questionnaire and will soon submit an extensive financial disclosure.”

But Mr. Cardin voiced the fears of some Democrats that Mr. Tillerson and other nominees — and Republican committee chairmen — may take their cues from Mr. Trump’s unusual decision not to release his own tax returns.

“I think it is an important part of vetting this candidate because he has never made public disclosures of this type, as he has worked at Exxon Mobil for his entire career and has never been in public service,” Mr. Cardin wrote on Thursday in a letter to committee Democrats. “Mr. Tillerson was actively engaged with many foreign governments that could become relevant if confirmed as secretary of state. The Senate has a responsibility to review all relevant documents during the confirmation process.”

Nothing has changed since then. The Democrats want Tillerson to show his tax returns, the Republicans say no he doesn’t have to. Mr Exxon will be running the State Department.



Republicans say: never mind

Jan 3rd, 2017 9:40 am | By

For now, that is.

The news broke 15 minutes ago that

House Republican leaders have pulled a proposal that would gut its independent ethics panel, amid widespread criticism of the plan, multiple lawmakers tell CNN.

Even Trump objected – except what he objected to was the timing, the prioritization, not the substance.

Trump called out his fellow Republicans Tuesday for proposing to curb the powers of the independent ethics panel as their first move of the year, although the President-elect suggested the ethics panel was “unfair.”

“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it … may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS,” Trump said over two consecutive tweets.

And then, once that’s all done, they can go ahead and get rid of independent ethics oversight.

House Republicans voted 119-74 during a closed-door meeting in favor of Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s proposal, which would place the independent Office of Congressional Ethics under the control of those very lawmakers, a move that outraged Democrats and outside ethics organizations. The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on it as part of a larger rules package up for consideration Tuesday.

Ryan defended the proposed changes, marking the first high-profile break with Trump of the new year.

“After eight years of operation, many members believe the Office of Congressional Ethics is in need of reform to protect due process and ensure it is operating according to its stated mission,” Ryan said in a statement after Trump’s tweets. “I want to make clear that this House will hold its members to the highest ethical standards and the Office will continue to operate independently to provide public accountability to Congress.”

He can “make it clear” all he wants, but that’s not the same as making it true. This House has not always held its members to the highest ethical standards, to put it mildly, and there’s no reason to think it’s going to start now – on the contrary, there’s a lot of reason to think the opposite, given the jaw-dropping level of blithe corruption in the form of conflicts of interest in the new administration. In short no, Paul Ryan, we’re not going to trust you.

Outside ethics group point to the ethics panel as the only real entity policing members and argue its independent status and bipartisan board are an appropriate way to oversee investigations.

“Gutting the independent ethics office is exactly the wrong way to start a new Congress,” said Chris Carson, spokesperson for League of Women Voters, in a statement. “This opens the door for special interest corruption just as the new Congress considers taxes and major infrastructure spending.”

Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group, said the ethics office “has played a critical role in seeing that the congressional ethics process is no longer viewed as merely a means to sweep problems under the rug.”

“If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining (the ethics office), it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated,” they said in a Monday night statement.

Stay tuned.



Self-cleaning swamp

Jan 3rd, 2017 9:10 am | By

It’s a useful symbol, if nothing else – the surprise vote by House Republicans to kill the independent ethics office that oversees…Congress. No stinkin’ ethics for them! It’s helpful of them to make it so very clear.

The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, where emboldened Republicans are ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The House Republicans’ move would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.

It also came on the eve of a historic shift in power in Washington, where Republicans control both houses of Congress and where a wealthy businessman with myriad potential conflicts of interest is preparing to move into the White House.

We have an openly pro-corruption government. Cool.

In place of the office, Republicans would create a new Office of Congressional Complaint Review that would report to the House Ethics Committee, which has been accused of ignoring credible allegations of wrongdoing by lawmakers.

See, the thing about the Office of Congressional Ethics is that it was independent – it wasn’t an insider office. The House Ethics Committee is an insider office. Congress wants to go back to policing its own self, with all the obvious conflicts of interest that entails. The fox voted to restore supervision of the chicken house to the fox.

“Poor way to begin draining the swamp,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, said on Twitter. He added, “Swamp wins with help of @SpeakerRyan, @RepGoodlatte.”

Mr. Goodlatte defended the action in a statement on Monday evening, saying it would strengthen ethics oversight in the House while also giving lawmakers better protections against what some of them have called overzealous efforts by the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Well yes, naturally, letting Congress oversee its own ethics would naturally give members of Congress “better protections” – with the result that they could get away with more corruption.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, joined others who had worked to create the office in expressing outrage at the move and the secretive way it was orchestrated.

“Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp,’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement on Monday night. “Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”

Let’s have more and better corruption.

The body was created after a string of serious ethical issues starting a decade ago, including bribery allegations against Representatives Duke Cunningham, Republican of California; William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana; and Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio. All three were ultimately convicted and served time in jail.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, which is overseen by a six-member outside board, does not have subpoena power. But it has its own staff of investigators who spend weeks conducting confidential interviews and collecting documents based on complaints they receive from the public, or news media reports, before issuing findings that detail any possible violation of federal rules or laws. The board then votes on whether to refer the matter to the full House Ethics Committee, which conducts its own review.

But the House Ethics Committee, even if it dismisses the potential ethics violation as unfounded, is required to release the Office of Congressional Ethics report detailing the alleged wrongdoing, creating a deterrent to such questionable behavior by lawmakers.

Under the new arrangement, the Office of Congressional Complaint Review could not take anonymous complaints, and all of its investigations would be overseen by the House Ethics Committee itself, which is made up of lawmakers who answer to their own party.

The Office of Congressional Complaint Review would also have special rules to “better safeguard the exercise of due process rights of both subject and witness,” Mr. Goodlatte said. The provision most likely reflects complaints by certain lawmakers that the ethics office’s staff investigations were at times too aggressive, an allegation that watchdog groups dismissed as evidence that lawmakers were just trying to protect themselves.

The whole system is already notoriously corrupt, because bribery in the form of campaign donations is entrenched. Investigations should be aggressive.

By moving all of the authority to the House Ethics Committee, several ethics lawyers said, the House risks becoming far too protective of members accused of wrongdoing.

Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.

“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”



On the eve of destruction

Jan 2nd, 2017 4:32 pm | By

The Republicans are getting all their ducks in a row for their big project of destroying everything now that they have the chance.

For six years, since they took back the House of Representatives, Republicans have added to a pile of legislation that moldered outside the White House. In their thwarted agenda, financial regulations were to be unspooled. Business taxes were to be slashed. Planned Parenthood would be stripped of federal funds. The ­Affordable Care Act was teed up for repeal — dozens of times.

When the 115th Congress begins this week, with Republicans firmly in charge of the House and Senate, much of that legislation will form the basis of the most ambitious conservative policy agenda since the 1920s. And rather than a Democratic president standing in the way, a soon-to-be-inaugurated Donald Trump seems ready to sign much of it into law.

Please, tell us again how it’s all the fault of the coastal elite liberals in their bubble of disdain for the white working class. Tell us again how these people seized power by being so much more attuned to the working class than the left is.

This year’s agenda from House and Senate Republicans has clarity that was often lacking from Trump’s own campaign. Senate Republicans favor using a procedure known as “budget reconciliation,” in which measures can be passed with a simple 51-vote majority rather than a filibuster-proof 60 votes, to tackle the ACA and to undo much of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform.

As part of undoing the financial overhaul law, some GOP leaders have begun planning strategies for how to effectively kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whether by giving Congress control over its budget or finding cause to replace its director, Richard Cordray, with a weaker board.

It’s so elitist to think consumers should have protection, isn’t it? The democratic, populist, people-loving thing to do is let corporations make and market whatever they like however they like, and respect us enough to assume we can tell when they’re cheating or poisoning or shortchanging or overcharging us without any help from the government.

GOP leaders have cited the 21-year old Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to cast simple majority votes of disapproval for regulations, as a way to block anything the administration has ordered since June 2016.

Since its passage, the CRA has been used only once. But in December, the conservative House Freedom Caucus began compiling a list of more than 200 regulations it views as vulnerable to a disapproval vote. They include “burdensome” school lunch standards, tobacco regulations, laws that set higher wages for contractors and elements of the Paris climate-change agreement.

“Talking to some individuals with the Trump transition team, they are taking this extremely serious[ly],” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told the Heritage Foundation last month.

Republicans intend to supplement the CRA by enacting a law that would subject any regulation with an economic impact greater than $100 million to a vote of Congress, a change that would have prevented nearly every climate or employment rule change of the Obama years. The measure, called the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, or Reins, is a conservative priority that passed the Republican House in 2011, 2013 and 2015 with backing from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republican aides now hope for a vote on Reins in the coming days so it can be sent for Trump’s signature immediately after he is sworn in on Jan. 20.

Great. Make it so that profit is the only criterion for everything, and let the fun begin.



Becoming a stan

Jan 2nd, 2017 12:27 pm | By

Paul Krugman on Trump the strongman:

In 2015 the city of Ashgabat, the capital of Turkmenistan, was graced with a new public monument: a giant gold-plated sculpture portraying the country’s president on horseback. This may strike you as a bit excessive. But cults of personality are actually the norm in the “stans,” the Central Asian countries that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of which are ruled by strongmen who surround themselves with tiny cliques of wealthy crony capitalists.

Americans used to find the antics of these regimes, with their tinpot dictators, funny. But who’s laughing now?

We are, after all, about to hand over power to a man who has spent his whole adult life trying to build a cult of personality around himself; remember, his “charitable” foundation spent a lot of money buying a six-foot portrait of its founder. Meanwhile, one look at his Twitter account is enough to show that victory has done nothing to slake his thirst for ego gratification. So we can expect lots of self-aggrandizement once he’s in office. I don’t think it will go as far as gold-plated statues, but really, who knows?

It already has gone that far, and beyond – all these Trump Towers cluttering up the planet are gigantic gold-plated statues. His current business is a matter of being paid millions by gullible developers for the use of his name on their buildings – his name is his only contribution, and they pay him millions for it. Can you get much more self-aggrandizing than that?

I know that many people are still trying to convince themselves that the incoming administration will govern normally, despite the obviously undemocratic instincts of the new commander in chief and the questionable legitimacy of the process that brought him to power. Some Trump apologistshave even taken to declaring that we needn’t worry about corruption from the incoming clique, because rich men don’t need more money. Seriously.

But let’s get real. Everything we know suggests that we’re entering an era of epic corruption and contempt for the rule of law, with no restraint whatsoever.

How could this happen in a nation that has long prided itself as a role model for democracies everywhere?

Several ways, no doubt, but without The Apprentice, it probably wouldn’t have happened.



He’s got a plan

Jan 2nd, 2017 11:42 am | By

The Wall Street Journal tells us that Trump’s childish blurts on Twitter are actually all part of his cunning plan.

In fact, there seem to be specific objectives behind many of Mr. Trump’s seemingly scattershot missives and comments. Often, say those who know him, he is posturing or positioning in pursuit of broader goals. He doesn’t mind roiling the waters in the process—and, as a consequence, some of what he says isn’t to be taken literally.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who speaks regularly with Mr. Trump and is developing a lecture series and book examining Trumpism, suggests the president-elect is in this regard similar to Franklin Roosevelt, who sometimes seemed to cultivate chaos in preparing the ground for his initiatives. Mr. Gingrich also predicts the style won’t change:  “My advice is to relax. It’s going to be this way for eight years.”

In other words…he’s being an asshole on purpose. Well no kidding, but he’s still being an asshole, and there are still a lot of compelling reasons to think that’s not a good thing for him to do.

He’s doing it as part of his deal-making strategy, Gerald Seib goes on. He’s doing it to set the agenda. He’s doing it to distract everyone – oh look, a squirrel.

Certainly there is danger in leaving the world unsure which messages to take literally, and in trying to handle subjects as sensitive as nuclear-weapons strategy on the fly. But it’s also likely Mr. Trump knows exactly what he is doing.

Again: no kidding, and that is not the issue. The issue is that the way he’s carrying on is degrading to the whole fucking country, and the fact that he may be doing it for reasons does nothing to change that. The casual acknowledgement followed by dismissal of the danger of tweeting about nukes is enough to demonstrate that.