Oh and also let’s all just jump off a tall building.

The Supreme Court on Thursday curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, one of the most important environmental decisions in years.

That’s great. Global warming is spreading across the global sky like the eruption of Vesuvius as seen from Pompeii, and the Supreme Court says yeah let’s have more of that.

I wonder if any of them are at all bothered by thoughts of their children and grandchildren.

In a setback for the Biden administration’s efforts to combat climate change, the court said in a 6-3 ruling the EPA does not have broad authority to shift the nation’s energy production away from coal-burning power plants toward cleaner sources, including solar and wind power. 

…

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court’s ruling “strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.’”

Kagan, who was joined in her dissent by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said the limits the majority of the court imposed on the EPA’s authority “fly in the face of the statute Congress wrote. The majority says it is simply ‘not plausible’ that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shifting. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the ‘best system of emission reduction’ for power plants.” 

Well yeah but it’s not plausible that they actually meant it. It’s more plausible that they were being sarcastic, or ironic, or surrealist.

The Times drags Halifax:

Halifax has suggested that customers close their accounts if they oppose a policy allowing staff to display their personal pronouns on name tags.

Or, more accurately, if they oppose the absurd ideology behind posturing about “displaying” “personal” “pronouns.” We don’t actually care what banks allow employees to put on their name tags, but we do care about the idiotic truth claims such banks make in bragging about their Name Tag Pronouns Policy.

The bank tweeted a picture of a name badge with the pronouns she/her/hers and the caption: “Pronouns matter.” In response to complaints the social media team said that Halifax wanted to “open the conversation around gender identity. We care about our customers and colleagues’ individual preferences. For us, it’s a very simple solution to accidental misgendering.”

That’s what I mean. We don’t need banks “opening conversations” around “gender identity.” We don’t need their “solutions” to an absurd non-event like “accidental misgendering.” We see how stupid it is, and we mock.

The bank told two vociferous critics: “We strive for inclusion, equality and, quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account.” When users purporting to be customers said they would cancel their accounts the administrator supplied details of how to do so.

Which is funny, in a way, because I’m hearing from friends that their service is terrible.

Women at Lloyds Banking Group, Halifax’s parent company, earn 66p for every pound earned by men when comparing median salary. Across the financial sector it is 76p, according to analysis of official data by Capital Monitor.

Those women need to start identifying as men at once.

The author of that revolting piece in the Independent about the chop shop in the woods was written by Io Dodds, who is – can you guess? – a man who says he’s a woman.

We’ve met him once before, a few months ago, when he wrote another piece for the Indy, this one explaining why it’s perfectly fine for Lia Thomas to cheat women out of prizes.

Where the hell have all the adults gone? Isn’t it supposed to be adults running institutions like universities and health services and councils and newspapers? Not reckless moody children?

ExCUSE me??? “Legendary”? A “legendary” “underground” “surgical clinic” where they mutilated people’s genitals? Which The Independent is flattering in public? Are they drunk?

Where are the adults?

But don’t try to tell these sadists that there’s no way to know who is a predatory male and who is a man who wants to live as if he were a woman.

It makes her angry, more angry than she can say, that a woman who is a rape victim wants a women-only support group.

Yes that’s nice but explain to us how you know that the man in question is not a predator. Saying “she is a trans woman” does not count as such an explanation.

Always put the men first.

Can women have anything for women? No.

A woman who is suing a rape crisis charity says she felt unable to speak at a support group after a transgender woman began attending the same meeting.

“Sarah”, who says she was raped in her 20s, stopped going to the sessions, saying she became uncomfortable sharing details of her past with the group.

She says the centre could have offered separate groups, telling the BBC: “I think my case is about women’s rights.”

The charity, Survivors’ Network says it plans to vigorously defend the claim.

It says male victims of sexual violence are referred to neighbouring services, but trans women “are welcome into all of our women-only spaces”.

They shouldn’t be. Trans women are men, and women who are rape victims should be able to have support groups that don’t have any men in them.

However, Sarah’s lawyers claim that by adopting a trans-inclusive approach – and not providing a session for women who were born female – the charity, in Brighton, failed to meet the needs of all sexual violence victims.

But in adopting a “trans-inclusive” approach they adopted a “force women who are rape victims to be in the presence of men at their meetings” approach. Never mind about trans, just don’t force women to be around men when they’re there because they were raped.

She told the BBC she had been groomed and sexually abused when she was a child and later, in her 20s, a man she knew raped her. She did not go to the police.

Last year, she knew she was going to have to come into contact with the man who attacked her. “I was finding it really hard to cope and I was having increased anxiety attacks,” she says. “So I decided to approach Survivors’ Network for help.”

She found the group sessions very helpful.

She added: “We spoke a lot about how we were manipulated and coerced by men. I can’t tell you how much it helped me mentally.”

Sarah says a new person attended a session, whom she understood to be a trans woman. She said the person presented as typically male, wearing male clothing. “I was a bit taken aback. I decided I wasn’t going to speak that week because I wasn’t comfortable.”

“I don’t trust men because I have been raped by a man. I’ve been sexually abused by men. And I just don’t necessarily trust that men are always who they say they are,” she said.

She wouldn’t, would she. She was groomed and abused as a child – she has every reason not to trust that men are always who they say they are. How is she supposed to know that the man who attended the session was what he said he was? Seriously: how is she supposed to know? How is anyone? What is to stop predatory men saying they’re trans so that they can go to rape counselling sessions and terrorize the women there? How does anyone know this is not happening routinely all over the UK? How can anyone know? All that’s required is the man’s assertion.

This isn’t even about “transphobia” or “being against trans rights,” it’s about “how the fuck do you think you know?” Maybe exactly zero of the men who do this are genuinely trans, maybe every single one of them is simply taking advantage of this grotesque policy.

Meanwhile, Survivors’ Network, which is funded by a number of bodies, including the Ministry of Justice and the NHS, said in a statement: “Continuing to deliver our services supporting survivors of sexual violence and abuse is of paramount importance and we want to reassure all our current survivors and anyone seeking support that we are still here for them.”

But they’re not. They refuse to provide women-only services, so they’re not still here for them.

Also Renato Mariotti:

The thing about the “they’re not here to hurt me” admission that I hadn’t fully taken in is that it implies “they are here to hurt other people.” It’s not “they’re not here to hurt me” but “they’re not here to hurt me.”

David French explains why Hutchinson’s testimony makes the case for prosecuting Trump stronger:

I confess that I’ve been skeptical that the January 6 committee would produce evidence that Donald Trump was directly criminally responsible for the attack on the Capitol. Certainly he was morally and politically responsible. There’s no credible argument that a mob would have stormed the Capitol if he had the basic decency to concede a race he clearly lost. 

At the same time, it’s legally quite difficult to hold a politician responsible for the violence of his followers.

It’s very difficult for non-lawyers to keep that distinction in mind – at least it’s very difficult for me and I doubt I’m special that way. It feels as if the two ought to be the same, so we balk at accepting that they’re not. Times a million in Trump’s case.

That was yesterday’s analysis. Today’s is different. Because of a courageous woman named Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Mark Meadows. 

…

Hutchinson claims she overheard Trump say about the crowd, “You know, I don’t effing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.”

As Jake Tapper noted, the “mags” refer to magnetometers deployed to keep armed individuals away from the president. 

Trump has denied Hutchinson’s testimony in a series of “truths” (equivalent to a tweet) on his website, Truth Social. Moreover, it is important to attempt to corroborate Hutchinson’s sworn testimony by interviewing others who may have heard Trump’s words. But Hutchinson’s sworn testimony closes a gap in the criminal case against Trump, and Trump is closer to a credible prosecution than ever before.

I hope she has very good security.

Aw yeah, fun times.

A lot of cops were seriously injured thanks to these guys an hour or two after this snap was taken. Nice to see them feeling so perky.

Let’s hope so.

Stupidity or malice or both?

But we’re not “debating the legitimacy of trans rights.” We don’t for a second disagree that people who call themselves trans should have human rights. What we’re doing is seeking clarity on what “trans rights” are. Are they human rights that trans people, like all people, should have? Or are they special, custom, bespoke rights that only trans people should have? If the former, there’s no disagreement; if the latter, we definitely want to know what those rights are and how they conflict with other people’s rights. So would Fern Riddell if she had the sense of a pile of wet pasta.

Of course people who call themselves trans exist. Why does their “right to exist” need protection more than anyone else’s?

Not that I’m expecting a reply.

Greg Sargent notes that the Trump headlines in the wake of yesterday’s hearing are brutal.

Yet Trump’s propagandists have found an answer. They are claiming Hutchinson’s appearance was a flop, based on the fact that a single anecdote about Trump — one barely related to the central allegations against him — is now being questioned by a handful of bit players in this saga who aren’t even offering this pushback publicly, let alone under oath.

…

Trump’s spinners have seized on Trump’s episode with the Secret Service. Hutchinson testified to the Jan. 6 select committee on Tuesday that Tony Ornato, then-White House deputy chief of staff, told her Trump erupted in fury as his detail refused to take him to the Capitol to join the mob, cursing and lunging for the steering wheel.

The Secret Service now says it will offer a response. A source close to the agency leaked word that Robert Engel, the agent in charge of Trump’s detail that day — along with the vehicle’s driver — are prepared to say under oath that Trump never lunged for the wheel.

What good would that even do the Trumpies? Hutchinson didn’t even claim Trump lunged at the wheel, she said Ornato told her he did.

The leaks in Trump’s favor don’t address this point. They simply say Engel and the driver will dispute that Trump lunged for the wheel. Ornato can deny ever recounting this episode to Hutchinson. He hasn’t.

Which brings us to the more fundamental point. If Ornato wants to respond under oath to Hutchinson’s testimony, guess what: There are many other things he can be asked about as well.

For instance, Ornato was the person who informed Meadows that Trump supporters attempting to enter the rally were armed at a meeting on the morning of Jan. 6, according to Hutchinson’s testimony.

Ornato also told Meadows he informed Trump of this, per Hutchinson. She went on to recount that Trump angrily demanded that armed supporters be let in, after which he directed the mob to the Capitol to intimidate his vice president into completing his coup attempt.

The Trumpies want that in the headlines all over again? Go for it.

Peter Wehner in The Atlantic:

This new account of what Trump did leading up to, on, and after January 6 was shocking, yet not surprising. His behavior did not amount to an abrupt about-face by an otherwise honorable man, but was the last link in an almost unfathomably long chain of events—vicious, merciless words and unscrupulous, unethical acts that were said and done, many in public view, in ways that were impossible to deny. All of the signs of Trump’s corruption and disordered personality were obvious for years.

And yet he was able to become the president. Without the popular vote.

Perhaps the case against Trump presented by the January 6 committee and previous Trump loyalists—by now so overwhelming as to be unquestionable—will cause some members of Congress, academics, and “public intellectuals” in the right-wing infrastructure to distance themselves from Trump. Of course, until now Trump has crossed no ethical line, has shattered no norm that caused them to say “Enough!” Instead we’ve heard whataboutism and strained-to-the-breaking-point excuses.

…

Massive cognitive dissonance—in this case individuals and a political party that have historically championed law and order, “traditional values,” high ethical ideals, moral leadership in political leaders, and a healthy civic and political culture defending at every turn a person who was indecent, cruel, vindictive, demagogic, unstable, and ultimately deranged—can produce some very creative justifications.

I’m not convinced about the high ethical ideals and the moral leadership. When’s the last time the Republican party championed those things?

Hutchinson’s testimony was a withering indictment of America’s 45th president. But it was also, if less directly, an indictment of his party, his supporters, his acolytes, those who went silent and those who spoke up on his behalf. He and they are ever twinned.

Well, yes, and have been all along.

LP is trying to sound intelligent again. This never goes well.

I wonder what she thinks she means by “a word like woman.” Like woman how? What other words are like the word woman? Man, girl, boy, I suppose. Will those do? Is that what she’s saying? The four words that name people of the female and male sex?

If so why do those words, in particular, need to be subject to change of meaning more than others?

I would think it’s the opposite – we need those words to be particularly stable and clear in their meaning.

The fakery about thinking it’s languagephobic and anti-freedom of expression to continue knowing what “woman” means is laughable. Laurie Penny doesn’t love language, she loves her image of herself as hip and enlightened.

CNN underlines some points from yesterday’s January 6 hearing:

The reality of Trump’s intentions became clear to national security officials in real time as they learned the Secret Service was scrambling to find a way for the former President to travel to the Capitol while he was on stage urging his followers to march, according to National Security Council chat logs from that day that were revealed for the first time during Tuesday’s hearing.

The NSC chat logs provide a minute-by-minute accounting of how the situation evolved from the perspective of top White House national security officials on January 6 and, along with witness testimony delivered on Tuesday, contradict an account by Meadows in his book where he says Trump never intended to march to the Capitol.

“MOGUL’s going to the Capital … they are clearing a route now,” a message sent to the chat log at 12:29 p.m. ET on January 6 reads — referring to the former President’s secret service code name.

“MilAide has confirmed that he wants to walk,” a 12:32 p.m. message reads. “They are begging him to reconsider.”

Meanwhile the committee is finding that Trump has been tampering with witnesses. (Quel surprise.)

The committee has secured testimony from some major witnesses members of Trump’s inner circle, even members of his family. But Cheney suggested during the hearing that there might be a Trump-imposed blockade of sorts, and that the panel has evidence of witness tampering.

She said one witness — whom the committee did not identify — testified that: “What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump world.”

Another unidentified witness said they were told by someone in Trump’s orbit that Trump was “thinking about you” and that “he knows you’re loyal” and hopes that “you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”

If only he could have been a mob boss instead. It would have harmed a lot of people, but not nearly as many as he did by being mob boss president.

The new evidence from the committee is consistent with a years-long pattern of behavior by Trump, who has repeatedly used private and public channels to pressure people who could testify against him. This happened with his former lawyer Michael Cohen and his 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort during the Russia investigation, and with a US ambassador during the 2019 impeachment hearings.

Trump has also retaliated against people who provided damaging public testimony against him, including a top White House national security official and his ambassador to the European Union, who both described his pressure campaign against Ukraine during House impeachment hearings in 2019.

A born mob boss.

How it started.

How it’s going.

Ruthless anything for a buck capitalism in action!

Originally a comment by Freemage on But which people, which Americans, whose bodies?

“Karen” didn’t originally mean “aggressive female racist”. It originally (as used by the male black comedian who coined the term) was mostly about class-privilege (in, of course, a gendered way), about upper-middle-class women who made life tough for front-line service industry workers by complaining incessantly and immediately demanding to ‘speak to the manager’. So not about feminists specifically, and mostly focused on class, but with that sexist tag-along.

It didn’t really have anything to do with race until the New York Central Park incident, where the white woman calling the cops on a black man as a threat was considered the ultimate form of ‘speaking to the manager’. So then it became about racism, too.

And then, it took about 60 seconds to transform into ‘any woman, anywhere, who does something I want to criticize, and imply that the behavior is because she’s a woman, specifically’. (The term “Mary Sue” did a similar transformation–it started out as a critique of a specific form of self-insert fanfiction character, then got applied to female characters who were protected by plot armor–with the occasional slightly more aware critic pointing out that this also applies to Batman, etc–and then finally, “any fictional female character who does something I don’t like”. It’s almost like these gendered epithets are meant to be ultimately expanded to apply to all women, or something.)

And, of course, the original coinage of the term is, in addition to being misogynistic in design, also dead wrong. The reason a lot of service people encounter a specific behavior coming from white, middle class women is simple–women still do most of the shopping, and upper-middle-class women (who are disproportionately white, since this country is racist as fuck), specifically, are the bulk of people who round out their shopping by going to a cafe or whatever. I work retail–but since it’s home improvement, we have a much more gender-balanced customer base. And the behavior originally attributed to “Karens”? Yeah, it’s pretty much universal, as a small percentage of any human sampling will include people who are overly entitled, and seeking an edge in some way or another at the expense of the hourly wageslave who is just trying to make it through the end of their shift. Most of the folks demanding to speak to my manger, frankly, are named either Sergei or Patel (the home improvement contractors in my store’s area are mostly either Indian or Eastern European men).

I point this out to people, and I usually get some form of “Well, men can be Karens, too.” My rejoinder is usually, “Well, then, why don’t we use the word ‘asshole’, instead? That’s nicely non-gendered and really would apply to everyone.”

The incident of the catsup in the nighttime.

Same transcript via NPR:

LIZ CHENEY: The physical altercation that Ms. Hutchinson described in the Presidential vehicle was not the first time that the President had become very angry about issues relating to the election. On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had not found evidence of widespread election fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the election.

Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Around the time that I understand the AP article went live, I remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway. So I poked my head out of the office. I saw the valet walking towards our office. He had said, get the Chief down to the dining room. The President wants him. So Mark went down to the dining room, came back to the office a few minutes later.

After Mark had returned, I left the office and went down to the dining room and I noticed that the door was propped open and the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. He motioned for me to come in and then pointed towards the front of the room near the fireplace mantel and the TV, where I first noticed there was catsup dripping down the wall and there was a shattered porcelain plate on the floor.

The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General’s AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall, which was causing him to have to clean up. So I grabbed a towel and started wiping the catsup off of the wall to help the valet out. And he said something to the effect of, he’s really ticked off about this.

I would stay clear of him for right now. He’s really, really ticked off about this right now.

He was also 74 years old right then so you’d think he would have had time enough to learn to control his temper but apparently not.

LIZ CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, was this the only instance that you are aware of where the President threw dishes?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: It’s not.

LIZ CHENEY: And are there other instances in the dining room that you recall where he expressed his anger?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: There were — there were several times throughout my tenure with the Chief of Staff that I was aware of him either throwing dishes or flipping the tablecloth to let all the contents of the table go onto the floor and likely break or go everywhere.

It’s a funny thing: I happened to find a copy of Pete Souza’s Shade in a Little Free Library yesterday. It’s funny in a wicked way. The hook is to quote Trump or a news item about him and then one of Souza’s photos showing Obama doing something in a parallel context. He’ll have to do an updated version with a photo of Obama not pulling the tablecloth off the White House dining table.

NPR has a transcript of today’s hearing on the January 6 [attempted coup].

Bennie Thompson: In the weeks ahead, the committee will hold additional hearings about how Donald Trump summoned a mob of his supporters to Washington, spurred them to march on the Capitol, and failed to take meaningful action to quell the violence as it was unfolding on January 6th. However, in recent days the Select Committee has obtained new information dealing with what was going on in the White House on January 6th and in the days prior, specific detailed information about what the former president and his top aides were doing and saying in those critical hours, firsthand details of what transpired in the office of the White House chief of staff just steps from the Oval Office as the threats of violence became clear, and indeed violence ultimately descended on the Capitol in the attack on American democracy.

It’s an important — it’s important that the American people hear that information immediately. That’s why, in consultation with the vice chair, I’ve recalled the committee for today’s hearing.

New information. New, hair-raising information. Worth recalling the committee.

LIZ CHENEY: On January 3rd, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington, DC on January 6th and indicated that, quote, unlike previous post-election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter-protesters as they were previously, but rather Congress itself is the target on the 6th. Of course, we all know now that the Proud Boys showed up on January 6th, marched from the Washington Monument to the Capitol that day, and led the riotous mob to invade and occupy our Capitol.

In other words the Capitol Police warned them, and were proved all too right.

Then Cheyney moves on to the subject of weapons. The authorities were already aware of a flood of weapons on January 5.

LIZ CHENEY: Of course, the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. The Select Committee has learned that people who willingly entered the enclosed area for President Trump’s speech were screened so they could attend the rally at the Ellipse.

They had weapons and other items that were confiscated: pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, tasers, body armor, gas masks, batons, blunt weapons. And those were just from the people who chose to go through the security for the President’s event on the Ellipse, not the several thousand members of the crowd who refused to go through the mags and watched from the lawn near the Washington Monument.

Refused why? Because they were carrying weapons.

The police were calling in reports of people with weapons. Mark Meadows was informed about the weapons, and seemed thoroughly bored to hear it. Trump on the other hand was deeply concerned – not about the weapons, but about the crowd looking too small in the photographs.

Hutchinson:

But when we were in the offstage announce tent, I was part of a conversation — I was in — I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the President say something to the effect of, you know, I – – I don’t effing care that they have weapons.

They’re not here to hurt me. Take that effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away.

In other words fuck security, what matters is the photos and their numbers when they attack the Capitol.

LIZ CHENEY: Let’s reflect on that for a moment. President Trump was aware that a number of the individuals in the crowd had weapons and were wearing body armor.

And here’s what President Trump instructed the crowd to do. [Begin Videotape]

DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down — [Applause] — We’re going to walk down any one you want. But I think right here. We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. [Applause] [End Videotape]

He knew they had weapons – lots and lots and lots of weapons.

And there’s the bit where Trump tried to attack an agent.

Tony proceeded to tell me that when the president got in the beast, he was under the impression from Mr. Meadows that the off the record movement to the Capitol was still possible and likely to happen, but that Bobby had more information.

So, once the president had gotten into the vehicle with Bobby, he thought that they were going up to the Capitol. And when Bobby had relayed to him we’re not, we don’t have the assets to do it, it’s not secure, we’re going back to the West Wing, the president had a very strong, a very angry response to that.

Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of I’m the f’ing president, take me up to the Capitol now, to which Bobby responded, sir, we have to go back to the West Wing. The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel.

We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going to the Capitol. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel. And Mr. — when Mr. Ornato had recounted this story to me, he had motioned towards his clavicles.

A very stable [____________].

End of part one.

And one more thing. (This day of the hearing is proving to be startling.) NYT reporter Carl Hulse:

Murmurs through the hearing room as Mike Flynn refuses to answer whether he believes in the peaceful transfer of power and whether the Jan. 6 violence was justified, citing his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

NYT reporter Peter Alexander:

To see a retired four-star general who swore an oath to defend the country and the Constitution plead the Fifth when asked if he believed in the peaceful transfer of power in America is another stunning moment today.

This country is in deep trouble.

Some observers are saying Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony indicates a seditious conspiracy.

Doing what? It seems the people attending the rally on the lawn were checked for weapons first, so a lot of them were shut out, because of ALL THOSE GUNS. So then apparently the White House or Trump ordered the magnetometers removed…so that heavily armed people could attend the rally and then head for the Capitol, heavily armed.

It’s…yikes.

They really have to. He has to be stopped, because if he’s not, he’ll be back. That must not happen.