The conceit rises off him like steam.
Not a professor, not an athlete but a cheat, not world famous, barely mentioned by right wing media. Other than that, sure, bub, whatever you say.
Do psychiatrists in fact google patients during a session? Does that ring true? I think not.
The US is unusual among developed countries in that its life expectancy has gone down in the last few years.
In most high-income countries, life expectancy has been increasing, gradually but steadily, for decades. The last time that life expectancy in the United States showed a similar decline was in 1915–18, as a result of military deaths in the First World War and the 1918 influenza pandemic.
This time, the culprit has been a surge of drug overdoses and suicides, both linked to the use of opioid drugs. The death rate from drug overdoses more than tripled between 1999 and 2017, and that from opioid overdoses increased almost sixfold during the same period.
…
This crisis is often referred to as the opioid epidemic and, just like an infectious-disease epidemic, it has a distinct natural history. In the United States, the country most severely affected, it arose through a confluence of well-intentioned efforts to improve pain management by doctors and aggressive — even fraudulent — marketing by pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Managing pain is obviously desirable. Marketing drugs, not so much.
Prescriptions for opioids increased gradually throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. But it wasn’t until the mid-1990s, when pharmaceutical companies introduced new opioid-based products — and, in particular, OxyContin, a sustained-release formulation of a decades-old medication called oxycodone, manufactured by Purdue Pharma in Stamford, Connecticut — that such prescriptions surged and the use of opioids to treat chronic pain became widespread.
Purdue Pharma and other companies promoted their opioid products heavily. They lobbied lawmakers, sponsored continuing medical-education courses, funded professional and patient organizations and sent representatives to visit individual doctors. During all of these activities, they emphasized the safety, efficacy and low potential for addiction of prescription opioids.
And they did all this not as disinterested medical experts but as people flogging a product for profit.
In fact, opioids are not particularly effective for treating chronic pain; with long-term use, people can develop tolerance to the drugs and even become more sensitive to pain. And the claim that OxyContin was less addictive than other opioid painkillers was untrue — Purdue Pharma knew that it was addictive, as it admitted in a 2007 lawsuit that resulted in a US$635 million fine for the company. But doctors and patients were unaware of that at the time.
Painkillers are not the only drugs that get marketed heavily.
As a scholar of antisemitism, Deborah Lipstadt finds Marjorie Greene’s claims about Jewish lasers in space all too familiar.
Greene’s claims were familiar territory. All of them – space lasers, 9/11, school shootings, Trump’s election loss and so much else – shared a common theme: conspiracy.
In her QAnon-inspired worldview, behind them all was a small group of inordinately powerful people who had global – not national – loyalties. They conspired against the common welfare to advance their own interests. They mutilated babies. They amassed power and money in order to harm good, hard-working and, one can fairly assume, Christian folks. This is the foundation stone of classic antisemitism. There are certainly non-Jews in the swamp Greene wants to “drain”. But ultimately it is Jews who are the puppeteers.
Antisemitism is a prejudice, akin to so many others. Just like racism and an array of other hatreds, it relies on stereotypes and assumes that all members of the group share those characteristics. Antisemitism has unique characteristics that differentiate it from other hatreds. The racist “punches down” and loathes persons of colour because they are apparently “lesser than” the white person. They are, the racist proclaims, not as smart, industrious, qualified or worthy. In contrast, the antisemite “punches up”. The Jew is supposedly more powerful, ingenious and financially adept than the non-Jew. Jews use their prodigious skills to advance themselves and harm others. The Jew is not just to be loathed. The Jew is to be feared.
Women have now entered that category – we too are ok to punch because that’s punching up. We control gender and being female, and we oppress the tragic men who want to wear pretty dresses.
I don’t believe Greene is advocating physical violence against Jews. It was hard, however, not to be struck by her choice of words when she spoke on the House floor to argue that these were no longer her views. Rather than apologise, she condemned the attacks on her as an attempt to “crucify” her. Crucify?
To be fair, I think her choice of word could easily be just stupidity rather than malice. I’m not sure she’s clever enough to remember that the word “crucify” has a specifically Christian antisemitic resonance.
Ultimately, however, this is about something more all-encompassing than even antisemitism. It is about an attack on democracy and the institutions that undergird that democracy. Conspiracies, such as those peddled by QAnon, are not just infused with antisemitic symbolism and themes, but are designed to create doubt about democratic institutions including Congress, the courts, financial agencies, electoral processes, the media and anything that is even obliquely connected to democracy.
Every act of prejudicial physical violence begins with words. Greene has provided an endless array of such words. Her Republican colleagues, rather than stand and applaud, should recognise that and act upon it. There are people who spread hatred and prejudice and there are those who enable the spread of hatred and prejudice. Not just Greene, but also the Republicans who have failed to condemn her are enablers. They will ultimately bear responsibility for the consequences.
They will, but they will probably never care.
Congress is discussing doing an investigation on the riot.
Democrats and Republicans have made fresh calls for a 9/11-style bipartisan commission to investigate how rioters were able to breach the Capitol on 6 January. After the 2001 terrorist attacks, a commission reviewed how the incidents were possible and laid out plans to prevent them being repeated. Now politicians on both sides of the aisle have called for the deadly Capitol siege to be given the same treatment.
In a way the answer seems obvious – the Capitol is not normally fenced off and guarded by soldiers, so it wasn’t that day. On the other hand that day wasn’t a normal one, what with Trump’s well-advertised plan to do a speech telling his fans how badly he’d been cheated, so maybe the investigation is not so much into how rioters were able to breach the Capitol as into why the Capitol wasn’t made impossible to breach.
Then again some people think there’s nothing much to investigate.
Ah good point. Cool then. They haven’t insurrected since, so they never will.
Gender studies has become a lucrative and prestigious topic at the world’s leading institutions and universities have moved to lure its scholars, not least because of the insights they cast right across teaching and research.
What kind of insights? Into how gendered conventions keep women subordinated? Or into how much fun it is for men to say they are women and join their fellow women in sports and women-only prizes?
St Andrews is to part company with Alison Duncan Kerr, an American philosopher who is director of its Institute for Gender Studies (StAIGS).
People have signed a petition to keep her, the university has said calm down.
Kerr’s redundancy has had resonance, sparking a campaign called StandwithAlison which has attracted specific support from some of the biggest names in gender studies.
Which is like saying some of the biggest names in thumbtack marketing.
Professor Kirstein Rummery of the University of Stirling added: “At a time when gender studies and interdisciplinary feminist scholarship are badly needed, growing in popularity and under epistemic attack, this seems a questionable decision from a prestigious institution that should be leading the way.”
But is gender studies adjacent to and allied with feminist scholarship? Or is it their opposite and enemy?
Supporters of Kerr – including students and colleagues – say she is the guiding light behind the institute and its MLitt masters degree. They say that two men who will now teach the course, while experts in their own field, do not have a background in the subject.
There are fears that stuffy conservatism will mean gender studies – which cross women’s, men’s and queer studies – might end up staying in name only.
They prefer their conservatism to be unstuffy.
At least Boris Johnson is taking it very seriously.
Appearing on CBS’s Face the Nation, Johnson was asked what signal the acquittal of a president who stoked violence while casting doubt on a free election would send to the rest of the world.
“The clear message that we get from the proceedings in America,” the prime minister said, “is that after all the toings and froings and all the kerfuffle, American democracy is strong and the American constitution is strong and robust.”
Huh. That’s not the message I get at all. Quite the reverse. The message I get is that American democracy is broken and feeble, and desperately vulnerable to murderous corrupt demagogues like Trump.
Constitutional experts have not been as sure as Johnson that the episode painted America’s 233-year-old system of government in such a positive light.
Andrew Rudalevige of Bowdoin College told Axios: “Congress not even pushing back against a physical assault suggests that there’s a lot they will put up with.”
It does, doesn’t it.
When politics and identity play bumper cars:
[S]ome lesbians have been denounced as bigots and deluged with rape threats for their views about gender and biological sex. Transgender people and lesbians are two groups that face hatred and discrimination, and differences of opinion exist within these groups. Some trans people and lesbians believe that being a woman has nothing to do with biological sex; others believe they are related, because female reproductive biology is the basis on which women have always faced structural oppression. Both perspectives have a right to be heard. Yet lesbians who believe the latter – many of whom have faced lesbophobia their entire lives – are facing persecution for their beliefs.
Take Julie Bindel, an important feminist voice whose decades of campaigning against male violence have made a material difference to women’s lives. Last week, an Australian bookshop issued an apology for “any hurt caused” by hosting an event with Bindel three years ago. They did not even have the guts to say what is offensive about Bindel, but it’s fair to assume they were referring to her views on gender.
Or Allison Bailey, the barrister suing her chambers and the charity Stonewall for employment discrimination. Bailey is a black, working-class lesbian and a survivor of child sex abuse who believes, as many women do, that there should be some exceptions to males being admitted to female-only spaces. After she tweeted about a group she helped found for people who are same-sex attracted, Stonewall filed a complaint to her chambers and warned that its relationship with them would be damaged unless her chambers took disciplinary action against her.
What should trump what in these situations? The orthodoxy at present is that trans trumps everything, even race, but it definitely trumps sex without even a pause to think. Women just obviously don’t get to defend their own rights, or object to misogyny if it comes from trans “folks.”
On Friday, a judge ruled that Bailey’s case has “more than reasonable prospects of success” and should advance to trial. That a gay rights charity stands accused of discriminating against a black lesbian illustrates how wrong it is to assume the rights and interests of all LGBTQ+ people perfectly align. Of course, that has not stopped white men telling Bailey that her concept of womanhood is not only wrong, it makes her a bigot.
Those white men cannot get over their luck.
There it is, there’s the foundational misconception (or just plain lie) that underpins all the opposite-world claims.
Men who identify as or claim to be or say they are women are still men, and this determination to bully us out of even marginalization just underlines how male-entitled they remain.
I’ve run out of exclamations.
She “only gets to.” It’s like cutting down on chocolate, isn’t it.
But hey, $$$.
I swear. This makes “recovered memory” and Satanic panic and even Freudianism look harmless in comparison.
This is where the Vocabulary Mandate gets you.
The Vocabulary Mandate makes that sound true, if you’ve been following it strictly enough. But it’s not true; it’s absurd. Disobey the Vocabulary Mandate and we’re back in the real world where that’s not how it works.
“Are you suggesting girls are taking a back seat to boys?”
“Uh, yes. Where have you been?”
“In life? No. Absolutely not. How many women have been senators? How many men? I can’t think of any credible data that suggests that men have more privilege than women but can think of plenty of data that suggests the reverse.”
Vox had the numbers as of November 1, 2016.
Throughout American history, 1,917 US senators have been men — and just 46 have been women.
Back seat? Yes.
It’s “oppression” for women to want to compete against women, and girls against girls?
By men, who will never face this particular obstacle.
But it’s not oppression. Women and girls who don’t want to compete against men and boys are not oppressing anyone. Men and boys who insist on competing against women and girls, on the other hand, are.
These men. I swear.
Man casually dismisses women’s rights.
Funny that he puts the words in the mouth of a mommy of an athlete instead of the athlete herself. There are adult female athletes, you know, and they do lose prizes and awards and wins if they are forced to compete against men.
New outrage – healthcare systems asking what sex you are.
It’s medical. It’s about physical bodies. The medical people need to know some basic facts about the bodies in order to treat them. It’s not about “outing” and it’s not something to stir up Twitterfury about.
Sex at birth may cause misdiagnosis, while giving fictional sex…won’t?
It won’t make any difference to the outcome, but it’s still good to know that Trump’s lawyers’ claims are falling apart because of that phone call.
Former President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense is looking more threadbare: New statements by Republican lawmakers appear to undercut key claims from his defense team about how much Trump knew about the unfolding January 6 attack on the US Capitol, and when he knew it.
New details emerged Friday about a January 6 call between Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, in the midst of the attack. First recounted in January by Washington state Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, who was one of just 10 House Republicans to vote for impeachment, the call gives insight into Trump’s state of mind on the day of the insurrection and suggests his sympathies lay with the rioters.
The defense had argued that “the president would never have wanted such a riot to occur because his longstanding hatred for violent protesters,” but Trump’s conversation with McCarthy — as well as his long history of inciting violence well before the attack on the Capitol — flies in the face of that claim.
His longstanding hatred for violent protesters my ass – does no one remember Charlottesville? He hates all protesters on that side. It’s not violence he hates, it’s opposition to Trump.
Ultimately, this account appears to have changed the shape of the trial. Lawmakers and observers originally predicted a quick end to the impeachment proceedings as soon as Saturday; however, lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has now called for Beutler to be deposed, and for her notes about Trump’s conversation with McCarthy be subpoenaed. Witnesses, including Beutler, could also be called to testify.
Notes. There are notes.
Trump has been criticized for sending a tweet attacking Pence at 2:24 pm Eastern time on January 6, writing that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
According to a spokesperson for Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) Trump called Lee at 2:26 pm, two minutes after sending that tweet, and he passed his phone to Tuberville at that time. Lee has reportedly provided impeachment managers and the defense team a record of this call verifying the call, which lasted for about four minutes.
Pence was evacuated from the Senate chamber at 2:15 pm, according to Politico. Reporting suggests that the mob, which chanted “hang Mike Pence” and erected a gallows outside of the Capitol, came within seconds of encountering the former vice president as he was evacuated.
Despite Tuberville having informed Trump about the situation at the Capitol, van der Veen was unequivocal on Friday: “The answer is no,” van der Veen said in response to a question from Sens. Mitt Romney and Susan Collins. “At no point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger.”
But he was informed.
But 17 Republicans aren’t going to vote to convict.
On the other hand Trump could be in prison by 2024. It’s got to be a logistical nightmare to run for president from prison.
You know, if at least 50% of the wording of your Denunciation is simply a copy of 9 million other Denunciations you could at least pause to wonder if any of it is actually true.
Sanctimonious inquisitorial toads.
The Senators are part of cancel culture. Impeaching Trump is exactly like petitioning the university to cancel a talk by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers put up a pugnacious if brief defense presentation in his impeachment trial Friday, saying his rally speech before the Capitol riot was “ordinary political rhetoric” and blasting the proceedings as a “sham” fueled by Democrats’ “political hatred” for the ex-president.
If it’s true that Trump’s rally speech before the riot was ordinary political rhetoric, then why did all those people storm up Pennsylvania Avenue and batter their way into the Capitol? Why did they beat people with flagpoles, smash windows, storm along corridors shouting threats, walk the halls yodeling “Naaaaaaaaaancy, where arrrrrrrrrrre you?” Why did they erect a gallows, yell “Hang Mike Pence!”, chase Eugene Goodman up the stairs? Why did they force their way into offices and conference rooms? Why were so many of them armed? Why were bombs found in the cars of some of them? Why are there so many videos of them screaming threats?
Parts of the attorneys’ presentation invoked the former president’s language and arguments, with his lawyers charging that Trump’s second impeachment trial is “constitutional cancel culture” while making numerous false claims.
He lost the election. That’s not “cancel culture,” it’s losing an election. He’s already “canceled,” the point is that what he did on January 6 was criminal and a violation of his oath of office.
They know he did it. They were there.
In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.
“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.Trump’s comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men.
A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, “Who the fuck do you think you are talking to?” according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
Well if it comes to that, who the fuck did McCarthy think he was talking to? Did he expect Trump to be reasonable or truthful or even law-abiding?
The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President’s state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol. The existence of the call and some of its details have been previously reported and discussed publicly by McCarthy.
Trump’s state of mind was yippee hooray these are my people. It wasn’t omigod this is antifa coming to eat our livers, it was haha eat shit democracts they gonna kill you.
The Republican members of Congress said the exchange showed Trump had no intention of calling off the rioters even as lawmakers were pleading with him to intervene. Several said it amounted to a dereliction of his presidential duty.
But they won’t vote to convict him.
Speaking to the President from inside the besieged Capitol, McCarthy pressed Trump to call off his supporters and engaged in a heated disagreement about who comprised the crowd. Trump’s comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week, and was confirmed to CNN by Herrera Beutler and other Republicans briefed on the conversation.
“You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at,” Herrera Beutler told CNN. “That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn’t care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry.”
Yes, it annoys me a good deal too.
