And the runner-up is…white!

Apr 27th, 2019 10:28 am | By

Another weird inappropriate thing for a president to do.

It doesn’t follow a tweet congratulating the guy who was picked number one. There is no such tweet.

Wait, maybe Nick Bosa is not white!

Nah.



The way she got treated

Apr 26th, 2019 6:08 pm | By

Biden is just flummoxed that anybody gives a damn about the way he treated Anita Hill.

Biden appeared on ABC’s The View Friday morning and told the show’s five female co-hosts: “I’m sorry for the way she got treated.” But then he added that people should go back and look at what he said during those hearings, asserting, “I don’t think I treated her badly.”

And yet, Hill doesn’t agree with him. Imagine that.

Host Joy Behar said, “Here’s your opportunity right now to just say you apologize, you’re sorry. I think we can clean this up right now.”

Biden responded, “I said privately what I said publicly, I am sorry she was treated the way she was treated.”

In other words he continued to frame it in the passive voice so that no actual people can be said to have treated her the way she was treated, especially not Joe Biden. She was treated a way, a way that can’t be specified, a way that apparently had nothing to do with any human agents. Biden feels just rotten about that way. Bad bad way – let’s all get together and scold it.

Moira Donegan at the Guardian is not impressed.

In the past, Biden, under pressure from women’s rights activists and a Democratic base increasingly intolerant of sexual misconduct, has spoken of the Thomas hearings in passive terms, as something that happened rather than as something he did. At an event in New York in March, he said: “To this day, I regret I couldn’t give her the kind of hearing she deserved. I wish I could have done something.” Like his announcement, this statement partakes of a kind of rosy historical revisionism, one that conveniently absolved Biden of all responsibility. Because he absolutely could have, in his words, “done something”. He was the chairman of the committee overseeing the hearings. There was no one with more power to “do something” than him.

Biden’s non-apology to Hill, coming as it did 28 years after the disastrous hearings, six months after a similarly humiliating and futile ordeal was endured by Dr Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, and mere days before Biden’s own presidential run, smacks of insincere opportunism. He seems to understand Hill as an annoying obstacle to his own rise, rather than as a full person with rights and dignity, whom he wronged and should make amends to.

His insistent use of the passive voice, meanwhile, makes him appear to lack an understanding of his own agency and power, like someone who will exaggerate his responsibilities for successes and disavow any role in missteps, wrongdoings and failures. As the journalist Bryce Covert put it: “There’s a huge difference between ‘I’m sorry for what I did’, and ‘I’m sorry that happened to you’.” In failing to grapple with his own blind spots, privileges, prejudices and personal failures, Biden has betrayed a lack of personal responsibility that in unacceptable in any adult, let alone in a national leader. The episode does not make Biden seem like a responsible, self-aware man who had learned from his mistakes and wants to make amends. It makes him seem like a man who wants to shut a woman up.

I wish someone could shut him up.



Birth of a nitwit

Apr 26th, 2019 5:50 pm | By



From a very great height

Apr 26th, 2019 11:55 am | By

You wanted to see Trump mocking asylum seekers? Here you go.



Complete with mockery of asylum-seekers

Apr 26th, 2019 11:50 am | By

Trump is ranting at the NRA convention, and Daniel Dale is tweeting it.

Just another Friday.



The myth of Lee

Apr 26th, 2019 11:15 am | By

What is this nonsense about Robert E. Lee, anyway?

It’s a stupid myth created to glorify the slave-owning South. That’s all. It’s not complicated.

Adam Serwer in The Atlantic two years ago:

This year, the removal of Lee’s statue in New Orleans has inspired a new round of commentary about Lee, not to mention protests on his behalf by white supremacists.

The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.

The “Christian” part is true.

But even if one conceded Lee’s military prowess, he would still be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black. Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one. That ideology is known as the Lost Cause, and as historian David Blight writes, it provided a “foundation on which Southerners built the Jim Crow system.”

And it’s what generations of white people, southern and northern, grew up on. As I mentioned earlier, it’s Thomas Dixon to D. W. Griffith to Margaret Mitchell to that godawful movie. And it’s far from over.

In the Richmond Times DispatchR. David Cox wrote that “For white supremacist protesters to invoke his name violates Lee’s most fundamental convictions.” In the conservative publication Townhall,  Jack Kerwick concluded that Lee was “among the finest human beings that has ever walked the Earth.” John Daniel Davidson, in an essay for The Federalistopposed the removal of the Lee statute in part on the grounds that Lee “arguably did more than anyone to unite the country after the war and bind up its wounds.” Praise for Lee of this sort has flowed forth from past historians and presidents alike.

This is too divorced from Lee’s actual life to even be classed as fan fiction; it is simply historical illiteracy.

White supremacy does not “violate” Lee’s “most fundamental convictions.” White supremacy was one of Lee’s most fundamental convictions.

Lee was a slaveowner who talked pious bullshit about how slavery was a great thing for the slaves because it was, like, educational.

The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

Which was very convenient for a guy who made money from their coerced unpaid labor.

Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

Keep that firmly in mind when you hear Trump and his fans burbling about the greatness of Lee.

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

To be clear (I read the full passage by Norris somewhere else a couple of hours ago, I forget where), the slaves were whipped until their backs were raw, and then brine was rubbed into the raw flesh. That’s Trump’s precious Great General.

During his invasion of Pennsylvania, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia enslaved free blacks and brought them back to the South as property. Pryor writes that “evidence links virtually every infantry and cavalry unit in Lee’s army” with the abduction of free black Americans, “with the activity under the supervision of senior officers.”

He not only owned slaves, he not only tortured slaves, he not only tore up slave families, he also kidnapped free black people into slavery. That’s Trump’s precious Great General.



Intersectional me map

Apr 26th, 2019 10:14 am | By

Stonewall UK is having its annual Workplace Conference.

https://twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1121655162953580546

So far so good.

https://twitter.com/AimeeEvelyn202/status/1121725524353658880

Uhhhh…wait.

It’s not easy to read, so I’ll transcribe.

                               Trans Status     Wealth

      Nationality                                                        Class

       Gender Identity               ME        Race

       Disability                                                             Faith

                                        Sexual Orientation

Notice anything?

Anything missing?

Yes.

Sex.

Of course.

Women have ALL the privilege and power.



The question was answered PERFECTLY

Apr 26th, 2019 9:49 am | By

This again.

Oh I’ve answered that question,  and if you look at what I said you will see that that question was answered perfectly.

He said, with his usual air of ineffable conceit.

 

And I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general – whether you like it or not, he was one of the great generals – I’ve spoken to many generals here, right at the White House, and many people thought – of the generals, they said he was maybe their favorite general – people were there protesting the taking down of the monuments of Robert E. Lee. Everybody knows that.

Well, lots of people think that, and lots pretend to think it, but that’s because it’s the propaganda. It’s the dainty fig leaf pasted over the shameful history of slavery and white supremacy in the utterly literal sense that people like Trump want to translate into something noble. It’s just more Gone With the Wind which itself was just more Birth of a Nation which itself was based on the novel The Clansman by Thomas Dixon.

https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1121787645749792769



The procession down the Mall

Apr 25th, 2019 5:12 pm | By

But Trump is getting his state visit to the UK at last.

Mrs May said June’s state visit was an “opportunity to strengthen our already close relationship in areas such as trade, investment, security and defence, and to discuss how we can build on these ties in the years ahead”.

But shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry voiced concerns about the visit, saying: “It beggars belief that on the very same day Donald Trump is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution against the use of rape as a weapon of war, Theresa May is pressing ahead with her plans to honour him with a state visit to the UK.”

It’s possible he won’t have a very good time.

A spokeswoman for Commons Speaker John Bercow said a request for Mr Trump to address Parliament – an event often associated with a state visit – would be “considered in the usual way”, but did not say whether a request had yet been received.

Mr Bercow – who, as Speaker, has the power to veto who addresses Parliament – previously said he would be “strongly opposed” to Mr Trump addressing the Houses of Parliament during a state visit.

BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond said Mr Trump avoided London on his last visit and made it clear he did not particularly want to come to the capital if he was going to face protests.

However, our correspondent said a key part of a state visit is the procession down the Mall in front of Buckingham Palace and it is thought protesters will gather there – not a first for a state visit.

So then he’ll probably declare war.



The US is the turd in the punch bowl

Apr 25th, 2019 4:58 pm | By

On Tuesday

The UN has backed a resolution on combatting rape in conflict but excluded references in the text to sexual and reproductive health, after vehement opposition from the US.

The UK backed the resolution, but expressed regret about the omission on reproductive healthcare. Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, the UK prime minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, said: “We emphasise the need for a survivor-centred approach. Survivor services should cater to all survivors – with no exception.”

But he added: “We deeply regret the language on services for survivors of sexual violence, recognising the acute need for those services to include comprehensive reproductive and separate sexual healthcare.”

The UK, he said, would continue to “support access to sexual and reproductive healthcare for survivors of sexual violence around the world. This is a priority. If we are to have a survivor-centred approach, we cannot ignore this important priority.”

The US has placed its fanatical opposition to abortion above the needs of women who survive rape during wars. The US wants such women to be forced to continue pregnancies forced on them through combat violence.

France and Belgium also expressed disappointment at the watered down text. French permanent representative to the UN Francois Delattre said: “We are dismayed by the fact that one state has demanded the removal of the reference to sexual and reproductive health … going against 25 years of gains for women’s rights in situations of armed conflict.”

In a statement published last month, 10 organisations, including the Gunder Werner Institut, UN Women and the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy and the NGO Care, said: “Given the further hardening of antidemocratic and decidedly misogynistic stances in the UN security council, we believe there is a danger of a weak resolution text ultimately being negotiated and adopted.

“Some powerful members of the security council, such as Russia, China and the USA, are undermining women’s rights and once again questioning, for example, women’s and girls’ right to self-determination. Through such actions, the achievements that have already been made could be shattered and the ‘women, peace and security’ agenda overall decisively weakened.”

Nice company we keep.



His mouth slipped

Apr 25th, 2019 4:18 pm | By

Oh, gee, how very thoughtful.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. called Anita Hill earlier this month to express his regret over “what she endured” testifying against Justice Clarence Thomas at the 1991 Supreme Court hearings that put a spotlight on sexual harassment of women, according to a spokeswoman for Mr. Biden.

Earlier this month…i.e. just before he announced he’s running for president. Notice anything about that? 1991 was twenty eight years ago. He’s had 28 years to talk to Anita Hill and he does it now, a few minutes before he announces he’s running for president.

Ms. Hill, in an interview Wednesday, said she left the conversation feeling deeply unsatisfied and declined to characterize his words to her as an apology. She said she is not convinced that Mr. Biden truly accepts the harm he caused her and other women who suffered sexual harassment and gender violence.

“I cannot be satisfied by simply saying I’m sorry for what happened to you. I will be satisfied when I know there is real change and real accountability and real purpose,” she said.

Especially when it took him twenty eight years to say even that…and especially when he helped land us with Clarence Thomas on the court…and especially when it was such a rat-bastard thing to do.

“The focus on apology to me is one thing,” she said. “But he needs to give an apology to the other women and to the American public because we know now how deeply disappointed Americans around the country were about what they saw. And not just women. There are women and men now who have just really lost confidence in our government to respond to the problem of gender violence.”

The Biden campaign said it would have no comment beyond its initial statement.

The Biden campaign can go soak its head.

“They had a private discussion where he shared with her directly his regret for what she endured and his admiration for everything she has done to change the culture around sexual harassment in this country,” said Kate Bedingfield, the deputy campaign manager for Mr. Biden, who declared his presidential candidacy on Thursday.

Why? Why did he do that? Anything to do with his decision to run for president? Anything at all?

Where was he before that? Where was he during the past two years? And during the Obama administration? And during the Bush 2 administration? And during the Clinton administration? And during the last couple of years of the Bush 1 administration? That’s a lot of time when he could have shared with her directly his regret for what she endured and his admiration for everything she has done to change the culture around sexual harassment in this country. But he didn’t. He didn’t do that until now, when it’s in his interest to pretend he’s not just another oblivious white dude who forgets that white dudes aren’t the only people who count.

I wonder how the conversation went. “Gee, Professor Hill, I’ve been meaning to have this chat for the past 28 years and I just never did manage to find your phone number.”

Mr. Biden has long cast the hearings in passive terms, as something that happened to Ms. Hill, not something he and others did to her. Ms. Hill has said in the past that Mr. Biden has never directly apologized for his actions.

Men are good at that. Men are really really good at that. It’s always something that happened, something that was said, something that was done, but it was never anything they said or did.

Last month, at an event in New York honoring students who fight sexual violence, Mr. Biden acknowledged his role in a moment that remains seared in the minds of many women.

“She faced a committee that didn’t fully understand what the hell this was all about,” he said. “To this day, I regret I couldn’t give her the kind of hearing she deserved. I wish I could have done something.”

He could have; he chose not to.



Encouraged by faculty at Georgetown

Apr 25th, 2019 1:03 pm | By

Brian Leiter is keeping track of the specialized but all too lively subtopic of Philosophy Grad Students And Even Faculty Hurling Abuse At Colleagues In Public over trans issues.

April 19 for instance:

A propos this earlier abusive outburst directed at feminist philosopher Holly Lawford-Smith (Melbourne), we now have this from Keyvan Shafiei:

Keyvan no apology

As Leiter points out, the issue of course was not mere “profane language” – it was sweary name-calling, to be specific, piece of shit and fucking vile. People do this all the time: talk about mild generalities like “profanity” when the issue is misogynist or harshly sweary insults directed at specific people. Telling a particular person she’s “fucking vile” is not mere “profane language.” Keyvan Shafiei and others who do that are not just aggressive bullies but specifically chickenshit aggressive bullies. (There I am addressing a harshly sweary insult at Keyvan Shafiei. At least I own it.)

But it gets worse.

It probably doesn’t help that this graduate student is being encouraged by faculty at Georgetown, including Rebecca “suck my giant queer cock” Kukla:

Kukla laughing at idea that Keyvan would apologize

Leiter continues:

The e-mail in question, from the “alleged” philosopher of law, was this one:

Dear Keyvan Shafiei,

I am very concerned to read, on Leiter Reports and elsewhere, that you have published comments referring to Professor Holly Lawford-Smith as ‘a bigoted piece of shit’ and a ‘vile fucking human being’.

This is a disgraceful way to refer to another person, never mind a member of a profession you hope to enter.  It shames you.

I think it would be in your interest to apologize to Professor Lawford-Smith, fully and in public.

Yours truly

Leslie Green

Professor of the Philosophy of Law
Balliol College, Oxford OX1 3BJ

Keyvan Shafiei must be doing his job prospects no end of good.



Crime as in crime?

Apr 25th, 2019 11:59 am | By

It turns out that retaliating against witnesses is a crime.

Trump fired McGahn’s firm. If it can be established that he did it to retaliate, that could be ten years in the slammer.



More power than a traditional White House staffer

Apr 25th, 2019 11:38 am | By

More childish “No no no I won’t and you can’t make me!!” from the Trump House.

The White House will refuse to allow senior adviser Stephen Miller to testify before the House Oversight Committee, according to a letter obtained by The Washington Post.

Oversight panel Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) received a letter from the White House counsel Wednesday denying his request that Miller come before the committee to testify on the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Few expected Miller to comply, given precedent that White House staff traditionally do not testify.

But Miller, Democrats worry, has had more power than a traditional White House staffer, particularly over immigration.

Miller was behind a controversial proposal to bus undocumented migrants to the jurisdictions of political foes of the president, Department of Homeland Security officials told The Post. He also pushed the policy that led to migrant children being separated from their parents after they crossed the southern border illegally, even if they were seeking asylum.

And Miller was reportedly the driving force behind the shake-up of the Department of Homeland Security at its highest levels, making room for the White House to install officials who will do Trump’s bidding despite concerns about legality.

But hey, he’s staff, not a Senate-confirmed official, so they can’t make him talk.



Meh, climate change, what’s all the fuss?

Apr 25th, 2019 10:09 am | By

Greta Thunberg is getting some attention.

So now it’s time for the right-wing adults to unload on her – Brendan O’Neill out in front as usual.

Anyone who doubts that the green movement is morphing into a millenarian cult should take a close look at Greta Thunberg. This poor young woman increasingly looks and sounds like a cult member. The monotone voice. The look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes. The explicit talk of the coming great ‘fire’ that will punish us for our eco-sins. There is something chilling and positively pre-modern about Ms Thunberg. One can imagine her in a sparse wooden church in the Plymouth Colony in the 1600s warning parishioners of the hellfire that will rain upon them if they fail to give up their witches.

Well, by the same token one can imagine Brendan O’Neill in a crowd laughing and jeering while a “witch” is drowned.

The article as a whole is quite remarkably stupid, because it’s all about the style with not a word to say about the substance. The campaign to do something about climate change is anti-progress, ignore it!

O’Neill’s conclusion:

Young people, Ms Thunberg isn’t your leader. She’s a patsy for scared and elitist adults. Don’t do as she says. Instead, refuse to panic, mock the blather about hellfire, and appreciate that mankind’s transformation of the planet has been a glorious thing that has expanded life expectancy, allowed billions to live in cities, and made it possible for even the less well-off to travel the globe. Sin against St Greta.

Yes, industrialization and technology have been glorious things (with plenty of glitches along the way – Bhopal can stand for the kind of thing I mean) for those of us who were in time to enjoy them before things got too bad…but that’s a bit like setting a house on fire to keep warm. Yes for awhile the result is what you wanted, you’re cozy and warm, but then the fire gets closer to the room you’re in. Some of the fire getting too close is already happening: Paradise, California can stand for the rest the way Bhopal did.

So O’Neill’s “forget about climate change because we have a pleasant life right now” is utterly stupid, but his sneers at Thunberg are cruel. The reporting is that she’s on the autism spectrum, so an adult writing in public about her “monotone voice” is just being a goddam bully, which is nothing new for Brendan O’Neill.

And then there’s Helen Dale, who’s always reminding us that she’s a “classical liberal.”

Why? Because she’s campaigning for the idea that we should do something about climate change? Therefore she should be bullied into a meltdown on national television? I’m not seeing the chain of reasoning there.



Words, how do they work?

Apr 25th, 2019 9:38 am | By

Trump admits he told McGahn to fire Mueller.

It’s not clear if he meant to admit it, but admit it he did. He says the Fake New incorrectly reported that never told McGahn to fire Muller, so he’s saying he did tell McGahn to fire Mueller.

Not that we ever doubted it.



Guest post: And Chris Matthews will get all weepy

Apr 24th, 2019 5:13 pm | By

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on In Congress where it’s very partisan — obviously very partisan.

On a broader note: I’m getting really really tired of this constant use of “partisan” as a dismissive sneer. Not by people here, I mean in the discourse generally. Centrist political pundits are the worst for this.

In practically every other country on earth, it’s understood, accepted, and even appreciated that (1) voters have differing ideologies and policy preferences; and (2) political parties are a logical, sensible, and inevitable way to organize along ideological and policy lines and get things done. Of course, it’s generally acknowledged that there are times to set aside partisanship and come together in a crisis, or to call out corruption and wrongdoing within your own party, but the general idea of political parties isn’t treated as some filthy shameful practice.

Only in America (as far as I can tell), is that the case, thanks to the Founding Fathers having a bug up their asses about political parties, and relatedly hoping that America would somehow be “spared” that vulgar practice. As a result, American political institutions are designed to produce gridlock under fairly mild conditions. The only reason shit ever got done, aside from brief intervals of one-party dominance, is that for huge stretches of history, American parties were these weird coalitions of ideologically incoherent groups, where northern lefties and racist southern reactionaries would belong to the same party. And so you could peel off some liberal Republicans to support liberal policies, or some Southern Democrats to support conservative policies. And yet those were the supposed “good old days” — when parties really were more like the Red Team and the Blue Team rather than any principled differences in policy.

But of course we’re going to have to play this game again, where the eventual 2020 Dem nominee has to pay lip service to how he or she will magically find a way to get Republican Congresspeople to support his or her policies. Joe Biden is particularly going to make me nauseous with tales of the good old days when he would hang out and drink with GOP senators, because you can’t let a little thing like opposition to civil rights get in the way of enjoying the old boys’ club! And Chris Matthews will get all weepy at the thought of Reagan and Tip O’Neill coming together over a glass of whiskey, and oh, how Irish eyes were smiling, and can’t we go back to those halcyon days….



How Jesus loved the racists

Apr 24th, 2019 4:40 pm | By

Self-pity reaches an apotheosis.

Rep. Steve King said Tuesday that his recent ostracism by House colleagues for defending white supremacy has made him identify with the tribulations a more famous leader experienced some 2,000 years ago: Jesus Christ.

Right? Remember Fred 11:13, where the disciples all tell Jesus he’s a racist and Jesus cries? It’s like that.

The exchange took place at a town hall event in Iowa during which an attendee stood up to tell the nine-term Republican that in her view, “Christianity is really being persecuted, and it’s starting right here in the United States.”

“Persecuted”=not being allowed to execute atheists and mouthy women and homoseckshuals.

In his response, King told her that after being formally rebuked by the House and stripped of his committee assignments, he had gleaned insight into what Jesus went through before the crucifixion, referring to his House colleagues as “accusers.”

“It’s been, for all that I’ve been through, it seems even strange for me to say it, but I’m at a certain peace, and it’s because of a lot of prayers for me,” he said. “And when I had to step down to the floor of the House of Representatives and look up at those 400-and-some accusers — you know, we’ve just passed through Easter and Christ’s Passion — and I have a better insight into what he went through for us, partly because of that experience.”

Was it about the fig tree? Did 400-some accusers yell at Jesus because of the fig tree?

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again”. And his disciples heard him say it.

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!” “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered.

And his disciples said, “Shit, man, you could have just kicked a little dirt around and yelled, you didn’t have to ruin the whole tree. It’s not the tree’s fault that figs don’t ripen in November.” And Jesus was furious, and he wouldn’t talk to them for at least an hour.

“I’m grateful that we are the people we are and we not only — we have a strong Christian ethic here and a high percentage of people that are true believers, we have all of that going for us — but it’s also in our culture,” he said. “And we don’t think about it very often, how much the Christian faith echoes through who we are as a people.”

Which is white supremacists? They’re going with that?

King was roundly rebuked in January when he asked, in an interview with The New York Times, how terms like “white nationalist” and “white supremacist” became “offensive.” The House overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning his comments, with King voting in favor of the measure as well.

The congressman has a history of using racist and denigrating rhetoric about minority groups and immigrants, and has amplified the voices of personalities on the right-wing fringe which much of that rhetoric can be traced to.

They’re going with that.



This reeks of a typical practice in authoritarian regimes

Apr 24th, 2019 3:55 pm | By

Trump tried to get Sessions to Lock Her Up.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had a tenuous hold on his job when President Trump called him at home in the middle of 2017. The president had already blamed him for recusing himself from investigations related to the 2016 election, sought his resignation and belittled him in private and on Twitter.

Now, Mr. Trump had another demand: He wanted Mr. Sessions to reverse his recusal and order the prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Mueller’s report released last week brimmed with examples of Mr. Trump seeking to protect himself from the investigation. But his request of Mr. Sessions — and two similar ones detailed in the report — stands apart because it shows Mr. Trump trying to wield the power of law enforcement to target a political rival, a step that no president since Richard M. Nixon is known to have taken.

Remember when he threatened that in one of the debates? And how much shock-horror there was?

Mr. Trump wanted Mrs. Clinton investigated for her use of a private email server to conduct government business while secretary of state, the report said, even though investigators had examined her conduct and declined to bring charges in a case closed in 2016.

And even though Trump’s own Princess Ivanka was using a private server to conduct government business while daughter of president with job as senior adviser.

By trying to have Mrs. Clinton prosecuted, Mr. Trump was following through on a campaign promise. At rallies, he often stood on stage denouncing her as crowds chanted, “Lock her up!”

“This reeks of a typical practice in authoritarian regimes where whoever attains power, they don’t just take over power peacefully, but they punish and jail their opponents,” said Matthew Dallek, a political historian and professor at George Washington University.

Beyond Mr. Mueller’s report, there is evidence that Mr. Trump has continued to try to push the Justice Department to bend to his wishes. He told the White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II in April 2018 that he wanted the Justice Department to prosecute Mrs. Clinton and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, two people familiar with the conversation have said.

It was unclear from the report whether Mr. Trump appreciated the difference between using his power to target Mrs. Clinton and trying to insulate himself from law enforcement scrutiny, Mr. Buell noted. It is more likely, he said, that Mr. Trump simply viewed the Justice Department and the F.B.I. as institutions that worked for him.

“All of his demands fit into a picture that he believes the apparatus is mine,” Mr. Buell said.

Mr. Trump has kept up the public lashings of law enforcement officials and Mrs. Clinton. “There are no Crimes by me at all,” he wrote on Twitter on Wednesday. “All of the Crimes were committed by Crooked Hillary, the Dems, the DNC and Dirty Cops — and we caught them in the act!”

“I’m not the mob boss, they’re the mob boss!!”



“You must trust me to know my own identity”

Apr 24th, 2019 3:10 pm | By

Josephine Livingstone at the New Republic apparently thinks that people are simply not allowed to discuss or write about what is meant by “trans” and how we know any of it is true and subjects of that nefarious kind.

Jesse Singal, who has gained notoriety on the left for his frequent tweeting and writing on trans issues, says he just wants to talk. When readers get angry with him, which happens often, he sees them as curtailing a productive conversation that he has prompted in the spirit of a free and vigorous exchange of ideas.

How dare he. No, what we’re supposed to do is find the Correct trans people on Twitter, find out what they say, memorize it, and point to it if the subject ever comes up. How do we know they have it right? Never you mind; we’re not permitted to ask questions of that type.

But if there were a neutral space online for this imagined debate about, say, trans children, its location would certainly not be Jesse Singal’s Twitter feed. There’s a reason that we have a saying about not dignifying an idea with a response.

But anyway we’re not supposed to have a debate. We’re just supposed to find out what the revealed truth is, and then shut up. If we wonder how anyone knows all this, we must keep it to ourselves.

Singal’s lamentations elicit a very particular weariness among trans readers. His logic is circular, and obsessive. In returning to the subject repeatedly, Singal seems intent on cracking some truth about the trans experience that is not accessible to him, as if provoked by that very inaccessibility. And this is the epistemological challenge that trans culture lays at cis culture’s doorstep: You must trust me to know my own identity. To extend full humanity to trans citizens means marking the limits of cis knowledge.

Ok, dropping the sarcasm now. That’s not an “epistemological challenge”; it’s a command to accept narcissistic bullshit without question. There is no such imperative. No, we are not required to trust anyone to know her or his “own identity” if her or his claims about said “identity” are implausible. We don’t have to extend people in general that kind of sweeping trust, because people can lie and people can be mistaken, yes even about their own identities. Of course they can; self-knowledge is subject to warping by self-interest, self-protection, self-love, to name just three obvious distorters. So no. That’s one reason the claims about trans identity are so contested and so contestable: they really entirely on subjective understanding of a magical self, and that’s not a strong basis for genuine knowledge.

That fact is clearly politically anathema to a lot of people right now, but that doesn’t make it any less true. The fact that the New Republic employs someone (Livingstone is a staff writer) who can’t see that is kind of embarrassing.

(There is also, to repeat, the simple fact that people can lie – yes, even about their “own identity.”)

One of the reasons that trans skeptics get so riled by this demand is that it implies that their empathy and their intellect have borders. It also denies the universality of human experience, and undermines the notion of a pure discourse where only reason prevails. Ironically, nothing makes those borders starker than the Singals of this world patrolling the edges of a culture war, demanding that their opponents meet them at the fence for a healthy conversation.

Can you figure out what that’s supposed to mean? Because I can’t.

Maybe we should just trust it.