Oops. Michael Cohen was allowed out of prison to serve his time at home because of the virus, and at home meant at home.

He forgot to stay home.

Oops.

Apparently it was the Post that ratted him out.

Michael Cohen could soon be back to chowing down in a prison cafeteria.

The recently sprung jailbird was caught by The Post dining out on Manhattan’s Upper East Side — and the meal may cost him his freedom, legal experts said Friday.

Exclusive photos show President Trump’s former personal lawyer seated at a sidewalk table outside Le Bilboquet, a French restaurant around the corner from his Park Avenue apartment, on Thursday night.

Cohen, his wife, Laura, and another couple spent about an hour chatting before they became the last patrons to leave around 11:30 p.m.

They couldn’t just order takeout?

The Cohens both put on face masks before exchanging hugs with the other couple and walking off.

So much for social distancing.

The friend guy is on his phone. Look, if your buddy is going to risk going back to prison to eat out with you the least you could do is put your phone away!

Anyway. My god what a doofus. All he had to do to avoid more prison time was stay home, but noooooooo.

So that’s how it’s done.

In other words, “the vast majority of responses to this are bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch women”…who are pointing out that women as a class are more vulnerable than men.

Simon Curtis is doing this ever-more-popular trick of stacking up privilege-pejoratives in front of the word “women” so that we’ll know to hate them by the time we get to the noun. Oh oh oh they’re middle-aged and white and British and cis, they are KARENS. Women who are middle-aged and white and British and cis don’t get to say they are part of a subordinated group of any kind ever, because they are Karens. (Applies also to American, French, Swedish, Australian etc women too of course. Bitches.)

There are of course plenty of women who have a lot of privilege of various kinds – but they’re still women. They’re still subject to misogyny, they’re still subject to the kind of dismissive contempt shown by this Simon Curtis fella.

Also, it is in fact simply a literal truth that women as such are more vulnerable than men as such. Politically speaking women are of course not always the most vulnerable group in a given situation or conflict, but literally speaking – yes, sadly, we are.

Trump of course is still raging.

Says Crimey McCriminal.

SO UNFAIR! JUST BECAUSE HE’S THE MOST CORRUPT AND CRIMINAL PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY!

Oh and by the way –

Trump is having a bad day.

The supreme court has issued its decision in one case involving subpoenas for Trump’s financial records.

The justices issued a 7-2 decision that the president’s tax returns and business records may be turned over to a grand jury in New York.

The ruling marks a defeat for Trump, who has pushed for years to hide the documents from the public.

The next ruling is a little more helpful to him.

It is another 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and it calls for sending the case back to the lower court to more closely review concerns over the separation of powers.

“The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information,” Roberts wrote in the decision.

The upshot of that is that Congress almost certainly won’t get to see the information before the election – in other words yes we still have to vote on this criminal with vital information about his criminality withheld from us because…he is the president. But that’s the very thing we need to decide on! Do we want a criminal as president?! We need to know now! Sorry, the wheels of justice grind slow.

It’s a win for presidential accountability long-term, but a loss for making Trump accountable this-term.

Like so:

In terms of the substance of the two supreme court decisions, the opinions mark a defeat for Trump because the justices rejected his legal team’s argument that the president should be immune from such proceedings.

However, the president appears to have secured a victory in terms of the logistics of the decisions.

The justices ruled that Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance may receive the president’s tax returns and financial records. However, even if Vance can get the records soon, they will likely not be made public because they will be turned over to a grand jury, legally requiring them to be kept secret.

In terms of the House subpoenas, the supreme court sent the case back down to the lower court to more closely consider separation of powers issues. That will almost certainly delay the release of Trump’s financial records to the committees until after the election.

All very dignified and unhurried and judicialicious, but the result is that vital information about Trump’s criminality is being kept from the voting public until after the election.

Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on When two oppressed groups are in conflict.

The admonition to shut up and listen to the members of the oppressed group is a valid one, but it only works when dealing with a non-oppressed group (to-wit, straight white men, preferably but not exclusively middle-class and up).

You know, I don’t think it actually is valid, or more like the validity of “shut up and listen” isn’t on the axis of oppressed versus non-oppressed, but rather on the axis of expertise vs non-expertise.

Because the thing is – being oppressed doesn’t actually make people immune to being wrong, and all too often putting the validity of “shut and and listen” on that axis, leads to a situation in which one ranks oppressions.

We saw it with “Islamophobia”, where concerns around sexism, the mistreatment of apostates, homophobia, anti-Semitism etc… were more or less silenced because Muslims were the oppressed minority of the day. A minority that was deemed more oppressed than these other groups, thus the other groups needed to “shut up and listen”.

The TRAs very specifically aimed to paint themselves as the most oppressed minority, specifically because that grants a greater ability to tell other groups to “shut up and listen”.

And I can’t help but think it is going to end up being the response to women who point out that calling people “Karens” is sexist. In fact I’d be surprised if the argument hasn’t already been floated.

I think there is something to be said for listening to people about their experiences, but it should be an active sort of listening, in which one asks questions and requires claims to be supported.

And yes, this can come off as JAQing off, but there is so much bullshit out there floated as “woke” that you can’t really get around it.

I’m South African so my example is always going to be Bell Pottinger, a PR firm that sought to undo the legacy of Nelson Mandela in order to run interference for a pack of thieving scumbags who were robbing my country blind. They did it using woke points, cynically and expertly playing up racial tensions and pushing “White Monopoly Capital” as the villain, in a way that was indistinguishable from people who may well have been genuine about it.

There is a lot of fakery mixed in with the stuff we’re supposed to be shutting up and listening to, even with causes we’d normally all get behind. “Shut up and listen” – doesn’t help us sort the bullshit from the real, and that has become a real problem that is actively undermining a lot of groups.

And a lot of the bandwagon on bullshit causes is populated by well meaning straight white guys who “shut up and listened” to the wrong people.

There’s a problem though.

See the problem? Of course – it’s obvious. Who ARE these people and why should I assume they know better than I do? Why should anyone assume that?

It’s not as if angry pile-ons never get anything wrong. It’s not as if the cancellations never get anything wrong. There’s no reason for anyone to just assume that if you see a cancellation, it must be for a very good, in fact a flawless reason.

What if “the thing that got you cancelled in the first place” is not cruelty or racism or persecution or bullying, but an opinion you think to be true? You can “own up to it” but maybe you will then add “and so what?”

Phillipa Soo is just assuming that everyone who cancels a Suspect Person is right about everything, and that no mistakes ever happen.

Why would anyone assume that? Based on what? Twitter is a big thing with a lot of people using it; they’re not all going to subscribe to the list of Correct Things that Philippa Soo (or anyone else) subscribes to.

It reminds me of PZ that summer 5 years ago, when he begged me privately not to leave, but then did a post saying I had to “own up” to my sins. But I didn’t think they were sins. I had told the truth as I saw it, and gone on telling it, so how was I supposed to “own up” to having gotten things horribly wrong when I didn’t believe I had?

Same with Philippa Soo’s instructions on how to grovel to a bunch of callow inquisitors who don’t know much about anything.

This is evil.

One, women refusing to agree that “men can be women if they say they ‘identify as’ women” is not kneeling on other people’s necks. It’s not murder, and it’s not murder-by-torture. It’s evil to accuse women of torture and murder for saying that only women are women.

Two, it’s insulting to George Floyd and to other victims of police brutality to drag their horror into a misogynist attack on women who don’t agree that men are women.

Three, it’s appropriation, the real kind, and an incredibly disgusting example of it.

Four, much more minor, where is “here”? Twitter? Garbage doesn’t get to tell us we’re not welcome on Twitter. Garbage is not the boss of us or of anyone else.

Lock down! Also send the kids back to school!

In Wednesday’s White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing, one doctor asked four states go back to Phase 1 recommendations after seeing a surge in COVID-19 numbers.

Dr. Deborah Birx, the Coronavirus Response Coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, spoke about an increase in cases and positivity rates when testing in Arizona, Florida, Texas, and California during the briefing.

“To all of the Americans out there that are in these four states, and the states that have in the report in the red zone, because there is a series of other states that we have in that zone, is really asking the American people in those counties and in those states to not only use the face coverings, not going to bars, not going to indoor dining, but really not gathering in homes either. Decreasing those gatherings back down to our Phase 1 recommendation, which was 10 or less,” she said.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos spoke about reopening schools across the nation.

“Students can and must continue to learn full time,” DeVos said.

DeVos said schools must fully open and be fully operational to best serve students. She said local leaders are the best to make the plans for their area’s schools. Citing the American Academy of Pediatric guidance, she said everyone should have the goal of starting students physically in classrooms.

Ok so you know what to do – go back to decreasing those gatherings down to 10 or fewer and also send all the kids back to school.

Oookaaaay.

This guy. THIS GUY.

How belatedly he remembers to mention men. His tribe is white, Generation X, heterosexual, privileged MEN. Women aren’t part of that tribe. He’s astonishingly bad at remembering that, or perhaps at ever noticing it in the first place.

By which he means trans people, and emphatically not women.

Women always last. Women always an afterthought, because trans people always get first mention.

Why? Is it because it gives men like Jolyon Maugham an excuse to lecture and rebuke women? Is there no more to it than that?

How much interest does he have in challenging how he conceives of himself? I can see none.

Not cute.

A San Francisco lawmaker introduced an ordinance that would make it illegal to make a fraudulent, racially-motivated 911 call in response to a number of recent incidents in which white people have called the police on Black people who weren’t doing anything wrong.

So far so good.

Supervisor Shamann Walton introduced the Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies, or CAREN Act, Tuesday, which will “make it illegal for people to contact law enforcement solely to discriminate on the basis of a person’s race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The CAREN Act. Geddit? Hawhaw. Not funny. Not cute.

Imagine if a white lawmaker came up with a SAMBO Act or some such shit. (Some probably have. Not funny, not cute.)

Just stop it.

Now Trump is threatening children.

The Guardian points out:

In reality, many administrators, teachers and parents have expressed concerns about sending students back to school as concerns remain over the spread of coronavirus in the classroom.

Many school districts have also warned they do not have the additional funding needed to keep students safe, and the president is now threatening to cut off funding from them if they don’t reopen.

He’s also threatening the CDC.

And by “meeting” he doesn’t really mean “meeting.”

Also via Jesse Singal, this one yesterday.

She thought she was endorsing a message against internet shaming, but she didn’t realize there was someone (or several someones?) on the list of signers who required internet shaming.

She was ready and willing to endorse a message against internet shaming, until she discovered there was a signer she wanted to shame.

She opposes internet shaming unless she wants to internet shame someone.

Mind you, here I am internet shaming her.

You couldn’t make it up.

“…makes ME feel…”

Well that’s really all there is to say, isn’t it.

More on the Harper’s Letter. From PrawfsBlog:

The authors claim to “uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters,” but to fear that “it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.” Ken White (Popehat to those on Twitter and KCRW) sees the letter as drawing an untenable (or at least elusive) distinction between “silencing” and “more/responsive/critical” counter-speech. White labels this the “problem of the preferred first speaker,” the “tendency to impose norms of civility, openness, productiveness, and dialogue-encouraging on a RESPONSE to expression that we do not impose on the expression itself.” In other words, the original speaker is free to say what she wants however she wants; the response must listen to, engage with, and respond to that speech. “Shut up” is not acceptable counter-speech.

That’s interesting; I hadn’t thought of it before. Lawyers can be very good at that.

Both situations create a puzzle . We do not want people to lose their livelihoods for their speech, nor do we want speakers chased off campus. But we also should not hamstring one side of the debate–to paraphrase Justice Scalia, we should not allow the original speaker “to fight freestyle,” while requiring counter-speakers “to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules.” I do not know the right answer or correct balance either to the recent online issues or to campus speech (the latter will not be an issue for awhile, unfortunately). But this letter does not provide it.

What I think is that it has to do with social media: it’s only recently(ish) that people have had to deal with hundreds or thousands of readers/listeners shouting at them all at once, as opposed to envelopes dropping decorously through the slot in the door or the phone ringing a little more often than usual.

Originally a comment by Freemage on On being instructed to center everyone else.

The admonition to shut up and listen to the members of the oppressed group is a valid one, but it only works when dealing with a non-oppressed group (to-wit, straight white men, preferably but not exclusively middle-class and up). When two oppressed groups are in conflict, however, there must be an exchange of ideas and debate (and preferably, dialogue), or else you end up with one group being further oppressed.

I do think that actual trans folks suffer oppression (as opposed to the special snowflakes who like to don their trans identity like a fashionable cape they can ditch when it becomes inconvenient, but then re-wrap themselves in the moment it might be useful), because they are part of the larger oppressed group of neurologically atypical individuals–and our society sucks hard for folks with such conditions. But that oppression is practiced almost exclusively by men, usually motivated by homophobia and gay panic.

Ideally, yes, there would be an alliance between oppressed peoples in order to break the system down and end oppression for all. If you tell me that trans folks need protection for jobs and housing, I’ll agree. If anti-trans violence is to be made a hate crime, sign me up. If you tell me that trans people need accommodations–in prisons, sports, bathrooms/locker rooms and emergency housing–I’m inclined to listen (especially when it comes to situations of potential violence). But those accommodations must NOT be stolen from women, who have fought too long and hard to gain them in the first place. Instead, they should be, whenever possible, created by carving out space from the dominant group (again, SWMs). Build additional shelters that can accommodate trans folk; create trans-safe prisons; give trans athletes an opportunity compete against one another. Really, my fellow pallid phallus poltroons and I can spare it. No need to take from women (or for that matter, people of color, homosexuals, etc.).

About that Harper’s Letter…

It’s titled “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate.”

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.

Hmmm. Has it? And if it has, has it in a way that we want to to frown at? If we think wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society are a good thing, then what kind of differences are we seeking more toleration for? Do we want a rearguard saying no no no let’s have less equality and inclusion across our society?

To put it another way…the let’s have less equality side has had its own way for a long time around here. The less equality faction has been in the driver’s seat all along. The people exploited and incarcerated and generally harmed by that arrangement may finally be getting a hearing for the “let’s stop that shit now” suggestion. Do we really need to hear more from the “less equality is good” team? Haven’t they had their say for the past four centuries?

I get it about the social media bullying, believe me; I’ve been there and sent the postcards. But then, I was a target for arguing about reality, about ontology, about epistemology. I wasn’t arguing for wellllllllll we’re not really all that racist are we?

In other words I agree when it’s about stuff I agree about and I disagree when it isn’t.

Good, glad we got that settled.

No but for real, I think that intro is…weak.

It gets better as it goes on though.

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

That I think is fair to say. Also I think well of the people who put it together because they asked Meera Nanda to sign. Also Katha Pollitt, Rebecca Goldstein, Claire Potter, J.K. Rowling right next to Salman Rushdie, Jesse Singal, Michelle Goldberg, Todd Gitlin, Katie Herzog, Adam Hochschild, Arlie Russell Hochschild, Sean Wilentz among many others.

Paul Waldman at the Post has been reading Mary Trump’s book.

Here are some of the highlights:

She claims Trump hired a smarter boy he knew to take the SAT for him; the high score helped get him into college.

She describes Trump’s father, Fred, as not just domineering but a “sociopath.” He was verbally abusive to his children, especially Fred Jr., insisting that they become “killers” unhindered by emotion. “Fred perverted his son’s perception of the world and damaged his ability to live in it,” she writes.

Her father, Fred Jr., came in for particular contempt from Fred Sr. for being soft. “The lesson [President Trump] learned, at its simplest, was that it was wrong to be like Freddy: Fred didn’t respect his oldest son, so neither would Donald.”

When Fred Sr. died, Mary was told his estate was worth only around $30 million; the portion of that figure that became her inheritance was the subject of the dispute that led to a financial settlement and her NDA. She later gave Fred Sr.’s business records to the New York Times, which published a blockbuster story showing that the patriarch had transferred over $1 billion to his children (a scheme mostly carried out after Fred Jr.’s death), potentially defrauding the U.S. government of half a billion dollars in tax revenue.

On a trip to Mar-a-Lago when she was 29, Mary came out in a bathing suit and shorts. “Holy s–t, Mary. You’re stacked,” her uncle said to her, with all the grace and sensitivity we’ve come to expect from him.

For a time, Trump hired Mary to ghost-write his book “The Art of the Comeback.” At one point a Trump employee sent her some pages of material Trump wanted to include in the book. “It was an aggrieved compendium of women he had expected to date but who, having refused him, were suddenly the worst, ugliest, and fattest slobs he’d ever met,” including Madonna and Olympic figure skater Katarina Witt.

That’s so classic, isn’t it? He’s such a prisoner of his own ego. Whatever he can’t have he spoils, so he lives in a world of monstrosities.

At a White House dinner in 2017, the president gestured toward his son Eric’s wife; the two at that point had been together for eight years. “I barely even knew who the f— she was, honestly, but then she gave a great speech during the campaign in Georgia supporting me,” Trump said.

Whoops, there’s that ego again. She was just a blur to him until she said something flattering about him – a star is born!

“Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un, and Mitch McConnell, all of whom bear more than a passing psychological resemblance to Fred,” Mary writes, “recognized … that Donald’s checkered personal history and his unique personality flaws make him extremely vulnerable to manipulation by smarter, more powerful men.”

In other words ruthless evil monsters recognize Trump and know how to manipulate him. Awesome.

In Mary Trump’s account, if the future president ever possessed any virtues as a human being, they were eradicated by a cruel father who wanted to make his children just as ruthless as he was. She calls him the “monster” Fred Sr. created, someone who “would ultimately be rendered unlovable by the very nature of Fred’s preference for him.”

Well, if it’s any comfort, I doubt he ever possessed any virtues as a human being. As a rototiller, maybe, but as a human being, no.

Trump hired someone to take the SATs for him.

He’ll be screaming at us all day long.

Mary Trump wrote in her tell-all, set to be published next week, that Trump paid a proxy to take the SAT for him, according to The New York Times, which obtained a copy of the book and reported on the passage Tuesday.

“The high score the proxy earned for him, Ms. Trump adds, helped the young Mr. Trump to later gain admittance as an undergraduate to the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Wharton business school,” The Times reported.

…

Though in 2011 he hounded President Barack Obama for not turning over his college transcripts, Trump has never revealed any similar information about his time at Wharton, where he has claimed he graduated first in his class.

Last. He meant last. He was holding it upside down. He was asleep in class the day they explained right side up.

Last summer, Penn instituted a policy of revoking degrees if a graduate is found to have provided false information in an admission application, cheated on an exam, or tampered with records, The Daily Pennsylvanian reported.

Welp, that’s something to look forward to.

Peace in our time?

As a trans woman working in academia, one of the questions I regularly get asked is how I get along with feminist colleagues. When I invariably answer “incredibly well”, I’m often met with a quizzical look.

…

Trans and feminism have certainly had a wobbly relationship over the years, but trans writers have energetically drawn on and contributed to feminist theory, while trans politics has been positively embraced by many feminists. The story here is not one of political conflict, it’s of mutual recognition.

So what’s all this about Rowling then? Not a story of political conflict? Not a conflict between trans ideology and feminism?

It is little wonder that my own daughters, both young feminists themselves, unreservedly see trans as ally, not enemy. The reasons for this are not hard to fathom. After all, a fundamental tenet of feminism is to end forms of oppression; and the same rule must apply for a trans and gender-diverse minority.

No. The fundamental tenet of feminism is that women are not inferior or subordinate to men. It’s not about all “forms of oppression,” it’s about the specific form of oppression that oppresses women. Not men who say they are women, but women.

What’s more, much contemporary feminism rejects the pathologising dogmatism of “gender critical” and “sex-based rights” advocacy that paints trans and gender diversity as effectively delusional.

Ah yes that pesky dogmatism that thinks sex-based rights take precedence over fantasy-based rights. How dare we.

As both feminist and transfeminist writers have long pointed out, we are not immutably tethered to an innate experience of womanhood or manhood simply by being designated an F or an M at birth.

What does that mean? Pretty much nothing. In fact we do, just as a matter of definition, have an experience of being either a woman or a man, depending on which we in fact are. There’s no need to call it “innate,” much less to generalize about it as “an innate experience of womanhood”; it’s just an experience of being a girl and then a woman. Just one. Each of us is just one. We don’t experience all of womanhood, we just experience our own lives as female people. That’s all. It’s not grandiose or complicated, it’s just the reality. We don’t experience our lives as tigers or buildings or chestnuts, because we’re not any of those things. We are what we are.

Many of us are increasingly less excited about being told we have that in common with men who say they are women.

This one nails it.