Their vital role

Mar 8th, 2019 11:13 am | By

Whoever wrote Trump’s prezzidenshul statement on International Women’s Day did a crap job of it.

On International Women’s Day, we honor women worldwide for their vital role in shaping and strengthening our communities, families, governments, and businesses. We celebrate their vision, leadership, and courage, and we reaffirm our commitment to promoting equal opportunity for women everywhere.

Their vital role, the precious darlings; it’s so kind of the to assist us, the real people, by playing their vital role in shaping and strengthening that which we (the real people) have made. Would one of them like to step forward so that I can pat her head or perhaps grab her by the pussy?



Not before this court

Mar 8th, 2019 9:57 am | By

A particularly absurd Trump lie:

President Trump on Friday seized on a portion of a federal judge’s remarks during the sentencing of his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, in a financial crimes case to again criticize the Russia investigation and falsely declare a finding of “no collusion.”

Except the judge didn’t.

What Judge Ellis actually said Thursday was that Mr. Manafort was “not before this court for anything having to do with collusion with the Russian government to influence this election.”

Which is not the same thing at all. That’s like saying “the judge said there’s no such thing as murder” when the judge actually said that “Mr. Trump is not before this court for anything having to do with murder.” Saying a particular person is not before a particular court for anything to do with a particular crime is not the same thing as saying there is none of that particular crime, or even that Mr. Trump is not suspected of that particular crime. Particular trial is particular.

There was “no collusion” because Mr. Manafort was not charged with or convicted of any crimes of collusion, a word that has no legal definition but has become a term of art for the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.

But has also become Trump’s all-purpose word for everything he absolutely never did and is totally innocent of – it’s meaningless trump-jargon.

Mr. Manafort’s attorneys used the same false talking point as the president on Thursday, saying in a brief statement after the hearing, “There is absolutely no evidence that Paul Manafort was involved in any collusion with any government official or Russia.”

False talking point=meaningless trump-jargon.



Who cares what she wants?

Mar 8th, 2019 8:55 am | By

He tried and tried and tried to talk her into continuing the pregnancy, apparently unperturbed by the fact that he was trying to persuade her to endure ever-increasing discomfort and disability for months and then anguish for several hours to have a baby she didn’t want to have.

In an unprecedented move, an Alabama judge is allowing a man to sue a clinic because his ex-girlfriend terminated her pregnancy without his consent. The incident took place in February 2017, when he was 19 and she was 16, The Independent reports. (The age of consent in Alabama is 16.) At the time she terminated the pregnancy, she was six weeks along, making the embryo about the size of a sweet pea. Now, for the first time in United States history, a probate court has recognized an aborted fetus as a person with rights.

In court documents filed on March 6 by Ryan Magers, he claims that he begged his ex-girlfriend to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth. She refused and opted to terminate the pregnancy by taking the so-called “abortion pill,” which is actually two pills, containing mifepristone and misoprostol. The wrongful death lawsuit names both the Alabama Women’s Center and the pharmaceutical company that made the medication.

Because everybody on the planet has the right to veto a woman’s decision to stop being pregnant, apparently.

“I’m here for the men who actually want to have their baby,” Mager explained to ABC 31. “I just tried to plead with her and plead with her and just talk to her about it and see what I could do, but in the end, there was nothing I could do to change her mind.”

So he’s getting his revenge by attempting to create a new right for men to veto women’s abortions.

The case has alarmed reproductive rights groups, who are concerned the “personhood” movement might spread. On Twitter, Ilyse Hogue, the president of Naral Pro-Choice America, called the case “very scary” because it “asserts woman’s rights third in line,” behind the man who impregnates her and the dead fetus. Salon writer Amanda Marcotte agreed, saying any man who “vetoes” an abortion is “not fit to be a father or a partner. Any such man is by definition, an abuser.”

Or we could just give up and agree that women aren’t really people at all but merely devices for the creation of people (males) and more devices for the creation of people (males).

H/t Holms



We want to see women rise. But.

Mar 7th, 2019 5:34 pm | By

Aw, sweet. Scott Morrison tells women to be careful not to succeed too much:

Scott Morrison has spoken at an International Women’s Day breakfast at the Chamber of Minerals and Energy in Western Australia.

In the speech he does battle with a straw-person by suggesting that a certain strain of feminism is about tearing men down:

“One of the other female members of my cabinet, Kelly O’Dwyer, our minister for women, said at the Press Club last year gender equality isn’t about pitting girls against boys.

“See, we’re not about setting Australians against each other, trying to push some down to lift others up. That’s not in our values. That is an absolutely Liberal value, that you don’t push some people down to lift some people up. And that is true about gender equality too.

“We want to see women rise. But we don’t want to see women rise only on the basis of others doing worse. We want everybody to do better, and we want to see the rise of women in this country be accelerated to ensure that their overall place is maintained.”

And yet, Scott Morrison is Prime Minister. How does he know he didn’t get there at someone else’s expense? In fact he must have, right, if there were other candidates? Is it only women who are not allowed to do anything if everyone else doesn’t get to do it too? Is it only women who get told not to be ambitious?



Otherwise blameless

Mar 7th, 2019 5:02 pm | By

Manafort got 47 months.

An otherwise blameless life?!! He helped Yanukovich smear Tymoshenko. That’s not exactly blameless.

Updating to add an informative tweet:



SFTU and SYL

Mar 7th, 2019 11:26 am | By

Also…



Soz, we changed our minds

Mar 7th, 2019 10:46 am | By

Ahhh that’s a good look – State Department tells journalist she will get a Women of Courage Award then says “oh wait no you won’t” when it discovers she’s critical of The Leader. Foreign Policy reports:

Jessikka Aro, a Finnish investigative journalist, has faced down death threats and harassment over her work exposing Russia’s propaganda machine long before the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. In January, the U.S. State Department took notice, telling Aro she would be honored with the prestigious International Women of Courage Award, to be presented in Washington by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Weeks later, the State Department rescinded the award offer. A State Department spokesperson said it was due to a “regrettable error,” but Aro and U.S. officials familiar with the internal deliberations tell a different story. They say the department revoked her award after U.S. officials went through Aro’s social media posts and found she had also frequently criticized President Donald Trump.

Well you see it’s all about how you understand “courage.” Courage is exposing other people’s propaganda machine, not Trump’s.

There is no indication that the decision to revoke the award came from the secretary of state or the White House. Officials who spoke to FP have suggested the decision came from lower-level State Department officials wary of the optics of Pompeo granting an award to an outspoken critic of the Trump administration. The department spokesperson did not respond to questions on who made the decision or why.

The “optics”?

What about the “optics” of Pompeo granting an award to an outspoken critic of the Trump administration and thus demonstrating the administration’s ability to rise above personal spite? What about the “optics” of spitefully snatching the award away in a huff?

They don’t think carefully, these people.

“[When] I was informed about the withdrawal out of the blue, I felt appalled and shocked,” Aro told FP. “The reality in which political decisions or presidential pettiness directs top U.S. diplomats’ choices over whose human rights work is mentioned in the public sphere and whose is not is a really scary reality.”

Quite so. The “optics” of that are nothing to be proud of.

“I use Twitter to exchange ideas and share information freely,” Aro said. “I find the idea of U.S. government officials stalking my Twitter and politicizing my perfectly normal expressions of opinion deeply disturbing.”

Because it is.

After first being notified she would get the award, Aro filled out forms and questionnaires at the request of officials and cancelled paid speaking engagements to travel to Washington to attend the March 7 ceremony in Washington. The State Department also sent her an official invitation to accept the award and planned an itinerary for a corresponding tour of the United States, complete with flights and high-profile visits to newspapers and universities across the country.

They sent her an official invitation, and then snatched it back. Not cool.



Thanks for flagging

Mar 7th, 2019 9:53 am | By

McKinnon’s latest triumph:

What? What has Kelly Holmes done to deserve McKinnon’s efforts to Get Her In Trubble? Besides winning gold at the Olympics?

I guess it was this.

Oh no, not agreeing with Martina! No wonder McKinnon is trying to get her sponsors to drop her.

Specialized took the bait.

So that’s McKinnon’s latest triumph.



How the prince got into a top-tier school

Mar 7th, 2019 9:15 am | By

Daniel Golden wrote a Pro Publica piece just after Trump stole the election, and it’s being re-upped now. It’s about the puzzle of how Jared Kushner got into Harvard.

I bet you’ve guessed already.

My book exposed a grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their under-achieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5 million to Harvard University in 1998, not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school. At the time, Harvard accepted about one of every nine applicants. (Nowadays, it only takes one out of twenty.)

I also quoted administrators at Jared’s high school, who described him as a less than stellar student and expressed dismay at Harvard’s decision.

“There was no way anybody in the administrative office of the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard,” a former official at The Frisch School in Paramus, New Jersey, told me. “His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought for sure, there was no way this was going to happen. Then, lo and behold, Jared was accepted. It was a little bit disappointing because there were at the time other kids we thought should really get in on the merits, and they did not.”

That’s the story of their lives, all of them – Donnie Two-scoops, Princess Ivanka, Prince Jared, Donnie2 the thug – they all bought their way into power.

Golden was doing research on rich people and donations to Harvard and enrollment of rich donors’ children. The name Kushner caught his eye.

Charles and Seryl Kushner were both on the committee. I had never heard of them, but their joint presence struck me as a sign that Harvard’s fundraising machine held the couple in especially fond regard.

The clips showed that Charles Kushner’s empire encompassed 25,000 New Jersey apartments, along with extensive office, industrial and retail space and undeveloped land. Unlike most of his fellow committee members, though, Kushner was not a Harvard man. He had graduated from New York University. This eliminated the sentimental tug of the alma mater as a reason for him to give to Harvard, leaving another likely explanation: his children.

Sure enough, his sons Jared and Joshua had both enrolled there.

Charles Kushner differed from his peers on the committee in another way; he had a criminal record. Five years after Jared entered Harvard, the elder Kushner pleaded guilty in 2004 to tax violations, illegal campaign donations, and retaliating against a witness…Charles Kushner had hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, who was cooperating with federal authorities. Kushner then had a videotape of the tryst sent to his sister. He was sentenced to two years in federal prison.

That’s who Prince Jared’s father is, let’s never forget. These people are rotten all the way through. (Jared could be a rebel child who repudiates his father’s loathsome ways…but of course he’s not.)

PJ’s daddy bought him entry to Harvard and then PJ’s wife’s daddy made him a prince with a security clearance he shouldn’t have and responsibility for the Middle East and Mexico and who knows what else he shouldn’t be allowed within miles of.



It was the hair extensions wot did it

Mar 6th, 2019 3:32 pm | By

From fatuous drivel like this good lord deliver us. The BBC yesterday:

Like many little girls, nine-year-old Autumn Norris loves dressing up and experimenting with make-up.

She has identified as a girl for the past two years, after telling her mother she felt she was in the “wrong body”.

Autumn had just had a bath when she first spoke about these feelings. She wanted two towels, one for the hair and one for the body, “like a woman”.

“She then came out of the bathroom with her two towels, saying: ‘I’ve got something to tell you Mum, I’m not Anthony, I’m not a boy, I’m a girl’,” says Fran Norris.

Fran Norris, bizarrely, was struck all of a heap. I guess she’d never heard of “pretending” and “fantasy” and “play”?

Ms Norris, from Shifnal in Shropshire, believes it had been on Autumn’s mind for a long time and she had engaged in “feminine role-play” to explore her identity.

She would often come to her and ask to wear her clothes, put on make-up, do her nails or wear hair extensions.

tears hair

I know we’ve all said this a bazillion times but honest to fuck! Trivial external arbitrary conventions of dress do not make people this sex or that. Putting on lipstick does not magically make a boy into a girl and wearing jeans does not magically transform a woman into a man. Clothes, makeup, nails, hair extensions are just bits of flotsam that people put on and take off. I could put sour cream and chives on my head, it wouldn’t make me a fucking baked potato.

There’s more of the same bullshit and similar bullshit, for paragraph after paragraph.

I think the BBC is being held hostage.



Pearls

Mar 6th, 2019 12:22 pm | By

ARE YOU KIDDING

A handful of male lawmakers dressed up for a hearing they presided over Tuesday in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, donning pearl necklaces as activists testified about their experiences with gun violence.

Pearl necklaces??

Ohhhh…right. ARE YOU KIDDING!!!!

Images from the statehouse — where legislators were considering arguments over a bill that would make it easier to take guns away from potentially dangerous people — caromed across social media as critics lobbed accusations of sexism and insensitivity at the necklace-wearing men.

The implication was clear, they said: These politicians thought gun-control activists were “clutching their pearls” in overwrought and self-righteous outrage — and, specifically, female outrage.

Because what, thinking gun violence is a bad thing is for sissies aka women? Because real men like gun violence? Because let’s laugh at women who don’t want to see their children shot at school or traumatized by seeing other children traumatized by the latest school shooting?

We’re on a downward slope to the pit of hell.

[Shannon] Watts, who attended the hearing, said she counted at least five representatives — all men — wearing pearls and sitting on the committee that held the hearing. One of them also appeared to sport a pin in the shape of a semiautomatic rifle on his lapel. She snapped photos of the lawmakers and posted them on Twitter, where she has nearly 300,000 followers, sparking outrage near and far.

Pit of hell.



March 2019

Mar 6th, 2019 11:02 am | By

Robin Buckallew is doing Women’s History Month again:

Here we are again, Women’s History Month. It seems like only yesterday…and at the same time it seems like a million years ago. So, since there are still women around the world who are penalized merely for being a woman, I will continue my pledge. I will once again write every day of the month, and focus on women.

Image result for women's history month 2019



On a busy day at the White House

Mar 6th, 2019 10:53 am | By

Trump can multitask, at least he can when he has to pay off his consigliere.

On a busy day at the White House, President Trump hosted senators to talk about tax cuts, accused a Democratic congresswoman of distorting his condolence call to a soldier’s widow and suffered another court defeat for his travel ban targeting Muslim countries.

And at some point on Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017, Mr. Trump took the time to sign a $35,000 check to his lawyer, who had made hush payments to prevent alleged sexual misconduct from being exposed before the 2016 presidential election.

As one does, you know.

At the heart of last week’s congressional testimony by Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, was the sensational accusation that the sitting president of the United States financed an illegal cover-up from inside the White House. The dates on the newly available checks shed light on the parallel lives Mr. Trump was living by this account — at once managing affairs of state while quietly paying the price of keeping his personal secrets out of the public eye.

The president hosted a foreign leader in the Oval Office, then wrote a check. He haggled over legislation, then wrote a check. He traveled abroad, then wrote a check. On the same day he reportedly pressured the F.B.I. director to drop an investigation into a former aide, the president’s trust issued a check to Mr. Cohen in furtherance of what federal prosecutors have called a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws at the direction of Mr. Trump.

Some days were more corrupt than others.

Jim Jordan says meh it’s no big deal plus we knew that already. Others disagree.

“The $35,000 is an indication of the quality of that evidence, and it both shows the extent of Trump’s leading role and now leaves little doubt that he faces criminal prosecution after he leaves office for the same offenses for which Cohen will serve time,” said Robert F. Bauer, a law professor at New York University and former White House counsel for President Barack Obama.

Indeed, some people close to Mr. Trump have privately predicted that he will ultimately choose to seek a second term in part because of his legal exposure if he is not president. While there is no legal consensus on the matter, Justice Department policy says that a president cannot be indicted while in office.

Ok that would be a first – a president seeking a second term as a cunning plan to avoid prison.

The Times tells us what else Trump was doing on the day he signed each check the Times has (a couple are missing). This one has a certain drollness to it, until one gets to the Putin part:

After the Oct. 18 check came one on Nov. 21, just two days before Thanksgiving when Mr. Trump pardoned a turkey, saying, “I feel so good about myself,” and then defended Roy S. Moore, the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama who had been accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls. Mr. Trump also spoke by telephone that day with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

Let’s make him feel bad about himself.



Oops your misogyny is showing

Mar 6th, 2019 10:05 am | By

McKinnon may have gone a step too far yesterday.



A relatively unknown cyclist

Mar 6th, 2019 9:37 am | By

Hadley Freeman on Rachel McKinnon’s triumphant own goal:

Two weeks ago Martina Navratilova, one of the greatest athletes of all time, leaped into the notoriously feverish gender debate and wrote that self-identified trans women should not have an automatic right to compete in women’s sports because they have unfair advantages from having been born male. The media, terrified of being on the wrong side of history, responded predictably, and headlines said that Navratilova was “criticised over ‘cheating’ trans women comments”, although this criticism came largely from a relatively unknown cyclist, Rachel McKinnon, with a history of incendiary remarks (such as that lesbians such as Navratilova should “get over their genital hang-ups” when it comes to choosing sexual partners). When Navratilova published a further blog last weekend, firmly restating her position, the headlines again suggested wrongdoing on her part, such as the BBC’s “Navratilova sorry for transgender ‘cheat’ language as she re-enters debate”.

This is what I kept saying – the Guardian and the BBC kept using infuriatingly loaded language. Freeman points out that the support of other star athletes got less attention.

One can firmly defend a person’s right to live in the gender identity of their choosing yet also look at photos of trans women athletes such as Gabrielle LudwigNatalie van Gogh and McKinnon standing alongside their strikingly smaller female team-mates, and think Navratilova’s arguments are worth investigating instead of dismissing with cries of bigotry.

That’s because a person’s right to live in the gender identity of their choosing can’t be completely free of qualification without bumping up against other people’s rights. Rachel Dolezal can “live in” whatever racial identity she likes, but she can’t claim prizes or roles intended for African-Americans without bumping up against the rights of African-Americans.

Feminists and the LGBT movement are usually allies, and yet they have become antagonists on this issue – and if there’s one person in this country who has, at the very least, exacerbated this, it’s Maria Miller. In 2017, as chair of the women and equalities committee, Miller produced a report on transgender rights in which she recommended that changing gender should be through a process of “self-declaration” rather than after consultation with a doctor.

But changing gender isn’t changing sex, as feminists have been pointing out.

Miller set off a savage culture war in which the losers were women, trans and not, all of whom felt unfairly attacked; and they were all correct. Biological women felt like they were being told to engage in magical thinking, deny their lived experience and accept the irrelevancy of biology, while trans women felt like they were being asked to defend their identity.

There’s quite a large gap between those two sets, though. Being told to engage in magical thinking, deny one’s lived experience, and accept the irrelevancy of biology is a good deal more basic and all-pervading than being asked to defend one’s “identity”…especially when what is meant by “identity” is so squishy and variable and already-politicized. The identity woman is rather different from the identity man who feels like a woman. Women can’t identify their way out of forced pregnancy.



Guest post: Your Bigliness is manifest

Mar 6th, 2019 9:09 am | By

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on A terrible example for Donnie Junior.

A Fox in a Box, and a Chair that Declares (under Hair).

Hmmm.

I do not like Big Macs and Fries,

I do not like them served with Lies.

I will not eat them in your House,

Not with Epstein, or with Krauss.

Please put your fountain pen away,

I will not sign your NDA.

I will not eat them on the Mall,

I will not eat them by your Wall.

I will not load your Smocking Gun,

Or covfefe on Air Force One.

I will not catch your paper towels,

Or Retweet all your Twitter howls.

I will not march in your Parades,

I doubt that you had stellar grades.

You claim the Largest and the Best,

Your Bigliness is manifest.

You find good people on both sides;

(You’re also cool with pesticides).

You’ve never paid the debts you owed

You are Two Scoops shy a load.

All this gold sure hurts my eyes,

I do not like Big Macs and Fries.

(With my aplogies to Theodor Seuss Geisel)



Tainting the process to favor his family

Mar 6th, 2019 8:57 am | By

It’s not just Prince Jared, it’s also Princess Ivanka. Well of course it is.

President Donald Trump pressured his then-chief of staff John Kelly and White House counsel Don McGahn to grant his daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump a security clearance against their recommendations, three people familiar with the matter told CNN.

The President’s crusade to grant clearances to his daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, rankled West Wing officials.

While Trump has the legal authority to grant clearances, most instances are left up to the White House personnel security office, which determines whether a staffer should be granted one after the FBI has conducted a background check. But after concerns were raised by the personnel office, Trump pushed Kelly and McGahn to make the decision on his daughter and son-in-law’s clearances so it did not appear as if he was tainting the process to favor his family, sources told CNN. After both refused, Trump granted them their security clearances.

Ah now that’s an interesting detail. So he did manage to grasp that it would look taintish if he simply ordered it, so instead of deciding it would look taintish because it was taintish and therefore he shouldn’t do it, he pushed others to do it and then ordered it when they balked. I think that kind of thing is seen as damning by prosecutors in criminal cases? Evidence that the defendant was aware of breaking the law? Trump does a quite convincing job of appearing completely blind and deaf to all norms and rules and laws, so it’s useful to learn that at least in this case he was deliberately covert about what he was doing.

The latest revelation also contradicts Ivanka Trump’s denial to ABC News three weeks ago, when she said her father had “no involvement” regarding her or Kushner’s clearances.

Yeah well. Princess I. is a stone cold liar and fraud. Don’t let the window dummy appearance fool you.

CNN says several sources told them she could have been unaware of Donnie’s machinations. Whatever. She should, at a minimum, be well aware she shouldn’t be working for Daddy’s administration at all. She’s not so brain-dead that she couldn’t have done some research on the rules around nepotism and corruption.

On Tuesday, the White House rebuffed a request from House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, who asked for documents pertaining to the security clearance process. White House counsel Pat Cipollone said the committee’s request for the information was “without legal support, clearly premature, and suggests a breach of the constitutionally required accommodation process.”

The White House’s rejection increases the chances of a subpoena from the House.

Do it.



Another front in the religious wars

Mar 5th, 2019 4:05 pm | By

Eliza Griswold at the New Yorker starts with a story of a father and two sons, Pehlu, Irshad and Arif Khan, driving home from a market in Jaipur with two cows.

That afternoon, Irshad climbed into the truck alongside his father and brother. Cows are sacred to Hindus but Irshad had made this trip dozens of times since he was a boy. He’d heard rumors of potential trouble for Muslims at roadside checkpoints, where members of a militant Hindu youth group called the Bajrang Dal were intimidating Muslim traders in the name of protecting cows. Still, Irshad wasn’t nervous. “We had no fear at all,” he told me recently. “We were coming from a government-organized fair, and buying and selling cows is a legal business.”

The militant Hindu nationalism that the group espouses is not new. Nathuram Godse, who assassinated Gandhi, on January 30, 1948, was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or R.S.S., a violent right-wing organization that promotes Hindu supremacy. Members of the Bajrang Dal are the movement’s foot soldiers, deployed in instances of mob violence or for targeted attacks against Muslims and other religious minorities. Founded in 1984, the group was part of a movement to destroy the Babri Masjid, a sixteenth-century mosque located in Ayodhya, India, which was built by the emperor Babur. (The mosque was ultimately demolished during a violent R.S.S. rally in 1992.)

Since Modi’s election in 2014 the Bajrang Dal have become far more powerful.

In the past seven years, according to Factchecker.in, an organization that tracks hate crimes, there have been a hundred and sixty-eight attacks by Hindu extremists, in the name of protecting cows, against Muslims and other religious minorities. The attacks left forty-six people dead. “It’s really a very, very bad moment for Muslims in India,” Salman Khurshid, India’s former foreign minister and the author of a forthcoming book, “Invisible Citizens,” on the systematic oppression of Muslims in the country, told me.

And, of course, a Bajrang Dal gang stopped the three on their way home and beat them up. The father died.

When the news of his death spread, the boys said that the mob returned and demanded his body so that they could desecrate it. The doctor hid the corpse in the hospital basement, and a police unit moved the boys to another hospital for their safety.

Nice touch.

Modi is up for re-election this year and he’s worried. People voted for him because he was expected to be good for the economy, but that didn’t pan out.

Some analysts worry that he will try to distract voters from the slowing economy by doubling down on nationalist rhetoric. “With little to show in terms of economy or development, Modi’s only remaining platform is nationalism,” Tanweer Alam, a political analyst, told me. Many critics argue that the rhetoric espoused by Modi and the B.J.P. has also intensified tensions in Kashmir, where the Indian government is struggling to quell a year-long spike in violence. In February, forty Indian soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber, who blew himself up by driving into a paramilitary convoy. The bomber claimed to be a local man named Aadil Ahmad Dar, who, in the past year, had left home to join the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, which is based in Pakistan. It was the most lethal attack in the region in decades, and Modi responded by threatening “a befitting reply,” and then launched air strikes against northern Pakistan. Pakistan subsequently shot down at least one Indian jet, further heightening tensions.

Could we lock Modi and Trump in a room and then lose the key? If you wanted to add Kim to the mix I wouldn’t object.

The US hasn’t helped.

The United States has generally remained silent regarding the repression of minorities in Modi’s India. In 2015, when Modi was selected as one of Time magazine’s hundred most influential people in the world, President Obama wrote a glowing tribute and said nothing of the militant nationalism that helped bring Modi to power. Despite President Trump’s public support of religious freedom, he has not criticized the oppression of religious minorities in India. Modi has made several high-profile visits to the U.S., including a state visit in 2017.

So that’s one thing both Obama and Trump got wrong; how touching.

Last July, the pattern of killings of Muslims grew so dire—in 2018, there were thirteen fatal cow-related lynchings—that the Indian Supreme Court demanded that the legislature formulate laws against the practice, which it has yet to do. Last month, Human Rights Watch released a hundred-and-four-page report documenting the violence, and the inaction—and abuses—of the government officials charged with investigating the crimes. “Lynching has become a nationalist project,” Mohammad Ali, a prominent Indian journalist who is currently working on a book about the phenomenon, told me. He said few perpetrators are punished, which has created a culture of impunity. Killers are lauded in some quarters as heroes for defending the faith and eradicating Muslims.

There are videos, many videos.

At the Khans’ house, Shabnam, Irshad’s wife, walked into the courtyard carrying their third child, an infant son, who screamed at the presence of strangers. She told me that their life had grown more chaotic with Pehlu gone; they missed his income, yes, but also the quiet order that he instilled in the family. “There’s no one to bind the family together now,” she told me. She had first heard of the attack a few hours after it happened. A police officer called from a nearby village to inform her and, soon after, someone sent her the YouTube video.

I asked her if it was still online; she nodded, and one of the local human-rights activists pulled out his phone and brought up the YouTube channel. We scrolled through it, looking for the attack. There were dozens of similar videos showing killings of Muslims, which were deeply disturbing both for their violence and for the obvious pride that the attackers took in being Internet stars. In one, a man wearing white pants and a bright pink sweater beat a Muslim man to death with a stick and sets him on fire, accusing him of committing “love jihad”: falling in love with a Hindu woman. After recording the murder, the attacker turns to the camera and says, “I am appealing to all Hindu sisters that don’t get into the trap of these jihadis. These people will win your heart and satisfy their lust.”

Then they find the video of Pehlu’s murder.

Updating to add: for further reading, HRW’s report on vigilante groups who murder cattle herders, and their links to the BJP.



Have we hit bottom yet?

Mar 5th, 2019 11:37 am | By

Sarah Sanders issues a statement on the investigation of her boss’s racketeering.

“Killing babies.”

This is an official executive branch statement.



A terrible example for Donnie Junior

Mar 5th, 2019 11:06 am | By

These days Trump is all about the “No YOU are!”

This week, however, the current president seems to have taken his fondness for projection to a new level.

Friday, March 1: Facing allegations that he’s committed a variety of crimes, Trump insisted “real crimes were committed” by Democrats. He echoed the argument two days later.

Sunday, March 3: After House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) raised the prospect of Trump running afoul of the law, Trump tweeted that Schiff may have run afoul of the law.

Tuesday, March 5: Accused of obstructing justice, Trump said via Twitter that Democrats “are obstructing justice.”

You know how it is – he hears an exciting new phrase so he has to try it out a lot, and the Twitter is just lying there so why not use it?

It’s unsettling just how often this comes up.

Take the Russia scandal, for example. Confronted with allegations that his political operation colluded with Russian attackers, Trump said Democrats colluded with Russia. Told that the Kremlin supported his candidacy, Trump responded by saying Russia supported Democrats. Accused of being a manipulated pawn for Vladimir Putin, Trump accused Barack Obama of being Putin’s “patsy.”

As we discussed last summer, like an intemperate child, his I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I instincts are finely tuned after extensive practice.

Well in all fairness it doesn’t take a whole lot of practice to know how to swap “Democrats” for “Trump” in every sentence. Even Trump can figure out how that works without too much brow-furrowing.

Look no further than the 2016 campaign: whenever Hillary Clinton would criticize Trump, it was a near certainty that Trump would then made the identical accusation against Clinton. After a while, as regular readers may recall, this got a little creepy.

Clinton accused Trump of being unstable and reckless, so Trump said Clinton is “unstable” and “reckless.” Clinton said Trump mistreated women, so Trump saidClinton mistreated women. Clinton accused Trump of bigotry, so Trump said Clinton’s a “bigot.” Clinton questioned Trump’s temperament, so Trump said Clinton had a bad “temperament.” Clinton said Trump makes a poor role model for children, so Trump said Clinton sets “a terrible example for my son and the children in this country.”

Hahahahahahahahahahaha that’s genuinely funny.