Terry Gross talked to Roxane Gay yesterday.

GROSS: So when you were in college, you fell in love with theater. I guess earlier than that you fell in love with theater. You went to Yale, in part, because of their theater department. And you worked behind the scenes. Was that a way of being involved with storytelling and with people but also being kind of invisible because you were literally offstage?

GAY: Absolutely. It was a way of being a part of something because I’m not a joiner. I never was. And so I was never really interested in extracurriculars. I did them because that’s what you do to get into a good college. But theater is where I found my passion in being behind the scenes because I didn’t want to be seen. I just wanted to be useful. And technical theater allowed me that space. It was the – I had – the best memories I have of high school and the first two years of college are connected to theater.

GROSS: I suppose writing gives you that, too – the ability to say what you want and have people look at your work without looking physically at you.

GAY: Well that’s what I hoped.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: You’re too famous now. You can’t get away with it.

GAY: (Laughter) No.

GROSS: There’s the internet. And, you know, you travel all over, giving speeches. And you’re on TV. I mean, people know what you look like.

GAY: They do. You know, one of the many reasons I’m a writer is because I didn’t want to be, like, an actor on a stage or on the screen.

GROSS: (Laughter) Too late.

GAY: Whoops.

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: So how is that for you?

GAY: Oh, it’s – you know, I’m afraid of public speaking, so I’ve had to learn how to do it. And it’s gotten much better. And I actually do enjoy doing these events and connecting with audiences because I have a really passionate audience. And it’s a privilege to do. I hate doing television not because I’m on television but because when I go on TV, the amount of hate mail and the amount of trolling I get on social media is unbearable. And so I try not to make myself that kind of a target as often as possible.

GROSS: So when you’re trolled on the internet and social media, do you think that has to do at all with describing yourself as a feminist? Because there’s so much, like, anti-feminist trolling.

GAY: Oh, yeah. Like, I would say 40 percent of my trolling is because I’m a feminist. Thirty percent of my trolling is because I’m black. And 30 percent of my trolling is because I’m fat.

GROSS: I love that you have it broken down into percentages.

(LAUGHTER)

GAY: I do. I have so many trolls.

GROSS: Is there any percent where it’s, like, all three?

GAY: Oh, God, yes.

GROSS: They hate you because you’re black and feminist and fat?

(LAUGHTER)

GAY: Yeah. The Venn diagram of my trolls would be a circle.

It looks sort of brutal in the transcript, all that (LAUGHTER), but if you listen, it’s not.

GROSS: You’re a feminist. And you write…

GAY: I am.

GROSS: …(Reading) I’m a feminist, and I believe in doing away with the rigid beauty standards that force women to conform to unrealistic standards. And you also write, (reading) I’m not comfortable in my body. Nearly everything physical is difficult. So – and you say, as a fat woman, you’re not supposed to take up space. But as a feminist, you’re encouraged to believe you can take up space – so, again, more contradictions you have to deal with.

GAY: Always. I mean, you always want to be the best version of yourself and the best feminist you can be and as inclusive as you can be in your thinking and in your behaviors. At least for me, that’s something I want. But it’s really hard when you are also just human, and you are dealing with the world as it is and not as we would like it to be. And so I absolutely believe that people should be able to live in this world free from harassment and cruelty at any size and that people should be allowed to be healthy and happy at any size. But I struggle with it sometimes. I absolutely do.

It’s an interesting interview.

The BBC reports a horrifying statistic:

About 1,300 US children under the age of 17 die from gun-related injuries per year, a government study has found.

Researchers at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that guns seriously wounded about 5,800 children each year.

We’re horrified by all the people who died or were injured in Grenfell Tower, and this number dwarfs that.

“Firearm injuries are a leading cause of death among US children aged one to 17 years and contribute substantially each year to premature death, illness and disability of children,” said CDC’s Katherine Fowler, who led the study.

“About 19 children a day die or are medically treated in an emergency department for a gunshot wound in the US,” she told Reuters.

CDC researchers examined national data in what they describe as “the most comprehensive examination of current firearm-related deaths and injuries among children in the United States to date”.

The study found a 60% increase in gun suicides from 2007-15, according an analysis of national injury records.

A Grenfell Tower every few days, not because a tower block catches fire but because there are way too many guns floating around in this country.

Boy, that Shakespeare guy, he had a hell of a nerve, right? Insulting our president that way. Somebody ought to go spit on that church in Stratford – in Connecticut is it? Alabama? Idaho? I forget. Anyway they should, and all his novels should be banned out of the schools and libraries, and his descendants should be thrown out of their local churches what denominationsoever they may be. Plus those government art Nazis should all be fired.

Several theatres in the US have received threats and complaints after a show in New York depicted the assassination of a Julius Caesar made to look like President Donald Trump.

Messages wished death upon theatre staff at unrelated establishments in an apparent mix-up.

It appears complainers did not check which theatre they were angry about.

Never mind that, smarty, it’s all part of the same conspiracy.

Although the show’s run has now ended, protesters have been getting in touch with theatres with Shakespeare in the name to voice their disgust.

Shakespeare Dallas, in Texas, has had 90 emails, while Shakespeare & Company in Massachusetts has had nearly 50, plus about 10 angry phone calls.

I should hope so. That guy was a Democrat, and a Muslim, and a faggot, and a witch-hunter, and an FBI director. He was a bad hombre.

Shakespeare & Company shared some of the messages with the BBC. (Some have been edited to remove swearing.) They included:

• “Your play depicting the murder of our President is nothing but pure hatred. You are vial [sic] despicable excuses for human beings. I wish you all the worst possible life you could have and hope you all get sick and die.”

• “Hope you all who did this play about Trump are the first to die when ISIS COMES TO YOU… scumbags.”

• “What exactly were you idiots thinking about producing a play that depicts the killing of our President? Does anyone over there have an ounce of morality, decency, and or common sense? Your organization is a disgrace to the community and to the arts. If you have a problem with the president protest, as is your constitutional right or just vote him out. I will do my best to ensure taxpayers’ dollars are not used in the future to fund your disrespect and stupidity!”

And your dressing rooms, and your roof, and your costume department, so there!

Roshan Salih of 5Pillars is defaming Sara Khan and Maajid Nawaz by way of responding to the Finsbury Park terror. The result of course is that horrible people are rushing to harass and abuse them.

1. The Islamophobia industry – Maajid Nawaz, Sara Khan, Tommy Robinson, Douglas Murray, Katie Hopkins, Melanie Phillips #FinsburyPark

— Roshan M Salih (@RmSalih) June 19, 2017

That’s simply a lie, a Trump-level lie. Sara and Maajid are Muslims, so what sense does it make to call them part of “the Islamophobia industry”? Advocacy of reform≠hatred or phobia.

Katie Hopkins & Tommy Robinson should be serving jail time for inciting hatred, Maajid Nawaz & Sara Khan should be no platformed by media

— Roshan M Salih (@RmSalih) June 19, 2017

For…? For not inciting hatred, perhaps? And what of the hatred Roshan Salih is inciting?

Paul Krugman is scathing about the Republican senators’ super-secret take-away-health-care bill.

Last month House Republicans rammed through one of the worst, cruelest pieces of legislation in history. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the American Health Care Act would take coverage away from 23 million Americans, and send premiums soaring for millions more, especially older workers with relatively low incomes.

This bill is, as it should be, wildly unpopular. Nonetheless, Republican Senate leaders are now trying to ram through their own version of the A.H.C.A., one that, all reports suggest, will differ only in minor, cosmetic ways. And they’re trying to do it in total secrecy. It appears that there won’t be any committee hearings before the bill goes to the floor. Nor are senators receiving draft text, or anything beyond a skeletal outline. Some have reportedly seen PowerPoint presentations, but the “slides are flashed across the screens so quickly that they can hardly be committed to memory.”

Clearly, the goal is to pass legislation that will have devastating effects on tens of millions of Americans without giving those expected to pass it, let alone the general public, any real chance to understand what they’re voting for. There are even suggestions that Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, might exploit loopholes in the rules to prevent any discussion on the Senate floor.

Evil, isn’t it.

When it comes to the Republican replacement for Obamacare, however, it’s not just the process that’s secretive; so is the purpose. Vox.com asked eight Republican senators what problem the legislation is supposed to solve, and how it’s supposed to solve it. Not one offered a coherent answer.

Of course, none brought up the one obvious payoff to taking health care away from millions: a big tax cut for the wealthy.

It’s their One True Thing – keep making the extremely rich even richer. It’s a bonus to get to fuck over the poor and middling to do it, but the core goal is to keep feeding more billions to the billionaires.

Oh guess what, the cladding on Grenfell Tower that went up like a torch wasn’t supposed to be there.

The cladding used on Grenfell Tower, which has been widely blamed for spreading the blaze, is banned in the UK on buildings of that height, Philip Hammond has said.

The chancellor told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show: “My understanding is the cladding in question, this flammable cladding which is banned in Europe and the US, is also banned here.

“So there are two separate questions. One: are our regulations correct, do they permit the right kind of materials and ban the wrong kind of materials? The second question is: were they correctly complied with?

“That will be a subject that the inquiry will look at. It will also be a subject that the criminal investigation will be looking at.”

Regulations are there for a reason…

What qualities does one need to be a good leader? Prudence Gourguechon discovered that it’s not easy to find definitive answers to that question.

Although there are volumes devoted to outlining criteria for psychiatric disorders, there is surprisingly little psychiatric literature defining mental capacity, even less on the particular abilities required for serving in positions of great responsibility. Despite the thousands of articles and books written on leadership, primarily in the business arena, I have found only one source where the capacities necessary for strategic leadership are clearly and comprehensively laid out: the U.S. Army’s “Field Manual 6-22 Leader Development.”

That makes sense. They really need to know.

The Army’s field manual on leadership is an extraordinarily sophisticated document, founded in sound psychological research and psychiatric theory, as well as military practice. It articulates the core faculties that officers, including commanders, need in order to fulfill their jobs. From the manual’s 135 dense pages, I have distilled five crucial qualities:

Trust

According to the Army, trust is fundamental to the functioning of a team or alliance in any setting: “Leaders shape the ethical climate of their organization while developing the trust and relationships that enable proper leadership.” A leader who is deficient in the capacity for trust makes little effort to support others, may be isolated and aloof, may be apathetic about discrimination, allows distrustful behaviors to persist among team members, makes unrealistic promises and focuses on self-promotion.

I assumed before I read the paragraph that “trust” meant the trust of others in the leader, but no, it means the leader’s ability to trust other people. That’s very interesting.

Discipline and self-control

…The disciplined leader does not have emotional outbursts or act impulsively, and he maintains composure in stressful or adverse situations.

…In psychiatry, we talk about “filters” — neurologic braking systems that enable us to appropriately inhibit our speech and actions even when disturbing thoughts or powerful emotions are present. Discipline and self-control require that an individual has a robust working filter, so that he doesn’t say or do everything that comes to mind.

Aka impulse control aka self-inhibition. It’s that prefrontal thing that takes so long to develop.

Judgment and critical thinking

These are complex, high-level mental functions that include the abilities to discriminate, assess, plan, decide, anticipate, prioritize and compare. A leader with the capacity for critical thinking “seeks to obtain the most thorough and accurate understanding possible,” the manual says, and he anticipates “first, second and third consequences of multiple courses of action.” A leader deficient in judgment and strategic thinking demonstrates rigid and inflexible thinking.

The fourth is self-awareness, aka knowing one’s own faults.

Empathy

Perhaps surprisingly, the field manual repeatedly stresses the importance of empathy as an essential attribute for Army leadership. A good leader “demonstrates an understanding of another person’s point of view” and “identifies with others’ feelings and emotions.” The manual’s description of inadequacy in this area: “Shows a lack of concern for others’ emotional distress” and “displays an inability to take another’s perspective.”

It’s not all that surprising, really, since a leader by definition has to interact with people. An engineer can do without empathy, but a leader not so much.

People are walking away.

Six members of the group that advises the White House on HIV and Aids have quit their posts – claiming that the Trump administration does not care about the issue.

In a letter of resignation that was published on a US news site, the experts claimed the government had no meaningful policy on tackling Aids, failed to listen to advice from those working in the field, and actually promoted legislation that harmed individuals living with the disease.

Other than that, everything’s great.

“We have dedicated our lives to combating this disease and no longer feel we can do so effectively within the confines of an advisory body to a president who simply does not care,” wrote Scott Schoettes, project director at Lambda Legal, a New York-based LGBTQ-rights group and a member of the advisory panel.

The council members said that Mr Trump took down the Office of National Aids Policy website when he took office and had failed to appoint anyone to lead the White House Office of National Aids Policy.

“We will be more effective from the outside, advocating for change and protesting policies that will hurt the health of the communities we serve and the country as a whole if this administration continues down the current path,” the letter said.

Don’t worry, he’s making Murica great again.

Inside Higher Ed reports:

The Department of Education last week outlined changes to civil rights investigations that advocates fear will mean less consistent findings of systemic discrimination at colleges.

Under the Obama administration, certain types of civil rights complaints would trigger broader investigations of whether a pattern of discrimination existed at a school or college.

But Candice Jackson, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, told regional directors for the Office for Civil Rights in a memo that the Department of Education would no longer follow those guidelines. In detailing the latest civil rights shift under Secretary Betsy DeVos, Jackson wrote that the department was setting aside existing rules and empowering investigators with more discretion to clear case backlogs and address complaints in a timely manner.

Ah yes. Treating everything as a one off does indeed speed things up. Consider Grenfell Tower for instance. If there’s no need to see it as part of a pattern of saving money by not getting the fire retardant building material, then it becomes just a matter of tidying up and moving on.

The shift is significant because many of the violations OCR has found in recent years have involved systemic issues that go beyond the original complaint that prompted investigators to look into a college or school.

Former department officials and advocates for victims of discrimination say it’s critical to examine individual cases in the context of wider practices at an institution — and to apply that standard consistently across various OCR offices.

That’s critical unless you’re a libertarian. If you’re a libertarian, there’s no such thing as a “wider practice.” All is random and uncaused, a matter of free people freely choosing, and there’s no need to look for patterns and explanations.

Let’s look back at a little history: the FBI and the Kennedy brothers versus Martin Luther King.

Beveryl Gage starts with a typed anonymous letter sent to King in late 1964.

The unnamed author suggests intimate knowledge of his correspondent’s sex life, identifying one possible lover by name and claiming to have specific evidence about others. Another passage hints of an audiotape accompanying the letter, apparently a recording of “immoral conduct” in action. “Lend your sexually psychotic ear to the enclosure,” the letter demands. It concludes with a deadline of 34 days “before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.”

“There is only one thing left for you to do,” the author warns vaguely in the final paragraph. “You know what it is.”

When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. received this letter, nearly 50 years ago, he quietly informed friends that someone wanted him to kill himself — and he thought he knew who that someone was. Despite its half-baked prose, self-conscious amateurism and other attempts at misdirection, King was certain the letter had come from the F.B.I. Its infamous director, J. Edgar Hoover, made no secret of his desire to see King discredited. A little more than a decade later, the Senate’s Church Committee on intelligence overreach confirmed King’s suspicion.

Why? Because Communists.

The F.B.I.’s entanglement with King began not as an inquiry into his sex life but as a “national security” matter, one step removed from King himself. In 1961, the bureau learned that a former Communist Party insider named Stanley Levison had become King’s closest white adviser, serving him as a ghostwriter and fund-raiser. The following year, Attorney General Robert Kennedy approved wiretaps on Levison’s home and office, and the White House advised King to drop his Communist friend.

Or, according to John Meroney in The Atlantic in 2011, they told him to.

In the summer of 1963, Hoover wasn’t the only one preoccupied with King. So was the Kennedy White House. That was because one of King’s closest advisers, Stanley David Levison, and another man who ran one of King’s offices, Jack O’Dell, were secret Communist Party operatives. For at least a year, the president and his attorney general brother had been receiving classified data, transcripts of wiretapped telephone calls (which they sanctioned), and intelligence reports confirming the men’s affiliation with the Soviet-controlled Party. This information also chronicled the work they were then doing for King.

President Kennedy didn’t worry about an espionage leak, or that the men would necessarily insert propaganda into King’s speeches—although some King advisers apparently did see to it that King’s plans to criticize communism (“that it was an alien philosophy contrary to us,” is how King said he intended to describe it) were scrapped. Rather, the president feared the political fall-out that would come if it were revealed that the nation’s foremost civil rights leader had advisers with ties to the Soviet Union. In May, President Kennedy told his brother he didn’t want the minister anywhere near him. “King is so hot that it’s like Marx coming to the White House,” he says on a White House tape.

But by June, the president had grown weary of the risks King was causing him and decided to have a come-to-Jesus meeting with the minister in Washington. In the Rose Garden, he exhorted King that Levison, was, as Kennedy described him, a “Kremlin agent.” Get rid of him, demanded the president.

Newt Gingrich spelled out the core issue while chatting at the National Press Club:

By the way, technically, the president of the United States cannot obstruct justice. President of the United States is the chief executive officer of the United States: if he wants to fire the FBI director, all he’s gotta do’s fire him.

And yet, as many many people rushed to point out, that’s sure as hell not what Gingrich was saying when it was Bill Clinton in the cross-hairs. At that time he said the opposite.

So, is it bullshit, or is it true?

Clearly as a matter of outcome, it depends on who has the votes. As a matter of brute fact, it depends on power, not law and not morality.

But as a matter of moral fact? Yes of course the president can obstruct justice, and obviously Trump is trying hard to do just that.

Absurdly, Gingrich goes on to give what he calls a “very good test”:

If John F Kennedy had fired J Edgar Hoover over investigating and wiretapping Martin Luther King Junior, would people have thought it was obstruction. [smug nod]

John F Kennedy wasn’t the same person as Martin Luther King, so no, that is not a “very good test”; it’s a ridiculous test. Trump is trying to obstruct an investigation of himself.