A friend of mine posted a couple of photos together under the heading “Two presidents, two Thanksgivings.”

Trump phoned the troops to boost morale and express thanks.

Or he meant to, or he was supposed to, but it didn’t come out quite right.

President Donald Trump struck a nakedly political tone during a Thanksgiving call with US service members stationed around the world as he steered the conversation toward controversial political topics.

Speaking with a US general in Afghanistan, Trump likened the fight against terrorists to his efforts to prevent a group of migrants from illegally entering the United States, and he assailed federal judges who have ruled against his administration. The President also pressed the commanding officer of a Coast Guard ship in Bahrain on trade before touting his trade policies and arguing that “every nation in the world is taking advantage of us.”

Who wouldn’t want to take a call like that? So festive, so grateful, so empathetic.

“This was, sadly, predictable and avoidable,” said retired Rear Adm. John Kirby, a CNN military and diplomatic analyst. “The President’s conduct on that call, the manner in which he politicized it, demonstrated an utter and complete disregard for what military service means.”

And for what his relationship to it is supposed to be, and for any point of view that isn’t his. Other than that, great stuff.

Without evidence, he painted Air Force Gen. David Lyons as a proponent of his hardline immigration policies after Lyons said US troops are fighting in Afghanistan to prevent terrorists from reaching “our shores again.”

“Large numbers of people are forming at our border and I don’t even have to ask you, I know what you want to do, you want to make sure that you know who we’re letting in. And we’re not letting in anybody essentially because we want to be very, very careful,” Trump said, speaking to Lyons over the phone. “You’re right, you’re doing it over there. We’re doing it over here.”

See what he did? He took Lyons’s statement about fighting in Afghanistan to prevent terrorists from reaching the US again and pretended it was exactly parallel to repelling asylum seekers from Central America. Here’s the thing: Islamist terrorists are not Central American asylum seekers and vice versa. (Is it possible that terrorists could pretend to be asylum seekers? Yes. Is that a reason for one ignorant president to violate the law on asylum seekers? No.)

The topic brought Trump to another familiar airing of grievances, as he complained over the phone to the general that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has “become a big thorn in our side.”

“It’s a terrible thing when judges take over your protective services, when they tell you how to protect your border. It’s a disgrace,” Trump said. “It’s a disgrace.”

I’m sure that boosted the troops’ morale no end.

After he hung up Trump went on ranting at the reporters present about the court and the border and closing the whole entire border and yadda yadda. And then the “who can possibly know?” issue again.

Trump also once again undermined the CIA’s assessment that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was responsible for the murder of Khashoggi, insisting the agency did not conclude bin Salman was responsible.

“They have not concluded. Nobody’s concluded. I don’t know if anybody’s going to be able to conclude that the crown prince did it,” Trump said. “They said he might have done it. That’s a big difference.”

And yet…Trump knew for certain that the Central Park 5 were guilty before the trial and also after DNA evidence emerged and their convictions were thrown out. Somehow he can know unknowable things when he wants to, and other people cannot when he wants them not to. Convenient.

At one point, Trump was asked what he was most thankful for on this Thanksgiving.

“For having a great family and for having made a tremendous difference in this country,” Trump said. “I’ve made a tremendous difference in the country. This country is so much stronger now than it was when I took office that you wouldn’t believe it.”

So, long story short, he’s grateful for himself. Cool.

17 year old Sudanese girl sold to the highest bidder:

Five hundred cows, two luxury cars, $10,000, two bikes, a boat and a few cell phones made up the final price in a heated bidding war for a child bride in South Sudan that went viral after the auction was pointed out on Facebook. It is the largest dowry ever paid in the civil war-torn country, the government said.

The highest bidder was a man three times the 17-year-old’s age. At least four other men in Eastern Lakes state competed, said Philips Anyang Ngong, a human rights lawyer who tried to stop the bidding last month. Among the bidders was the state’s deputy governor.

“She has been reduced to a mere commodity,” Ngong told The Associated Press, calling it “the biggest test of child abuse, trafficking and auctioning of a human being.” Everyone involved should be held accountable, he said.

But he’s a human rights lawyer – he has a conflict of interest. His interest in protecting human rights is in conflict with the girl’s family’s desire for money and goodies, and the winner’s desire to fuck her. The lawyer is what Trump stupidly calls “conflicted,” so he should have no say in the matter. They should get someone who has no interest in human rights to take over from Ngong.

Earlier this month, Nyalong became the man’s ninth wife. Photos posted on Facebook show her sitting beside the groom, wearing a lavish dress and staring despondently at the floor. The AP is using only her first name to protect her identity.

On Facebook, please note. Facebook suspends people for wrongthink on trans dogma, it “investigates” George Soros for criticizing Facebook, but selling female human beings is copacetic.

The bidding war has caused local and international outrage. It took several days for Facebook to remove the post that first pointed out the auction, and after it was taken down other posts “glorifying” the situation remained, George Otim, country director for Plan International South Sudan, told the AP.

Facebook ignored a request for comment.

While South Sudan’s government condemns the practice of child marriage it says it can’t regulate communities’ cultural norms, especially in remote areas.

“You can’t call it bidding as if it was an auction. It’s not bidding. If you see it with European eyes you’ll call it an auction,” government spokesman Ateny Wek Ateny told the AP. “You have to see it with an African eye, as it’s a tradition that goes back thousands of years. There’s no word for it in English.”

That’s an interesting point, because it can cut either way. It’s not surprising to learn that the people who practice it don’t call it by a pejorative (in context) name, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the name doesn’t fit. Naming is always contested.

Some local lawmakers and activists disagree. In a statement released this week, the National Alliance for Women Lawyers in South Sudan called upon officials to comply with the government’s plan to end child marriage by 2030. Ending the practice includes putting a stop to the auctioning of girls.

South Sudan’s anti-human trafficking chief called the case reminiscent of others he has seen across the country, in which girls are forced or tricked into marriage after being told they are going to live with relatives and go to school instead.

As those girls in Michigan were tricked into genital mutilation after being told they were going for a fun trip to the city. Funny how it’s always the girls, isn’t it…

Anna Denejkina at Foreign Policy on Russia’s decriminalization of violence against women:

The numbers of dead are staggering: 14,000 Russian women die annually from domestic violence-related injuries.

That’s about 38 women killed every day, almost two women every single hour, and one every 40 minutes. Making matters worse, Russia’s political system condones such violence.

In 2017, according to Human Rights Watch, up to 36,000 Russian women and 26,000 children faced daily violence and abuse. And most of the time—perhaps as much as 91 percent, according to 2013 data from the ANNA Center for the Prevention of Violence—the aggressor is a woman’s husband. Domestic violence is so common, in fact, that it affects one in four Russian families, according to ANNA. Two-thirds of all homicides in Russia are linked to domestic and family issues, and incidents of domestic assault on women and children increased by 20 percent between 2010 and 2015.

So what did the government do as violence against women and children increased? Made it legal.

In early 2017, the State Duma, the lower house of Russia’s Federal Assembly, decriminalized some forms of domestic violence, meaning that first-time offenses against a partner or child bear a fine rather than a criminal charge and trial.

The controversial bill was backed by the Russian Orthodox Church, which has historically advocated for less government interference in household matters. The church’s commission on family affairs even stated in 2015 that it considers the term “domestic violence” to be a tool used by radical feminists. It similarly maintains that the West is behind efforts to make domestic violence a crime in Russia.

In other words, laydeez, in case you’re too stupid to grasp the point, the Church is fine with your husbands, fathers, brothers, sons assaulting you. The Church considers it a household matter, and nobody else’s business. If the nearest male decides you are being insubordinate, he is entitled to punish you physically. Sucks to be you, doesn’t it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who officially signed the measure (known as the “slapping law”) into law on Feb. 7, 2017, has a poor record on women’s rights. Since his first presidential term in 2000, Putin has partnered with the Russian Orthodox Church to promote traditional conservative values, oppose LGBTQIA rights, and condemn feminism.

Now that the slapping law is on the books, women have few protections from domestic violence. Police are unlikely to interfere in attacks unless they cause “substantial bodily harm,” as per the new law. And already, according to Human Rights Watch, police are starting to refuse to investigate women’s reports of domestic violence. This marks a return to the treatment of women in the 1990s, when the police and authorities simply refused to get involved in family matters, and spells more violence to come.

But don’t jump to the conclusion that Russia doesn’t care about law n order. Not a bit of it.

Even as women and children lose protection from domestic violence, those who speak out against it have increasingly been handed criminal charges themselves. Feminist blogger Lyubov Kalugina, for example, was recently charged with inciting hatred toward men and now faces up to five years in prison.

The investigation and resulting charges were triggered when an anonymous man complained that her posts, including a meme that showed a woman holding a frying pan with the words “Beat up a brute, save Russia!” beneath, insulted him as a male. In other words, a woman who posted a mildly humorous meme may serve five years in prison. A man who beats up his partner may only be asked to pay a small fine—if the assault is even reported, as only 10 percent are.

Violence against women is necessary discipline; jokes about violence against men are treason.

A judge in Detroit has ruled a federal law against FGM unconstitutional…

…thereby dismissing the key charges against two Michigan doctors and six others accused of subjecting at least nine minor girls to the cutting procedure in the nation’s first FGM case.

The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.

Some? Surely they all bled, and cried and screamed too.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that “as despicable as this practice may be,” Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 30 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

Well, cool. Let’s ban it in New York and California but allow it in Texas and Mississippi. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that “as despicable as this practice may be,” Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 30 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

“As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be … federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute,” Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: “Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM … FGM is a ‘local criminal activity’ which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress.”

“Tradition” can’t stop Trump firing Comey and Sessions and installing a corrupt hack as Acting Attorney General, but by god it can stop the government saying people can’t cut girls’ genitalia off.

For FGM survivor and social activist Mariya Taher, who heads a campaign out of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to ban FGM worldwide, Friedman’s ruling was a punch to the gut.

“Oh my God, this is crazy,”  said Taher, stressing she fears the ruling will put more young women in harm’s way. “Unfortunately, this is going to embolden those who believe that this must be continued … they’ll feel that this is permission, that it’s OK to do this.”

Taher, who, at 7, was subjected to the same type of religious cutting procedure that’s at issue in the Michigan case, said she doesn’t expect laws alone to end FGM. But they are needed, she stressed.

“This is a violation of one person’s human rights. It’s  a form of gender violence. … This is cultural violence,” 35-year-old Taher said.

Yasmeen Hassan, executive global director for Equality Now, an international women’s rights organization,  agreed, saying the ruling sends a disturbing message to women and girls.

“It says you are not important,” Hassan said, calling the ruling a “federal blessing” for FGM.

…

Friedman’s ruling also drew the ire of Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.

“I’m angry that the federal judge dismissed this horrific case that affected upwards of a hundred girls who were brutally victimized and attacked against their will,” Jones said in a statement, noting 23 states don’t have FGM laws.

“This is why it was so important for Michigan to act. We set a precedent that female genital mutilation will not be tolerated here, and we did so by passing a state law that comes with a 15-year felony punishment,” Jones said. “I hope other states will follow suit.”

This is one time a Republican has it exactly right.

Sussex University yesterday issued a new policy which has some rather tricky elements.

The University of Sussex has today (Tuesday 20 November) published a Trans Equality Policy Statement.

The equality policy statement reaffirms that the University will at no time discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression.

Well…what does that mean, exactly? Universities (and other institutions) shouldn’t discriminate against people on any grounds, should they. It’s right there in the words: discriminate against. Discrimination among is a different thing, and can be justified or not, depending on the particulars. Discrimination among can include extra help or reduced obligations; discrimination against clearly wouldn’t. So, great, University: don’t discriminate against people on any grounds.

The statement articulates the University’s position on inclusion for trans students and staff that is contained in its policies. It commits the University to treating all employees and students with respect, and seeks to provide a positive working and learning environment for everybody free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

Great. So let’s read the statement. It gives a list of promises.

= Requests to change name and gender on records will be handled promptly and staff and students will be made aware of any implications of the changes.

What if some smarty-boots student decides to make such a request every other day? Serious question. I can imagine being such a student and doing it to find out how they would deal with it.

Also the “students will be made aware” part is slightly creepy. Meaning what? All students will be instructed on the gender swap of one particular student whom they don’t necessarily even know? Why?

= The curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, and any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives.

What? So the university curriculum can’t include anything unpleasant about trans lives? And it can’t analyse or question the concept and the sub-concepts that shape it? It’s all yes yes happy happy, or nothing? Those are the choices?

= Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.

Oh. That’s interesting. Who decides what is “propaganda” as opposed to academic research or analysis? Or are they not even bothering with that and just calling everything “transphobic propaganda”? Seeing as how the more fanatical of the activists consider it transphobic to say that trans women are not literally women in every possible sense, that particular item looks very thought-control-like.

= We recognise that trans staff and students come from diverse backgrounds, and will strive to ensure they do not face discrimination on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression or in relation to other aspects of their identity, for example, their race, age, religion or belief, disability or sexual orientation. In addition, assumptions will not be made about the gender identity or gender expression of partners of trans staff or students.

Notice anything left out of those “aspects of their identity”? Sex. It’s ok to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sex, just not of their gender identity. If you’re one of those obstinate people who decline to agree that they have a “gender identity,” you’re out of luck – discrimination against you is ok.

Hooray for diversity, except for women. Women are terrible.

Pompeo is fine with it, because hey, cruel world.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to reporters after meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Meylut Cavusglu Tuesday afternoon, after President Trump released a statement saying the U.S. would stand with Saudi Arabia, regardless of what the intelligence community concludes about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s involvement in the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in October.

The CIA has assessed that Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, ordered the killing of Khashoggi, based mainly on an understanding of how the kingdom operates and the proximity of several participants in the killing to the heir-in-waiting, as well as the organizations involved.

While Trump has just thrown his stumpy little hands in the air and said “Who knows, who knows, no one can possibly know, now hand over the billions.”

Turkey has said it shared evidence with its partners, including the U.S., that shows it was a pre-meditated murder. The Turkish president has said it was a execution ordered from the “highest level” of the Saudi government.

“It’s a mean nasty world out there, the Middle East in particular,” Pompeo said. He said that the president’s chief concern was American safety. He said the “long, historic” relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia was critical for national security.

Pompeo also denied that Mr. Trump, in his statement about Khashoggi, suggested that the extrajudicial murder of a journalist was less important than U.S. security interests.

Can you say “non sequitur”?

Judge to Trump: no you can’t.

A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

I hear a chorus of Republicans in Congress…”What? Who, us? No we didn’t! That was that other Congress! We totally want Trump to drop the hammer on asylum seekers. It’s the American way!”

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

The White House said ok ok ok he can have his stupid press pass back, jeeeez. But he has to follow our new rules we just wrote down!

CNN dropped its lawsuit against the White House on Monday after officials told the network that they would restore reporter Jim Acosta’s press credentials as long as he abides by a series of new rules at presidential news conferences, including asking just one question at a time.

…

The White House’s move to restore Acosta’s pass, announced in a letter to the news network, appeared to be a capitulation to CNN in its brief legal fight against the administration…

…

Sanders and Shine said they had made a “final determination” that Acosta’s pass would be restored permanently as long as he followed new rules guiding reporters’ conduct at White House news conferences.

In a letter to Acosta, they wrote, “Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action” to remove the pass.

Among the rules: Reporters must ask only one question of the president at news conferences, but they can follow up with another if the president consents. A reporter must then “yield the floor,” including giving up a microphone. Failure to abide by these rules, the White House letter said, will result in revocation of a journalist’s White House pass.

Per White House letter to Acosta on Nov. 19, here are the new rules for press conferences at the White House. pic.twitter.com/a6C2pmLv2K

— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) November 19, 2018

Any rules about the president and the press secretary not lying? No, of course not.