They tossed the dead babies into the septic tank

Mar 8th, 2017 4:36 pm | By

Emer O’Toole on the church’s “surprise” about the finding of remains of hundreds of babies in a septic tank at the Tuam mother and baby home:

A state-established commission of inquiry into mother and baby homes recently located the site in a structure that “appears to be related to the treatment/containment of sewage and/or waste water”, but which we are not supposed to call a septic tank.

The archbishop of Tuam, Michael Neary, says he is “deeply shocked and horrified”. Deeply. Because what could the church have known about the abuse of children in its instutions? When Irish taoiseach Enda Kenny was asked if he was similarly shocked, he answered: “Absolutely. To think you pass by the location on so many occasions over the years.” To think. Because what would Kenny, in Irish politics since the 70s, know about state-funded, church-perpetrated abuse of women and children? Even the commission of inquiry – already under critique by the UN – said in its official statement that it was “shocked by this discovery”.

Shocked shocked gambling in this establishment.

If I am shocked, it is by the pretence of so much shock. When Corless discovered death certificates for 796 children at the home between 1925 and 1961 but burial records for only two, it was clear that hundreds of bodies existed somewhere. They did not, after all, ascend into heaven like the virgin mother. Corless then uncovered oral histories from reliable local witnesses, offering evidence of where those children’s remains could be found. So what did the church and state think had happened? That the nuns had buried the babies in a lovely wee graveyard somewhere, but just couldn’t remember where?

Or maybe the church and state are expressing shock that nuns in mid-20th century Ireland could have so little regard for the lives and deaths of children in their care. The Ryan report in 2009 documented the systematic sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children in church-run, state-funded institutions.

The Ryan report makes painful reading. Generations of children were treated like so much garbage, but sentient garbage, who could feel the torture that was being meted out by the church’s employees.

The same year, the Murphy report on the sexual abuse of children in the archdiocese of Dublin revealed that the Catholic church’s priorities in dealing with paedophilia were not child welfare, but rather secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of its reputation and the preservation of church assets. In 2013, the McAleese reportdocumented the imprisonment of more than 10,000 women in church-run, state-funded laundries, where they worked in punitive industrial conditions without pay for the crime of being unmarried mothers.

All this loathing of women and their babies, in a country that still doesn’t allow abortion.

So you will forgive me if I am sceptical of the professed shock of Ireland’s clergy, politicians and official inquiring bodies. We know too much about the Catholic church’s abuse of women and children to be shocked by Tuam. A mass grave full of the children of unmarried mothers is an embarrassing landmark when the state is still paying the church to run its schools and hospitals. Hundreds of dead babies are not an asset to those invested in the myth of an abortion-free Ireland; they inconveniently suggest that Catholic Ireland always had abortions, just very late-term ones, administered slowly by nuns after the children were already born.

As Ireland gears up for a probable referendum on abortion rights as well as a strategically planned visit from the pope, it may be time to stop acting as though the moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the Catholic church are news to us. You can say you don’t care, but – after the Ryan report, the Murphy report, the McAleese report, the Cloyne report, the Ferns report, the Raphoe report and now Tuam – you don’t get to pretend that you don’t know.

Two members of my family were born in the Tuam home, lived short lives there, and are likely lying in that septic tank – sorry, in that structure that “appears to be related to the treatment/containment of sewage and/or waste water”. Their mother died young, weakened from her time in the custody of the church. Because of this I understand that otherwise good, kind people in Ireland handed power over women and children’s lives to an institution they knew was abusive. And I wrestle with the reality that – in our schools and hospitals – we’re still handing power over women and children’s lives to the Catholic church. Perhaps, after Tuam, after everything, that’s what’s really shocking.

I’d say so.

H/t Maureen



CEDAW tells Ireland to do better

Mar 8th, 2017 4:23 pm | By

The UN says Ireland’s investigation into mother and baby homes isn’t good enough.

It says the Commission of Investigation as established may not uncover all abuses inflicted on women and girls in these homes, the perpetrators of which should be “prosecuted and punished”.

In its “concluding observations” report – following examination of Ireland last month – the UN Committee on the elimination of discrimination against women (CEDAW) says Ireland has, “failed to establish an independent, thorough and effective investigation, in line with international standards, into all allegations of abuse, ill-treatment or neglect of women and children in the Magdalene laundries in order [to] establish the role of the State and church in the perpetration of alleged violations”.

The terms of reference for the commission of investigation into the homes, “is narrow such that it does not cover all homes and analogous institutions [and] therefore may not address the whole spectrum of abuses perpetrated against women and girls”.

“The committee therefore urges the State party to conduct prompt, independent and thorough investigations, in line with international human rights standards, into all allegations of abuse in Magdalene laundries, children’s institutions, Mother and Baby homes, and symphysiotomy in order to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of those involved in violations of women’s rights”.

It continues that “all victims/survivors of such abuse [should] obtain an effective remedy including appropriate compensation, official apologies, restitution, satisfaction and rehabilitative services”.

Even though they’re only women.



A succession of frantic staff conference calls

Mar 8th, 2017 11:56 am | By

Words and meanings. So slippery.

Like, the things that people who work for Trump say when reporters ask about the wiretap tweets.

“I don’t know anything about it,” John F. Kelly, the homeland security secretary, said on CNN on Monday. Mr. Kelly shrugged and added that “if the president of the United States said that, he’s got his reasons to say it.”

Well yes, of course he has his reasons to say it – but are they good reasons? Reasons can be anything. His reasons can be that he’s an angry petulant narcissistic little man who hates and resents Obama because Obama is so much better than he is on pretty much any dimension you can think of. His reasons can be that he’s a loathsome malevolent racist shit who hates Obama for loathsome malevolent racist shitty reasons. His reasons can be that he’s totally fucking up his presidency and he’s angry about that and he felt like lashing out.

His poor staff though. He does these things and they have to jump as if electrocuted.

Mr. Trump’s Twitter posts, viewed with amazement outside the West Wing bubble, often create crises on the inside. That was never truer than when Mr. Trump began posting from his weekend retreat at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida shortly after sunrise on Saturday.

His groggy staff realized quickly that this was no typical Trump broadside, but an allegation with potentially far-reaching implications that threatened to derail a coming week that included the rollout of his redrafted travel ban and the unveiling of the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

It began at 6:35 a.m. with a Twitter post reading: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

Three other posts quickly followed, capped by a 7:02 rocket that read: “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!”

That led to a succession of frantic staff conference calls, including one consultation with the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, as staff members grasped the reality that the president had opened an attack on his predecessor.

Aw. There they were, sleeping late on a Saturday morning, and wham they had to jump up and have a bunch of conference calls. Nobody wants to wake up that way, especially on a Saturday.

Mr. Trump, advisers said, was in high spirits after he fired off the posts. But by midafternoon, after returning from golf, he appeared to realize he had gone too far, although he still believed Mr. Obama had wiretapped him, according to two people in Mr. Trump’s orbit.

Wow. He was all happy about it for hours. He’s that thick. It took him nearly all day to realize you actually shouldn’t accuse a former president of a felony with no evidence. On Twitter.

People close to Mr. Trump had seen the pattern before. The episode echoed repeated instances in the 2016 presidential campaign.

During the primary contests, Mr. Trump seized on a false National Enquirer article that raised a connection between the father of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and John F. Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Later, Mr. Trump justified it to skeptical campaign aides by saying, “Even if it isn’t totally true, there’s something there,” according to a former campaign official.

I guess that’s his much-vaunted (by him) skill at “negotiation”? He puts out a flaming lie as a starting point and then bargains down so that he’s left with a smaller lie? As if that’s what truth is, something you can negotiate?



Wording

Mar 8th, 2017 11:28 am | By

Point of order.

The word is not “close-minded.” It’s “closed-minded.”

I see the former written more and more, no doubt because the two sound alike when spoken. But come on – what would “close-minded” even mean? The mind in question is closed, to new ideas or information or argument. It’s a Trump-style mind.

Thank you for your compliance in this matter.



Mass die-off of Russian diplomats

Mar 8th, 2017 10:47 am | By

I saw dark murmurs about a pattern on Facebook a couple of days ago and wasn’t sure how well founded they were, but now that the Independent is murmuring

When Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations died suddenly in New York last week, he became the sixth Russian diplomat to die unexpectedly since November, leaving internet conspiracy theorists trying to spot a pattern.

Vitaly Churkin, 64, was rushed to hospital from his office at Russia’s UN mission on 20 February, after becoming ill without warning on his way in to work.

It was initially reported that Mr Churkin may have suffered a heart attack, but following an autopsy medical examiners said the death required further study.

Media company Axios note that not only is Mr Churkin’s death unexplained, but it is also remarkably similar to the deaths of Russia’s Ambassador to India on 27 January, the country’s consul in Athens on 9 January, and a Russian diplomat in New York on US election day, 8 November.

Those three were also called heart attacks or, cryptically, the result of “brief illnesses.”

It could be just a meaningless cluster. On the other hand, Putin.

Two more diplomats died more clearly violent deaths in the same period: Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was assassinated by in Ankara at a photography exhibition on 19 December, and on the same day another diplomat, Petr Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment.

Additionally, an ex-KGB chief, Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping a British spy draft a dossier on Donald Trump, was found dead in the back of his car on boxing day, 26 December. Mr Erovinkin also was an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned oil company Rosneft.

Meaningless cluster or Putin?



And they don’t tip. They dont. They never do.

Mar 7th, 2017 5:39 pm | By

Samantha Bee and Jo Miller were on Fresh Air yesterday; it was good.

An excerpt:

Jo Miller is the head writer and showrunner.

GROSS: Let’s get back to, Jo, your work studying medieval Jewish history and planning to become a history teacher or a history professor. Was there a part of you thinking, what I really want to do is comedy, but I can’t do that…

MILLER: Yes.

GROSS: …I can’t become a comedian or a comic writer, so I’d better just keep to history?

MILLER: Yes. Yes.

GROSS: Why did you think that?

MILLER: Because I’m a girl.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: I hate myself like girls do. That’s exactly why. I was in – well, when Lizz Winstead started “The Daily Show” in 1996, and I was watching it from day one. And I had these little fantasies of going to work for Lizz Winstead. But that’s all it was, was a fantasy. I later did work for Lizz Winstead on “Wake Up World,” and she taught me so much. She’s a wonderful person.

When I was at “The Daily Show,” we would have interns, college kids every semester. And at the end, they would gather in the writers lounge and – to ask us questions. And we’d ask them questions about what they wanted to do. They’d be half men, half women. And if you – we’d ask them, do you want to be a writer? And go down the line. And the men would all say, yeah. I’m going to be a writer. I’m Jake (ph). I’m going to be a writer. I’m Carl (ph). I’m going to write. And the women would say, I’m Amanda. You know, maybe some day. I don’t know. I’m not good enough.

BEE: We’ll see. I mean…

MILLER: I’d like to. We’ll see.

BEE: …I don’t know. I might go into teaching.

MILLER: Yeah. And finally, one day I just had a meltdown. You know, somewhere between the unearned confidence of the men and the unjustified self-censorship of the women is the truth lies. Yes. Donna (ph), you were good enough. You just started. Do it, and you’ll get good. But – and we plucked some – our best writers out of other fields, like, you know, journalism, the best writers at “The Daily Show” like Tim Carvell, who’s running John Oliver’s show came from journalism.

And that’s – we’re not – the women are out there doing journalism, doing academics, doing social work, doing lawyer stuff. And we just have to find them because they’re sitting there like I was sitting in Ithaca going, I suck. Boy, it’d be fun to write for “The Daily Show” if I didn’t suck.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: They’re out there.

(LAUGHTER)

MILLER: It seems like a very far away dream.

BEE: Yes. It seems like a very far away dream.

MILLER: All the grad students who are listening – because every grad student in the world listens to this show, I know – try it. Put your stuff out on the internet. Put out YouTube videos. Put up – just put up your funny writings. Tweet funny things. Someone will find you.

GROSS: So, Sam, did you experience the kind of thing that Jo was talking about of thinking, like, I’m not good enough to actually be a comedian?

BEE: Oh, my God, of course. Oh, of course. I lived my whole life – I’ve been a fan of comedy and just like a very deep fan of comedy my entire life. But I never grew – I mean, I grew up in Canada, also. And, you know, comedy coming out of the United States is – it feels completely inaccessible.

I came to comedy very late in life for a comedy person – late 20s. It never occurred to me to do comedy in my entire life until someone literally forced me to do it – until friends who I’d worked on a play with needed to replace a woman in their sketch troupe, and they forced me to say yes to them and assured me that I would love it. And they were correct to do so, and I did love it. And it really changed the direction of my life. But – and I found that I was quite good at it, but someone had to force me into it.

MILLER: Maybe we need conscription if we introduced a draft.

BEE: Yeah (laughter).

MILLER: Force women into – because you and I were career waitresses.

BEE: Oh, yes. Oh, God, definitely.

GROSS: What kind of restaurants?

MILLER: Terrible ones.

BEE: Oh, God. I worked at pan – I worked on an all-night pancake house for a really long time and a terrible cockroach-infested seafood restaurant. I worked at a place where I had to wear a nametag. Aw, I don’t think it exists anymore. It was called Joe Badali’s in Toronto. And I had to wear a nametag that said Samantha Badali. I still have it.

GROSS: (Laughter).

MILLER: Wait. Like, you we’re all sister wives…

BEE: Every – we were all sister wives.

MILLER: …Or something?

BEE: Yeah. We were all…

MILLER: OK. That’s creepy.

BEE: …Joe’s wives – Joe’s concubines.

GROSS: Do you still have the waiter nightmares?

BEE: I still have waiter – I will never not have waiter nightmares.

MILLER: Yeah, still have them.

BEE: I honestly think that part of my very visceral reaction to Donald Trump is because I served so many people in the restaurant who were just like him. I have PTSD from it.

MILLER: Yeah. I worked in Washington.

GROSS: What do you mean when you say that? What are you picking up on?

MILLER: Douchey (ph).

BEE: A man in a suit – an arrogant business person in a suit.

MILLER: Oh, God, doing wine service for them…

BEE: Doing wine service.

MILLER: …Is the worst.

BEE: The man who is at the head of the table who says, if you give us good service tonight, I’ll give you a pretty sweet tip. Give us extra special service. I mean, that is…

MILLER: Hey, toots, right?

BEE: Yeah. It – its in my DNA (laughter).

MILLER: What do you like on the menu?

BEE: Oh (laughter). Do you serve grouper?

(LAUGHTER)

BEE: And they don’t tip. They dont. They never do.

MILLER: They don’t because nobody can see them signing the bill. So they’ll make a big, you know, show of taking the bill…

BEE: There’s a showmanship to it.

MILLER: …And put your 6 percent down.

BEE: The tip is very lean.

That’s good to know. It’s not at all surprising, but it’s good to know. Trump is like the most obnoxious kind of business bro who is annoying to the wait staff. Well of course he is.



These people were dressed in black and wore masks

Mar 7th, 2017 3:00 pm | By

Allison Stanger, a political scientist at Middlebury, wrote:

I agreed to participate in the event with Charles Murray, because several of my students asked me to do so. They are smart and good people, all of them, and this was their big event of the year. I actually welcomed the opportunity to be involved, because while my students may know I am a Democrat, all of my courses are nonpartisan, and this was a chance to demonstrate publicly my commitment to a free and fair exchange of views in my classroom. As the campus uproar about his visit built, I was genuinely surprised and troubled to learn that some of my faculty colleagues had rendered judgement on Dr. Murray’s work and character, while openly admitting that they had not read anything he had written. With the best of intentions, they offered their leadership to enraged students, and we all now know what the results were.

Charles Murray co-wrote the highly controversial The Bell Curve, published in 1994.

I want you to know what it feels like to look out at a sea of students yelling obscenities at other members of my beloved community. There were students and faculty who wanted to hear the exchange, but were unable to do so, either because of the screaming and chanting and chair-pounding in the room, or because their seats were occupied by those who refused to listen, and they were stranded outside the doors. I saw some of my faculty colleagues who had publicly acknowledged that they had not read anything Dr. Murray had written join the effort to shut down the lecture. All of this was deeply unsettling to me. What alarmed me most, however, was what I saw in student eyes from up on that stage. Those who wanted the event to take place made eye contact with me. Those intent on disrupting it steadfastly refused to do so. It was clear to me that they had effectively dehumanized me. They couldn’t look me in the eye, because if they had, they would have seen another human being. There is a lot to be angry about in America today, but nothing good ever comes from demonizing our brothers and sisters.

Things deteriorated from there as we went to another location in an attempt to salvage the event via live-stream for those who were still interested in engaging. I want you to know how hard it was for us to continue with fire alarms going off and enraged students and outside agitators banging on the windows. I thought they were going to break through, and I then wondered what would happen next. It is hard to think and listen in such an environment. I am proud that we somehow continued the conversation. Listen to the video and judge for yourself whether this was an event that should take place on a college campus.

When the event ended, and it was time to leave the building, I breathed a sigh of relief. We had made it. I was ready for dinner and conversation with faculty and students in a tranquil setting. What transpired instead felt like a scene from Homeland rather than an evening at an institution of higher learning. We confronted an angry mob as we tried to exit the building. Most of the hatred was focused on Dr. Murray, but when I took his right arm both to shield him from attack and to make sure we stayed together so I could reach the car too, that’s when the hatred turned on me. One thug grabbed me by the hair and another shoved me in a different direction. I noticed signs with expletives and my name on them. There was also an angry human on crutches, and I remember thinking to myself, “What are you doing? That’s so dangerous!” For those of you who marched in Washington the day after the inauguration, imagine being in a crowd like that, only being surrounded by hatred rather than love. I feared for my life.

Once we got into the car, the intimidation escalated. That story has already been told well. What I want you to know is how it felt to land safely at Kirk Alumni Center after taking a decoy route. I was so happy to see my students there to greet me. I took off my coat and realized I was hungry. I told a colleague in my department that I felt proud of myself for not having slugged someone. Then Bill Burger charged back into the room (he is my hero) and told Dr. Murray and I to get our coats and leave—NOW. The protestors knew where the dinner was. We raced back to the car, driving over the curb and sidewalk to escape quickly. It was then we decided that it was probably best to leave town.

After the adrenaline and a martini (full disclosure; you would have needed a martini too) wore off, I realized that there was something wrong with my neck. My husband took me to the ER, and President Patton, God bless her, showed up there, despite my insistence that it was unnecessary. I have a soft brace that allowed me, after cancelling my Friday class, resting up all day, and taking painkillers, to attend our son’s district jazz festival. He’s a high school senior who plays tenor sax, and I cried when I realized that these events had not prevented me from hearing him play his last district concert.

To people who wish to spin this story as one about what’s wrong with elite colleges and universities, you are mistaken. Please instead consider this as a metaphor for what is wrong with our country, and on that, Charles Murray and I would agree. This was the saddest day of my life. We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized. Our 230-year constitutional democracy depends on it, especially when our current President is blind to the evils he has unleashed. We must all realize the precious inheritance we have as fellow Americans and defend the Constitution against all its enemies, both foreign and domestic. That is why I do not regret my involvement in the event with Dr. Murray. But as we find a way to move forward, we should also hold fast to the wisdom of James Baldwin, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

In a post a couple of days later she reported that she’d been diagnosed with a concussion.

Scott Jaschik at Inside Higher Ed has more:

Middlebury officials now say that a small group of six to 12 people who appeared not to be students were involved in the attack on the car and Stanger. These people were dressed in black and wore masks. Earlier some of them tried to enter the lecture hall and were turned away. Those who shouted down Murray were students, but those who attacked the car (a group that included students) appeared to be led by the outside group (who Middlebury officials said appeared older than most of the college’s students). College officials called the town police when the car was attacked, but the attackers had run away by the time police officers arrived. No one was arrested. College officials said the size and intensity of the protest surprised them.

The reports about the nonstudents, dressed in black and with their faces covered, are similar to those from the University of California, Berkeley, and elsewhere about anarchist “black bloc” protests that have turned up on some campuses.

None of that is helpful.



Make her famous

Mar 7th, 2017 12:05 pm | By

The Times on that secret Facebook group for male Marines to degrade women.

Now the Defense Department has opened a criminal investigation and the Marine Corps is facing its latest unwanted controversy after it was revealed over the weekend that a secret online Facebook group of active-duty and veteran Marines shared thousands of naked and private photos of Marine Corps women.

The invitation-only group, called Marines United and made up of more than 30,000 active duty Marines and veterans, built online dossiers on Marine women without their knowledge or consent, listing dozens of women’s names, ranks, social media handles and where they are stationed.

Several Marines said the Marines United postings are an evolution of a retaliatory practice called “make her famous.” Marines would share nude photographs of girlfriends or spouses they believed were cheating through text messages to a broad swath of people, encouraging them to forward the photos.

Wow. Men would do that to women they were close to, women they perhaps “loved.”

Jason Elsdon, a Marine in his early 40s, who said he was a member of Marines United and said he played no role in posting, organizing or disseminating the photographs, argued that people were overreacting. “It was just nudes,” he said. “I scrolled past it.” He added: “I don’t feel that it’s right, but I don’t feel that people should be utterly surprised that it is happening. There are other groups, and many are civilians, that are the same way.”

Well that’s easy for Jason Elsdon, isn’t it – that kind of thing doesn’t happen to him. You could say he has male privilege.

Though all military branches face problems with integrating women, the Marine Corps has perhaps the toughest challenge. Not only does it have the smallest proportion of women of all the services — 7 percent, compared with 14 percent in the Army — it also has the highest rate of sexual assault reports. Reforms also continually collide with a culture of ground-pounding infantry fighters that despite the efforts of some in the leadership, embrace a tradition of brawling, hard-drinking and sexual exploits.

Sexual “exploits” – which include violence and degradation, right? It’s not an exploit if there’s not a touch of sadism?

“That is absolute nonsense,” said Maj. Clark Carpenter, a Marine Corps spokesman. “A true warrior carries himself with a sense of decency and compassion, but is always ready for the fight,” he said. “Those who hide in the dark corners of the internet with a shield of anonymity and purport to be warriors are nothing of the sort — they are nothing more than cowards.”

Still, the Marine Corps leadership has never fully rid the Corps of its rough ethos, and in recent years it has been hit with a number of scandals when this mentality broke into the open, including allegations that commanders retaliated against women who reported sexual assaults and recent reports that drill instructors hazed recruits, especially Muslims.

Just Muslims? Not bad hombres from Mexico?

Women in the Marine Corps say the culture has been hostile to them for years.

“When I was in Iraq, I always carried a can of black spray paint to cover up what was written about me in the port-a-johns,” said Kate Hendricks Thomas, a Marine veteran who is now a professor of behavioral health at Charleston Southern University. “I tried to laugh it off, but the harassment is so pervasive that it can have a real effect.”

It’s hard to laugh off having to work among people who have active, expressed contempt for you.

In September, a Marine veteran named John Albert was invited to join the site, and, disgusted by what he found, alerted Facebook.

“I have tons of friends who got killed in Afghanistan and have died since they came home. These types of actions dishonor their names and the entire Marine Corps,” Mr. Albert said in an interview.

Facebook took down the page temporarily for violating a ban on nudity after the complaint, Mr. Albert said, but the group apparently got around restrictions on nudity by shifting photos to a shared Google file.

Then on Saturday, a Marine veteran named Thomas Brennan, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he was wounded by a rocket-propelled grenade, and later founded the nonprofit news site The War Horse, wrote about the group.

Marine Corps officials, alerted to the site by Mr. Brennan, contacted Google and had the files removed.

Since publishing the story, Mr. Brennan said he and his family had received death threats from members of the group. He charged that one member was offering “500 bucks for nudes” of Mr. Brennan’s wife and said he was “cooperating with multiple law enforcement agencies” regarding threats to him and his family.

I’m so sick of bullies. I feel so sick about having a noisy bully in the White House.



It’s as if he wants to be impeached

Mar 7th, 2017 9:44 am | By

Trump told a new defamatory lie about Obama today.

The official POTUS account retweeted the lie.

113 of the 122 were released by the Bush administration.

There’s also of course the complicated discussion about legality and rights and preventive detention and the possibility or impossibility of knowing what people are going to do in the future. We could just imprison all human beings because they might do something bad in future, but it wouldn’t be a good plan. But in any case he lied on the facts.

The Times has more.

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, of the 693 former Guantánamo Bay detainees who were transferred to other countries by July 2016 — dating back to when the Bush administration opened the prison in Cuba in January 2002 — 122 are “confirmed” to have engaged in militant activity after their release.

However, the overwhelming majority of those 122 men, 113 of them, were transferred under President George W. Bush, not President Barack Obama.

Notably, about half of the men deemed recidivists are dead or in custody.

Ok so why is Bush’s number so much higher? The answer should interest Trump.

One reason is that most of the former Guantánamo detainees in the world departed the prison under Mr. Bush: 532 of the 693 former detainees who left the prison alive departed under Mr. Bush. That is because Mr. Bush decided in his second term that, as he wrote in his memoir, “the detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies,” and he started trying to close it.

But it is also true that in terms of percentages, Bush-era releases have been more likely to cause problems than Obama-era releases: About 35 percent of Bush-era transfers are confirmed or suspected of causing problems, while about 12 percent of Obama-era transfers fall into one of those two categories, according to the intelligence director’s office.

The difference is because the Bush administration struck diplomatic deals to repatriate large batches of prisoners to countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan in bulk, and many recidivists come from those batches. By contrast, the Obama administration developed an individualized review process by six agencies to determine whether to recommend transferring each detainee. Over time, it also developed more careful diplomatic and monitoring plans with receiving countries to ease their reintegration into society that reduced, but obviously did not eliminate, the risk of recidivism.

So what they’re saying is that the Obama admin did a better job of vetting each detainee. Huh.



A personal and professional impossibility

Mar 7th, 2017 9:05 am | By

Sarah Ditum in the Independent on Jenni Murray and the BBC and who gets to say what a woman is:

Jenni Murray has presented the BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour for 30 years, and she’s been a woman for even longer than that. At the weekend, the Sunday Times published an article by her titled “Be trans, be proud — but don’t call yourself a ‘real woman’”. Under that headline, Murray criticised some claims of trans activism (and she was careful to say she was talking about the extreme of the debate): that anyone who identifies as a woman has “always been a woman” no matter the age at which they transition, and that references to the female body should be censored in the interests of inclusion.

Not having an opinion on these issues is presumably a personal and professional impossibility for Murray. After all, it was in a Woman’s Hour interview with Murray that India Willoughby, a former ITV news presenter who transitioned in her 40s, declared that women with unshaved legs are “dirty”. How are we supposed to interpret that – a grossly sexist comment – without acknowledging that Willoughby’s views are shaped by decades of living as a man, and, although she may not have personally felt them, did nevertheless enjoy the structural privileges that came with being male? How is Murray supposed to feel about it, knowing that the BBC and the media in general has a miserable track record of sexism and ageism?

Those are things that I wonder too. I do think decades of living as a man make a difference, and that it’s reasonable to acknowledge that and both unreasonable and unfair not to.



Gnawing at Trump

Mar 6th, 2017 5:37 pm | By

One more Donnie bulletin, because it’s kind of funny, and because it’s about how miserable and furious he is.

He had a bad weekend. A bad bad weekend. Ivanka and Jared were with him but they couldn’t mellow him out.

Trump was mad — steaming, raging mad.

Trump’s young presidency has existed in a perpetual state of chaos. The issue of Russia has distracted from what was meant to be his most triumphant moment: his address last Tuesday to a joint session of Congress. And now his latest unfounded accusation — that Barack Obama tapped Trump’s phones during last fall’s campaign — had been denied by the former president and doubted by both allies and fellow Republicans.

Well if that made him mad, maybe he should have thought a little more before tweeting it.

Gnawing at Trump, according to one of his advisers, is the comparison between his early track record and that of Obama in 2009, when amid the Great Recession he enacted an economic stimulus bill and other big-ticket items.

Welllllll, Donnie, you’re not Obama, are you, and you haven’t been behaving the way Obama did. You didn’t prepare. You didn’t learn what you needed to know. You didn’t get good people to work for you. You didn’t do any of the things you needed to do to make your first weeks more like Obama’s first weeks. You appear to be not smart enough.

The mood at the White House on Tuesday night was different altogether — jubilant. Trump returned from the Capitol shortly before midnight to find his staff assembled in the residence cheering him. Finally, they all thought, they had seized control. The president had even laid off Twitter outbursts — a small victory for a staff often unable to drive a disciplined message.

“He nailed it, and he knew it,” said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president.

He managed to deliver a speech someone else wrote without barfing or crying. Big deal. You can tell how low their expectations are, when they get excited about that.

But anyway then Sessions ruined everything.

Back at the White House on Friday morning, Trump summoned his senior aides into the Oval Office, where he simmered with rage, according to several White House officials. He upbraided them over Sessions’s decision to recuse himself, believing that Sessions had succumbed to pressure from the media and other critics instead of fighting with the full defenses of the White House.

In a huff, Trump departed for Mar-a-Lago, taking with him from his inner circle only his daughter and Kushner, who is a White House senior adviser. His top two aides, Chief of Staff ­Reince Priebus and Bannon, stayed behind in Washington.

They were on the naughty stool.

As reporters began to hear about the Oval Office meeting, Priebus interrupted his Friday afternoon schedule to dedicate more than an hour to calling reporters off the record to deny that the outburst had actually happened, according to a senior White House official.

“Every time there’s a palace intrigue story or negative story about Reince, the whole West Wing shuts down,” the official said.

Ultimately, Priebus was unable to kill the story. He simply delayed the bad news, as reports of Trump dressing down his staff were published by numerous outlets Saturday.

Poor Reince. I’m glad I’m not Reince.

Trump was brighter Sunday morning as he read several newspapers, pleased that his allegations against Obama were the dominant story, the official said.

But he found reason to be mad again: Few Republicans were defending him on the Sunday political talk shows. Some Trump advisers and allies were especially disappointed in Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who two days earlier had hitched a ride down to Florida with Trump on Air Force One.

Pressed by NBC’s Chuck Todd to explain Trump’s wiretapping claim, Rubio demurred.

“Look, I didn’t make the allegation,” he said. “I’m not the person that went out there and said it.”

So that was Donnie’s very bad no good horrible weekend.



White House epistemology

Mar 6th, 2017 5:00 pm | By

Nice opening paragraph:

The White House Monday attempted to defend President Trump’s unfounded claim that former president Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower near the end of the presidential campaign, sending out a series of administration officials — both on and off camera — to reiterate the assertion without providing supporting evidence.

Heh heh – to reiterate the assertion without providing supporting evidence. That’s elegant. Yes, Trumpisters, that is correct: mere repetition does not make a claim true. Donnie’s saying it in the first place didn’t make it true, and neither did endless re-saying it.

On Monday, senior administration officials contorted themselves trying to defend the president’s claims, which seemed to emanate largely in response to a rant on conservative talk radio and in an article on Breitbart News, the conservative website that Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, used to lead.

Speaking to reporters from the White House briefing room without cameras present, White House press secretary Sean Spicer referred reporters to his weekend statement calling on the House and Senate intelligence committees to investigate the wiretapping charges as part of their broader probe of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. He refused to add clarity or context to Trump’s Twitter missives, saying neither the president nor the White House would comment further until the congressional investigations are completed.

“I’m just going to let the tweet speak for itself,” Spicer said. “I think the president speaks very candidly.”

Sigh. He may well speak candidly, but that’s not the issue. The tweet does speak for itself: it’s crazed malevolent bullshit. Neither of those observations makes it true.

An unfortunate deputy press secretary had to do most of the contorting, and it sounds painful.

Sanders admitted that she had not discussed the matter with the president, and she lacked answers to a series of questions. When asked Monday by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos if the president accepted that Comey had refuted his tweets, Sanders responded: “You know, I don’t think he does.”

Like Spicer, Sanders claimed Trump’s accusations are supported by media reports, even though a list of such articles provided by the White House contained no such evidence. She also attempted to recast the president’s words with a softer tone.

“Look, the president firmly believes that the Obama administration may have tapped into the phones at Trump Tower,” Sanders said on the “Today Show” on NBC Monday. “This is something that we should look into. We’d like to know for sure.”

He firmly believes that it may have – that covers all the bases.

“Look,” Sanders said on the Today Show, “I haven’t had the chance to have the conversation directly with the president, and he’s at a much higher classification than I am, so he may have access to documents that I don’t know about, but I do know that we take this very seriously.”

Hahahaha oh god offering one’s own passionate conviction as evidence for the truth of external facts. It doesn’t matter how seriously anyone takes Trump’s deranged lie; their serious-taking doesn’t make it true that Obama bugged Trump’s phones.

They’re trying so hard to lash down the deck chairs on the Titanic.



90 days for spite

Mar 6th, 2017 4:28 pm | By

Trump’s thrown the new version of the Pointlessly Spiteful Travel Ban Targeting Muslims Just for the Fun of It out there. Now it’s no new visa applications from an assortment of random majority-Muslim countries, as opposed to hahaha you have to get right back on the plane and go away from here.

President Trump signed a new travel ban Monday that administration officials said they hope will end legal challenges over the matter by imposing a 90-day ban on the issuance of new visas for citizens of six majority-Muslim nations.

In addition, the nation’s refu­gee program will be suspended for 120 days, and the United States will not accept more than 50,000 refugees in a year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration.

What’s the actual point of all this?

Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, sent out an email asking people to sign a petition in support of the new order.

“As your President, I made a solemn promise to keep America safe,” the email signed by Trump said. “And I will NEVER stop fighting until we implement the policies you — and millions of Americans like you — voted for.”

But guess what – immigrants from majority-Muslim countries are a barely detectable risk factor for Safe America. They’re stringently vetted before they get here, and in any case terror attacks just don’t make up a significant fraction of causes of death here. Meanwhile, Trump is working on taking health insurance away from millions of people – that right there is a much more of a blow against Safe America than immigration is. Trump is also working to undo what few gun control regulations there are. He’s also working on gutting or shutting down the EPA. He moved to make our water much more toxic. Yes that’s right: he wants us to have water that is more toxic. What was that about a a solemn promise to keep America safe again?

President Donald Trump just signed an executive order to roll back President Barack Obama’s clean water rule. That environmental regulation was issued in 2015 to give the federal government authority to limit pollution in major bodies of water, rivers, streams, and wetlands.

Death by polluted water is not as dramatic as death by gunfire or bomb, but it kills a lot more people.

So, yeah. His “solemn promise” was just more of his bullshit. He’s working to kill more of us.



“Let’s hope a similar extinction is coming for her”

Mar 6th, 2017 12:41 pm | By

Jenni Murray, longstanding presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, wrote a piece for yesterday’s Times (the London one) about women and trans women. We all know what happened next.

The reporting, predictably, is not accurate. It never is, is it. Maev Kennedy at the Guardian for instance led with this:

A chorus of protest – and some support – has greeted an article by the broadcaster Jenni Murray, presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, that questioned the claims of transgender women to be considered “real women”.

That “real women” is tricksy, because in fact it’s Murray herself who put it in scare quotes, but that’s not what that sentence looks like, is it. I’ll just quote the five places she used the phrase so that you can see:

I can’t agree with Julie Burchill or Germaine Greer , whose language in their expression of revulsion at the trans woman (a man who becomes a woman) claiming to be a real woman has been unacceptably crude.

That’s attribution rather than use – she’s talking about Burchill and Greer, not herself.

But my concern, which I know is shared by numerous women who are now to be known as “cis” (short for “cisgender” – naturalborn women, in the language that’s more familiar to most of us ), is for the impact this question of what constitutes “a real woman” will have on sexual politics.

Scare quotes. The whole point of the scare quotes is to acknowledge that that’s a contested concept.

This time I was speaking to another trans woman, India Willoughby , who had hit the headlines after appearing on the ITV programme Loose Women. India held firmly to her belief that she was a “real woman”, ignoring the fact that she had spent all of her life before her transition enjoying the privileged position in our society generally accorded to a man.

Scare quotes again.

There are some trans women who willingly accept they cannot describe themselves as women and who agree that sex and gender are not interchangeable. I met Jenny Roberts a bout 15 years ago; she’s now 72 and made her transition, including hormon e treatment and surgery, when she was 50.

“I’m not a real woman,” is the first thing she said to me in a recent conversation.

Attribution, not use.

The most significant part of Jenny’s understanding of the trans woman/real woman debate came about as a result of her selling the printing business and, instead, opening a feminist bookshop in York, which she called Libertas.

That’s the closest she comes to using it herself as coming from her. She doesn’t say what Maev Kennedy accused her of saying – she said more nuanced things than that.

Anyway. Of course there are yells of anger, of course there’s a petition demanding the BBC fire her, of course the BBC punished her.

The BBC has issued presenter Dame Jenni Murray with an impartiality warning over her transgender comments as a TV presenter called for her to be sacked.

Dame Jenni, the veteran host of Woman’s Hour, has been told that she must remain impartial on “controversial topics” after she claimed that a sex change can’t make a man a “real woman”.

No she didn’t. See above. She did say there are differences, differences that matter, but she didn’t make the claim in that form.

The claims, which have been fiercely criticised by equality campaigners, have resulted in Dame Jenni being reminded that she must remain neutral on the subject.

Writing in the Sunday Times, Dame Jenni criticised Willoughby for claiming she was a “woman” because she had failed to acknowledge that she had spent most of her life “enjoying the privileged position in our society generally accorded to a man”.

She also criticised Willoughby’s apparent willingness to accept the Dorchester hotel’s strict dress code for female staff, which requires that they always wear makeup, have manicures and shaved legs.

“There wasn’t a hint of understanding that she was simply playing into the stereotype – a man’s idea of what a woman should be.”

India Willoughby apparently wants the BBC to fire Murray.

Calling for Dame Jenni’s dismissal, Willoughby said that she had never supported the Dorchester’s staffing policies, adding that the Woman’s Hour presenter had created “fake news” in order to sell a “storyline”.

“She and Woman’s Hour have subsequently tried to portray me as someone who believes all women must have perfectly shaved legs at all times, which quite frankly is ridiculous,” she added.

“I called Jenni transphobic that day – and I haven’t changed my mind since. Jenni talks about trans women growing up with ‘male privilege’. As if we have a great time and, then on a whim, jump ship.

“Honestly, I wouldn’t wish being trans on anyone, even Jenni. ‘Male privilege’ was never a privilege to me and is not something I benefited from.”

And yet, that kind of privilege is something one can benefit from without realizing it. That’s a rather basic truism of progressive politics, isn’t it? That just not being aware of one’s privilege really can’t be taken as just straightforwardly showing one doesn’t have it. We don’t walk around counting up all the times we’re not shot at by snipers, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have an enormous benefit that people who live in a war zone would love to have too. Willoughby can’t be sure she never derived any benefit from male privilege simply because she was never aware of deriving it. It ain’t that simple.

“The fact that she’s still allowed to host Woman’s Hour while spouting this bile is ridiculous and she should finally be sacked.

“The world has changed and, as a public-funded broadcaster the BBC know that more than anyone, Jenni Murray is a dinosaur and we all know what happened to them. Let’s hope a similar extinction is coming for her in the not too distant future.”

To me that casual misogyny reeks of male privilege.

To boil it down: Murray isn’t convinced that being a trans woman is exactly the same thing as being a non-trans woman, and she said so, with examples. I don’t think that’s a good reason for people to demand she be fired.



That’s autocratic thinking

Mar 6th, 2017 10:23 am | By

Ishaan Tharoor on how Trump is like other authoritarian rulers:

Observers such as Russian dissident Garry Kasparov see the grim parallels to overtly authoritarian rulers. Kasparov, a staunch critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said that Trump reminds him of the demagogic Russian leader. By targeting Obama, Trump is embracing an old tradition.

Trump doesn’t worry about contradictions, of course, because he doesn’t know there is such a thing.

America’s deep political polarization means that millions of people will believe Trump’s tweets over the efforts of scrupulous fact-checkers.

“Conspiracy thinking has been normalized in American politics in a way that almost nobody could have expected a year ago,” wrote American political scientist Paul Musgrave. “Today, it is plausible to think that U.S. politics could soon resemble cultures that most Americans once regarded as conspiratorial or paranoid.”

Like Turkey perhaps?

Mahir Zeynalov, a Turkish journalist and critic of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, wrote last year about the way both Erdogan and Trump successfully bludgeon the press to spin their own message.

“The reason why the fact-checking mechanism in these societies does not work is because polarization is so high that no one believes what the other camp is saying,” wrote Zeynalov. “If CNN or the New York Times claims that Trump is lying, they’re immediately branded as dishonest liberal media.”

That has indeed become the default response of the Trump administration in its short time in power. An editorial this past week in German newsweekly Der Spiegel delved into how such tactics eventually lead to a divided and befuddled public: “The effect of all of this is that truth and lies are being blurred, the public is growing disoriented and, exhausted, it is tuning out.”

The editorial also raised the connection to Erdogan’s Turkey: “Erdogan and Trump are positioning themselves as the only ones capable of truly understanding the people and speaking for them. It’s their view that freedom of the press does not protect democracy and that the press isn’t reverent enough to them and is therefore useless,” wrote Der Spiegel. “They believe that the words that come from their mouths as powerful leaders are the truth and that the media, when it strays from them, is telling lies. That’s autocratic thinking — and it is how you sustain a dictatorship.

Emphasis Tharoor’s.



It impairs the ideal of a brotherhood and sisterhood

Mar 6th, 2017 9:26 am | By

Now for the Reveal article.

The U.S. Department of Defense is investigating hundreds of Marines who used social media to solicit and share hundreds — possibly thousands — of naked photographs of female service members and veterans.

Since Jan. 30, more than two dozen women – many on active duty, including officers and enlisted service members – have been identified by their full name, rank and military duty station in photographs posted and linked to from a private Facebook page.

In one instance, a female corporal in uniform was followed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, by a fellow Marine, who surreptitiously photographed her as she picked up her gear. Those photographs were posted on the Facebook group Marines United, which has nearly 30,000 followers, drawing dozens of obscene comments.

One member of the Facebook group suggested that the service member sneaking the photos should “take her out back and pound her out.” Others suggested more than vaginal sex:

“And butthole. And throat. And ears. Both of them. Video it though … for science.”

So much for military loyalty. So much for having each other’s backs.

The activity on the Marines United page was uncovered by The War Horse, a nonprofit news organization run by Marine veteran Thomas Brennan. Within a day of Brennan contacting Marine Corps headquarters Jan. 30, social media accounts behind the sharing had been deleted by Facebook and Google at the Corps’ request, and a formal investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has been launched.

However, it is clear that the actions taken so far have not stopped the activity: Photos of the woman followed at Camp Lejeune were posted on Marines United on Feb. 16, more than two weeks after the linking accounts had been shut down. The Marine who shot those photos has been discharged from active duty, Marine Corps officials confirmed.

“We need to be brutally honest with ourselves and each other: This behavior hurts fellow Marines, family members, and civilians. It is a direct attack on our ethos and legacy,” Sgt. Maj. Ronald L. Green, the most senior enlisted Marine on active duty, wrote in an email response. “It is inconsistent with our Core Values, and it impedes our ability to perform our mission.”

I hope it is. I hope it’s inconsistent with their Core Values. But core values can turn out to be quite impoverished when you look closely at them. They can rule out lying, cheating and stealing while saying nothing about torture and brutality, let alone rape and stalking and harassment.

The service is deeply concerned about the damage the incident could do to the Marines, according to a document provided to generals Friday warning them of the upcoming story.

The 10-page “Office of Marine Corps Communications Public Affairs Guidance” lists resources for victims, including a website to report crimes, and provides talking points for other media and members of Congress – who, it suggested, will want answers. It also outlines another possible blow to come: inappropriate responses from Marines.

“The story will likely spark shares and discussions across social media, offering venues for Marines and former Marines who may victim blame, i.e., ‘they shouldn’t have taken the photos in the first place,’ or bemoan that they believe the Corps is becoming soft or politically correct,” it said.

You can count on it.

This distribution of photographs without the women’s consent can threaten their mental health, according to Dr. Frank Ochberg, a psychiatrist, founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and former associate director of the National Institute for Mental Health.

“It impairs the ideal of a brotherhood and sisterhood, being able to count on somebody,” said Ochberg, who pioneered the post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis in 1980. “Within the military, this is a violation of family. … There are few organizations held to such esteem as the Marine Corps. They stand for honor, courage and commitment.

“This destroys honor. … This is sadistic. … This is disloyalty.”

That.



Many of the photos were accompanied by derogatory and harassing comments

Mar 6th, 2017 8:43 am | By

Remember Tailhook? This may be even worse.

The Marine Corps is looking into allegations that an unknown number of potential Marines, as well as current and former service members, shared naked and compromising photos of their colleagues on social media, Marine officials said Sunday.

The allegations were first reported by the War Horse and published Saturday through the website Reveal. The author, a Marine veteran and Purple Heart recipient, as well as members of his family, have received numerous death threats since the article was first published. It is unclear how many people are involved in the scandal and how many photos were posted online.

I read the War Horse/Reveal account yesterday last thing, when I didn’t have the energy to share it here. It’s hair-raising.

The War Horse’s report focuses on one Facebook group with more than 30,000 members called Marines United. In January, a link to a shared hard drive containing photos of numerous female Marines in various states of undress was posted to the group, according to the War Horse’s report. The hard drive contained images, as well as the names and units of the women pictured. Many of the photos were accompanied by derogatory and harassing comments.

That’s the part that really makes me sick. It would be bad enough if it were just “dayum I want to fuck her” but when that leads directly to the hostile violent fantasies…I just want to live on some other planet.

Photos of Marine Lance Cpl. Marisa Woytek were taken from her Instagram account and posted to Marines United multiple times in the past six months without her consent.

“Even if I could, I’m never reenlisting,” Woytek said. “Being sexually harassed online ruined the Marine Corps for me, and the experience.”

Woytek said she was alerted to the hijacked photos by others on social media and were shown the comments that accompanied them. She said that many of the comments included allusions to sexual assault and rape.

Imagine how that makes women in the military feel.

Many of her female colleagues have experienced similar incidents, she said, and added that they have been reluctant to speak out for fear of retaliation from the group’s thousands of members. With the War Horse’s report Saturday, Woytek said that she and others “have a voice now.”

But they also have thousands of colleagues who share that kind of contempt and hatred for women.



The names of the children

Mar 5th, 2017 4:58 pm | By

The Journal.ie publishes, via Catherine Corless, the names of the 796 children who died at the Tuam “Mother and Baby Home” i.e. prison for unmarried mothers and their babies.

Very few pictures from the home exist but thanks to the tireless work of historian Catherine Corless, we do have the names of 796 children who died there between 1925 and 1960.

The infant mortality rate at the home was double that of even other mother and baby homes around the country at the time. Young children in the Tuam home succumbed to deaths from afflictions as heartbreakingly banal as the flu and, although only in a small number of cases, ear infections.

Flu is far from always “banal,” but that’s a detail.

The most common causes of death were “debility from birth” (25%), 15% from “respiratory diseases”, 10% each from influenza and the measles, 8% born too premature to survive, 6% from whooping cough and in smaller numbers of epilepsy/convulsions, gastroenteritis, meningitis, congenital heart disease and congenital syphilis, skin diseases, chicken pox and one per cent – 10 children – of malnutrition.

As of yet, we do not know how many of these children are among the remains found but Corless supplied the names of all of the children, and their age when they died, to TheJournal.ie.

In lieu of an inscription of each child’s name on a physical memorial, we publish them all here today.

Here’s one year:

1937

  • Mary Kate Cahill 2 weeks
  • Mary Margaret Lydon 3 months
  • Festus Sullivan 1 month
  • Annie Curley 3 weeks
  • Nuala Lydon 5 months
  • Bridget Collins 5 weeks
  • Patrick Joseph Coleman 1 month
  • Joseph Hannon 6 weeks
  • Henry Monaghan 3 weeks
  • Michael Joseph Shiels 7 weeks
  • Martin Sheridan 5 weeks
  • John Patrick Loftus 10 months
  • Patrick Joseph Murphy 3 months
  • Catherine McHugh 4 months
  • Mary Patricia Toher 4 months
  • Mary Kate Sheridan 4 months
  • Mary Flaherty 19 months
  • Mary Anne Walsh 14 months
  • Eileen Quinn 2 years
  • Patrick Burke 9 months
  • Margaret Holland 2 days
  • Joseph Langan 6 months
  • Sabina Pauline O’Grady 6 months
  • Patrick Qualter 3 years
  • Mary King 5 months
  • Eileen Conry 1 year

The page goes on forever.

H/t Dave



A man who is erratic, vindictive, volatile, obsessive, a chronic liar

Mar 5th, 2017 3:53 pm | By

Karen Tumulty at the Post has also noticed Trump’s eccentric methods.

Donald Trump’s presidency has veered onto a road with no centerlines or guardrails.

The president’s accusation Saturday that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had tapped his phone “during the very sacred election process” escalated on Sunday into the White House’s call for a congressional investigation of that evidence-free claim.

The audacious tactic was a familiar one for Trump, who has little regard for norms and conventions. When he wants to change a subject, he often does it by touching a match to the dry tinder of a sketchy conspiracy theory.

This is what I’m saying. His two-step process is “audacious” or just plain bonkers.

  1.  make shit up
  2. act on the shit you just made up.

People who can throw nukes shouldn’t carry on that way.

But the voice of a U.S. commander in chief carries far greater weight than that of just about anyone else on the planet. Trump’s detractors say the way he uses that platform has worrisome implications that go far beyond the sensation he creates on social media and his ability to dominate the news.

Ya think?

“We have as president a man who is erratic, vindictive, volatile, obsessive, a chronic liar, and prone to believe in conspiracy theories,” said conservative commentator Peter Wehner, who was the top policy strategist in George W. Bush’s White House. “And you can count on the fact that there will be more to come, since when people like Donald Trump gain power they become less, not more, restrained.”

Nor does Trump appear to have a governing apparatus around him that can temper and channel his impulses.

In short he’s a clear and present danger.

“When the president goes off and does what he did within the last few days, of just going ahead and tweeting without checking on things, there’s something wrong. There’s something wrong in terms of the discipline within the White House and how you operate,” Leon Panetta, a White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton and CIA director during the Obama administration, said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

What I’m saying. You don’t just make shit up, or see some unreliable clown make shit up, and treat that as reliable.



A remarkable rebuke of a sitting president

Mar 5th, 2017 3:23 pm | By

I tolja this was serious biz. I tolja he’d get in trouble. He’s getting in trouble.

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

Not because it’s an obvious lie about Obama, but whatever.

Mr. Comey’s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump’s truthfulness. The confrontation between the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump’s weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump’s young administration.

Too bad Comey helped him get elected then isn’t it.

The White House showed no indication that it would back down from Mr. Trump’s claims. On Sunday, the president demanded a congressional inquiry into whether Mr. Obama had abused the power of federal law enforcement agencies before the 2016 presidential election. In a statement from his spokesman, Mr. Trump called “reports” about the wiretapping “very troubling” and said that Congress should examine them as part of its investigations into Russia’s meddling in the election.

Yeah, Donnie, and while you’re at it tell them to look into Obama’s birth certificate, and also that DNA evidence that exonerated the Central Park 5.

Mr. Comey’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering is certain to invite contrasts to his actions last year, when he spoke publicly about the Hillary Clinton email case and disregarded Justice Department entreaties not to.

Well yes. I do wonder about those contrasts.

The claims about wiretapping appear similar in some ways to the unfounded voter fraud charges that Mr. Trump made during his first days in the Oval Office. Just after Inauguration Day, he reiterated in a series of Twitter posts his belief that millions of voters had cast ballots illegally — claims that also appeared to be based on conspiracy theories from right-wing websites.

As with his demand for a wiretapping inquiry, Mr. Trump also called for a “major investigation” into voter fraud, saying on Twitter that “depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!” No investigation has been started.

I know what the resemblance is. It’s that in both cases he’s making shit up. It’s that in both cases he’s completely reckless about making large claims that could have huge impacts without due diligence. It’s that in both cases he seems to have no clue whatsoever how to go about questioning or testing or investigating claims; he seems to have no clue that that’s even necessary.

He’s hopelessly dense and hopelessly unwilling to learn.