FOCUS: The Department of Justice Calls Donald Trump a Felon
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10204"><span class="small">Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine</span></a>
Monday, 10 December 2018 11:51
Chait writes: "Of course Trump has no good name. But the fact that he is being called a felon by the United States government is a historic step. And it is likely the first of more to come."
Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort. (photo: Zuma Press, Inc./Alamy)
The Department of Justice Calls Donald Trump a Felon
By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine
10 December 18
ederal prosecutors released sentencing recommendations for two alleged criminals who worked closely with Donald Trump: his lawyer MichaelCohen, and campaign manager Paul Manafort. They are filled with damning details. But the most important passage by far is this, about Trump’s fixer: “Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.”
The payments in question, as the document explains, concern a payoff to two women who claimed to have affairs with Trump. The payments, according to prosecutors, were intended to influence the campaign, and thereby constituted violations of campaign finance law. They have not formally charged Trump with this crime — it is a sentencing report for Cohen, not Trump — but this is the U.S. Department of Justice calling Trump a criminal.
There is more. Under normal circumstances, the long list of charges federal prosecutors cited against Michael Cohen would be a political catastrophe for President Trump. One of the president’s closest associates turns out to have allegedly committed a long string of crimes, from tax evasion to making false statements to a financial institution, that would besmirch the good name of the man who worked at his side for years.
Of course Trump has no good name. But the fact that he is being called a felon by the United States government is a historic step. And it is likely the first of more to come.
Just as a recent sentencing report indicated that Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn is cooperating substantially, prosecutors wrote today that Cohen is providing helpful information on other crimes. Cohen reportedly gave the special counsel “useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during them.” And this contact continued into 2018. Cohen was not locked out and probably has access to some secrets.
The sentencing recommendation for Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, contains very little detail that isn’t redacted. It describes Manafort as having lied repeatedly about his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, his business partner and Russian intelligence asset, and with the Trump administration. Trump has dismissed Manafort as a distant underling who worked for him only briefly, but the filing states Manafort’s contact with the administration continued into 2018. This does not prove anything, but it suggests Manafort’s guilt implicated people other than Manafort himself.
The special counsel sentencing recommendation for Cohen also reveals that Russian contact with the Trump campaign began as early as 2015, not the following spring. And Russians promised “political synergy” — which is essentially a synonym for campaign collusion — and “synergy on a government level.” That means a quid pro quo in which Russia would help Trump win the election and Trump, if elected, would give Russia favorable policy. This is the heart of Mueller’s very much ongoing investigation.
In the meantime, Trump’s own government has described him as a crook.
A Brief History of Everything That Happened Because of George H.W. Bush's Insecurity
Monday, 10 December 2018 09:36
Taibbi writes: "He was called a wimp. He overcompensated. People went to jail and died."
President George H.W. Bush. (photo: MPI/Getty Images)
A Brief History of Everything That Happened Because of George H.W. Bush's Insecurity
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
10 December 18
He was called a wimp. He overcompensated. People went to jail and died.
t’s become fashionable in some circles this week to denounce the newly buried George. H.W. Bush as a war criminal, but that seems gratuitous. After all, from a technical standpoint, what American president isn’t a war criminal? It’s probably a short list.
Thanks to the invasion(s) of Iraq, the bombing of civilians in places like Cambodia and Laos, Guantanamo Bay/torture, the overthrow of numerous democratically elected foreign regime, and support of repressive states like Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, “war criminal” is kind of a weak accusation to throw at a commander-in-chief.
We’ve had a few presidents that would have proudly tattooed the term on their pecs or had it emblazoned on their limo flags. In this sense, George H.W. “Poppy” Bush didn’t particularly stand out, compared to his son least of all.
If anything, the defining characteristic of the elder Bush is that he didn’t really have one — at least, not as a politician. There’s evidence that as a Navy pilot he showed considerable bravery and ingenuity. He came from a generation when children of the very rich still fought in the wars their parents arranged to enter, and Poppy flew real combat planes by the age of 19, escaping probable death by cannibalism in one remarkable episode.
For most of his political life, George Herbert Walker Bush was basically the unimaginative proxy for other powerful interests. He was always the front man for the fellas at the club, be it Skull and Bones or the CIA (he retains the dubious distinction of being the only spy head to become president). He excelled in this brute-behind-the-scenes role.
But once fashioning himself as something other than Ronald Reagan’s wingman, politics demanded he offer the national public glimpses of his personality. Sadly, he was president before he found out he didn’t really have one.
This would have been fine, if he’d been a more confident person. But Bush was not satisfied to be remembered as a dull imperial steward, and his flailing efforts to carve out a macho personal myth on par with Reagan or Kennedy marred both his presidency and large swaths of the planet.
Unable to let insults stand, he dreamed up stunt after stunt in an attempt to counter Heathers-style media taunts that grew out of inside jokes circulated in Washington during the Reagan years.
His presidency turned into an endless cycle: Bush would do something goofy/out of touch, the press would bash his brains in for it and he’d overreact, often by having someone bombed or jailed.
Here are the top five moments in this progression:
1. The “manhood problem”
In the age of Trump, it looks like a misdemeanor, but people forget Poppy was a pioneer of fake news. A key moment came in his October 12th, 1984 debate against congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro.
Bush seemed to resent being thrust into the role of first male to debate a woman on the presidential stage. A Bonesman to the core, that wasn’t the history he wanted to make. He was hyper-aggressive throughout, and in a key moment, over-reached factually. Referring to the deaths of Marines in Beirut at the hands of terrorists, Bush said:
”For somebody to suggest, as our two opponents have… these men died in shame — they better not tell the parents of those young Marines.”
But neither Ferraro nor Walter Mondale had ever uttered anything of the sort. Ferraro pounced, saying, “No one has ever said that those young men who were killed through the negligence of this Administration and others ever died in shame.”
Mondale labeled the accusation “unpardonable” and demanded an apology. The take-cornered Veep refused.
The day after the debate, Bush gave an address to a bunch of longshoremen in Elizabeth, New Jersey. He was overheard saying, “I tried to kick a little ass.” If you believe Kitty Kelley’s account in The Family, this is what happened next:
Hours later his staff showed up on the press plane wearing buttons that said, “We kicked a little ass.” Some reporters started calling the Vice President “Kick-Ass George,” others wore hats made of jockstraps.
A few days later, Barbara Bush, while engaged in what the New York Times described as “banter” with reporters, said Ferraro was a “four-million-dollar — I can’t say it, but it rhymes with rich.” Poppy’s press secretary, Peter Teeley, said Ferraro was “too bitchy.”
It was absurd enough that the former Yale first baseman fled to the company of longshoremen after his debate with Ferraro, but things got even sillier when he told the press the “kick a little ass” remark was an “old Texas football expression” that he and his children (remember that part) used “all the time.”
After all this, Mondale decided to take a shot at Bush, right in the jockstrap. He said Bush “doesn’t have the manhood to apologize.”
A few weeks later, the Doonesbury comic strip — which was a big deal in an age when everyone read newspapers — ran a cartoon playing on the theme of Bush’s “manhood problem.” Cartoonist Garry Trudeau had newsman character Roland Hedley Jr. doing a standup outside the White House, announcing, “In a White House ceremony today, Bush will formally place his embattled manhood in a blind trust.”
The legend of Bush’s “manhood problem” had begun. It’s impossible to tally the final consequences of this series of events, but it’s not crazy to suggest that our ongoing bombing of the Middle East three decades later is due at last in part to it. Because of…
2. The “wimp factor”
The Bush family never got over the Doonesbury thing. “He’s been reduced to a cartoon,” fumed son Jeb in a 1987 Newsweek cover story called “BUSH BATTLES THE WIMP FACTOR” that, to be fair, was one of the all-time lows in campaign journalism. The Newsweek piece was one of the worst examples of a type of campaign reporting that involves pundits formalizing the inane Beltway caricatures of politicians.
Bush throughout Reagan’s presidency had been the target of razzing depicting him as a lackey, Reagan’s brown-nosing yes-man, or worse. There were a lot of jokes playing on the theme of Bush “serving under Ronald Reagan,” and some suggested he should add Reagan UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick to his ticket to add “machismo” for his 1988 run.
The Newsweek piece formalized all of this. It had some true observations (“His political identity was fuzzy from the start”), but mainly focused on a “problem” that Bush had an “image” of a “guy who takes direction,” a character issue the magazine claimed 51 percent of the electorate heading into the 1988 election believed “poses problems for his candidacy.”
After the “Wimp” cover, Doonesbury doubled down — among other things, depicting Bush as literally invisible, which caused the Bushes to overreact in historic fashion. Bush himself admitted in an interview that he wanted to “kick the hell” out of Trudeau dating back to 1984, and his sons George and Jeb actually reached out to the cartoonist, who was a Yale classmate of W. This is in Poppy’s recollection:
?Trudeau says to our son, ‘Well, I hope your family doesn’t take this personally.’ And George says, ’They don’t take it personally, but my brother (Jeb) wanted to come up and kick your ass all over New York.”
This all seems absurd now, but Bush spent the rest of his political career beating back the wimp/manhood thing.
He made sure the press saw him eating pork rinds on the campaign trail. He had himself photographed in a nuclear bomber. An infamous exchange with Dan Rather in January 1988 was informed by the “wimp” subtext. Rather was pursuing a legitimate line of questioning about why Bush had gone along with the monstrous Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages plan, when Bush lashed out.
“I don’t think it’s fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran,” he said. “How would you like it if I judged your whole career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?”
Bush was referring to Rather’s infamous tantrum-walkout after the CBS Evening News was shortened to finish a U.S. Open broadcast.
After the exchange with Rather, Poppy tore off his earpiece, but his mic was still on. “That guy makes Lesley Stahl look like a pussy,” he barked, nonsensically, referring to the CBS journalist. He seemed to be reaching for some other insult.
Bush went on to get elected, among other things, thanks to the media deciding to launch an even more asinine “wimp” campaign against Mike Dukakis. The Duke’s crime was being a small Greek man who allowed himself to be photographed in a tank.
Without the triple foils of Rather, Dukakis and “Veepette” Dan Quayle (Quayle was often depicted as a Himbo, which might have been part of the reason he was picked), George H.W. Bush might have struggled to get elected.
This was the ultimate example of how the press screws itself with its own phony narratives. Instead of answering questions about Iran-Contra and other serious issues, Bush got to run, successfully, against his own concocted “wimp” image.
In this, he was aided by speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who composed Bush’s hyper-manly 1988 nomination acceptance address. Bush’s speech was basically a long-winded promise to kick more little asses, but with real arms this time.
“Weakness tempts aggressors. Strength stops them,” he growled. “I will not allow this country to be made weak again. Never.”
His image rose with male voters after this address. Then he got elected, and started picking fights all over the place.
3. The “rite of passage”
After Bush’s election, Doonesbury infuriatingly refused to stop depicting him as invisible. What the hell? Wasn’t being president enough to end this intransigence?
In December 1989, Bush invaded Panama, ostensibly to capture former American client/human rights monster Manuel Noriega. The New York Times cheered Bush for going through the “rite of passage” of the presidency, which involved “a need to demonstrate the willingness to shed blood.”
The paper was one of many to describe the invasion as a triumph over both Newsweekand Doonesbury:
For President Bush… a man still portrayed in the Doonesbury comic strip as the invisible President – showing his steel had a particular significance.
The Ottawa Citizen ran a typically Canadian series of articles about the military action, focusing as foreigners sometimes do on things like the deaths of actual people. “Fearful civilians run for cover,” read one December 21st, 1989 headline, describing “women and children” out on the streets fleeing in terror during shoreline bombing. At the bottom of the page there was a blunt picture of Poppy over the caption: “Wimp label gone.”
But bombing a few Panamanians wasn’t enough. People simply refused to forget certain episodes, like the time Poppy was overheard asking for just another “splash” of coffee. His efforts to “rub off” what the New York Times euphemistically called “the Patina” never stopped.
Even within his own party, Bush was still getting it, even after Panama. In 1990, columnist George Will accused the Bush administration of “intellectual and moral flaccidity” and worried about “the sagging of America into a peripheral role abroad.”
George Will using the words “flaccid” and “sagging” is about as profane as country club Republicanism used to get. In a later insult, Will’s brother-by-another-overused-Thesaurus, William Safire, ripped an insufficiently aggressive Bush address about the collapse of the Soviet Union as the “Chicken Kiev” speech.
Bush then invaded Iraq. In an act of breathtaking pettiness and self-involvement, he chose Newsweek as the venue to explain to Americans why their sons and daughters were being sent to get shot halfway around the world. “Why We Are In The Gulf,” was published in November 1990, about 10 months after George Will metaphorically accused him of having a soft penis.
About half-a-year later, the president appeared at the Malibu home of Jerry Weintraub, producer of The Karate Kid. He also played a round of golf that day with his ex-boss Reagan at the Sherwood Country Club, where, as the Times noted, “the tee markers are little brass archers.” After the game, he told reporters he was still pissed about the Newsweek thing.
“You’re talking to the ‘wimp,’” he said. “You’re talking to the guy that had a cover of a national magazine, that I’ll never forgive, put that label on me.”
In the end, Bush finally got some pop culture credit for being a mean dirtbag. The Simpsons had him wrestling Homer in a drain pipe, with Bush saying: “If he thinks George Bush will stay out of the sewer, he doesn’t know George Bush!”
4. Bush vs. crack
Bush once sent a poor black kid to a real prison for real years for the crime of being a political prop.
In the summer of 1989, while vacationing avec speedboat in his Kennebunkport, Maine, estate, Bush came up with the brilliant idea, or at least acceded to one dreamed up by aides. He would do a live address to the country while holding up a bag of crack that had been sold just outside the White House. The idea was to show that crack could “be bought anywhere.”
The problem was, nobody sold crack in Lafayette Square near the White House, which is where Bush aides wanted the crack found. There is a long backstory here that involves administration officials tasking the DEA with securing a bust near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They ended up having an undercover agent contact an 18-year-old named Keith Jackson from a poor neighborhood in southeast Washington. He was asked to bring his wares to the White House.
“Where the fuck is the White House?” he asked.
“We had to manipulate him to get him down there,” a DEA agent later admitted. “It wasn’t easy.”
Bush ended up doing his idiotic address to the nation about the dangers of crack. It had pretty much the opposite effect of what he intended.
Almost immediately, Dana Carvey on Saturday Night Live did a mock Oval Office speech that savaged Bush, prefacing the crack tale by telling audiences he’d been “doing loop-de-loops” in his speedboat in Kennebunkport and not catching anything while fishing (“not… the… point!” Carvey quipped). Carvey then pulled out a giant bag of “coke” which, he joked, had been sold “three feet from this desk.”
I had to research this incident for a book about the late Eric Garner called I Can’t Breathe (Garner was also busted for crack dealing around that time), and one of the amazing and underreported aspects of this case was that Jackson, who was clearly entrapped in the most absurd fashion, ended up doing eight years in prison so that Bush could have his stupid photo op.
The federal judge in the case, Stanley Sporkin, wanted desperately to not impose a stiff sentence on Jackson, but — in a problem none of the Bush aides who cooked up this dumb scheme thought of — mandatory sentencing laws handcuffed Sporkin. So the kid was sentenced to 10 years (he was later paroled). Sporkin, a former CIA general counsel appointed by Reagan, suggested Jackson ask Bush for a pardon:
“He used you, in the sense of making a big drug speech… But he’s a decent man, a man of great compassion. Maybe he can find a way to reduce at least some of that sentence.”
It is absolutely logical to blame George H.W. Bush for the catastrophes of his son’s presidency.
For one thing, Poppy surely helped get Bush The Younger elected, by being part of a narrative that made W look human. A lot of the male campaign reporters liked W because, as a reporter put it to me once in ‘04, “Hey, the guy had a dick for a father.”
If you want an example of how that reality impacted the thinking of even Bush’s harshest critics, watch Oliver Stone’s W. By the end, the film has you rooting for the try-hard cheerleader forced by fate to swim upstream against King Daddy’s sneering disdain over things like not being able to hold down a real job before the age of 40. The opening line of the W. trailer is Poppy’s voice, played by master character actor James Cromwell, sneering at his disappointing heir, “If I remember correctly, you didn’t like the sporting goods job.”
The plot of that underrated movie: “Hey, I can be a crappy president, too!”
As bitterly as W wanted to outdo his Dad — particularly by winning re-election and conquering all of Iraq — he had been even more offended by the “Wimp Factor” piece than his father. When the Rather episode happened in 1988, young W reportedly stormed into his Dad’s campaign headquarters yelling, “Macho! Macho!”
When he himself became president, W basically set fire to the Middle East in defiance of “moderates” like Colin Powell, in order to show everyone how not-flaccid the Bushes were. The fact that Saddam Hussein “tried to kill my Dad” was somehow openly a factor in all of this.
W’s belief that his father’s failure to take Baghdad and topple Saddam had cost him re-election in 1992 — ironically, Bush’s own son believed his Dad to be a wimp about that — was a major reason we ended up occupying the whole country, for years, at the cost of tens of thousands of lives at the very least.
The younger Bush — said to be aggrieved both by the “Wimp Factor” charge and by Daddy’s vacillating stances between gunboat diplomacy and a “kindler and gentler” nation — made being “decisive” the cornerstone of his moronic presidency.
We now know his father disagreed with his son about Iraq. Characteristically he was too passive-aggressive to confront him head-on, reportedly using a Brent Scowcroft editorial to express his doubts about junior’s military misadventures.
Years later, we not only are still in the Middle East, but have a Star Wars-style permanent garrison of bases with which we’ve droned and bombed the region more or less uninterruptedly since the early 2000s.
Poppy’s last act, in death, was to be elevated to icon status by the same Democrat-neocon alliance that turned the funeral of John McCain into something like a national religious rite.
Since one of Donald Trump’s defining characteristics is his lack of reverence for anyone who’s not himself, the establishment-in-exile has made Trump’s lack of public prostration before Poppy’s corpse another unforgivable blow to the dignity of Washingtonhood.
Brian Krassenstein of the flying #Resistance Krassensteins notes that Poppy once cursed at the TV at the sight of Trump, so “I like George H.W. Bush even more now.” (Why did you like him before?)
And the Washington Post went ape because Trump didn’t recite the Apostles’ Creed as part of the interminable Soviet-style funeral ceremonies of this week.
The paper said Trump stood, “lips not moving,” while all the other dignitaries paid homage to the fallen patriarch. This was likely because Trump is an ignoramus and didn’t know he was supposed to read, or maybe he’s not actually religious, or maybe he was thinking about his next cheeseburger — whatever, it became a thing. Once again, Poppy was elevated by a less-popular foil.
Bush the elder had some decent qualities, or at least relatable ones. He served his country bravely and was famous for the thoughtful notes he sent to almost everyone, demonstrating a memory for people that would be commendable in the social director of a cruise liner, or the president of a charity.
Bush’s problem was that he was totally ruthless about pursuing real power without much of a clue why — “the vision thing.” To win an election he sank to Trumpian lows with the Willie Horton episode, even as his reasons for running seemed elusive.
He’s being elevated this week, among other things as a way of taking a shot at Trump by comparison. But let’s not confuse that with George H.W. Bush being a great president. He was kind of a hack, actually. In fact, maybe the most special thing about him was a lack of a sense of humor so extreme, people may have lost their lives to it.
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48731"><span class="small">Jamil Smith, Rolling Stone</span></a>
Monday, 10 December 2018 09:33
Smith writes: "The deaths of Emantic Bradford and Jemel Roberson remind us who the Second Amendment protects."
Protestors carry a sign reading 'Justice for E.J.' during a protest at the Riverchase Galleria in Hoover, Ala. A police shot and killed 21-year-old Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford, Jr. of Hueytown while responding to a shooting at the mall on Thanksgiving evening, 2018. (photo: Kim Chandler/AP/Shutterstock)
The 'Good Guy With the Gun' Is Never Black
By Jamil Smith, Rolling Stone
10 December 18
The deaths of Emantic Bradford and Jemel Roberson remind us who the Second Amendment protects
mantic Fitzgerald Bradford, Jr., was a good guy, if you believe his mama.
“Emantic was that person who people went to when they needed someone to talk to,” April Pipkins tells Rolling Stone on Monday, four days after her son, known as “EJ,” was shot to death by a police officer in Hoover, a suburb of Birmingham, Alabama. He was only 21-years-old. “It was just heartbreaking, because I’ve lost my best friend also. I know that, if anything, he was trying to help people. That was his character. That’s how I raised him.”
That is why Pipkins believes the witnesses on the scene at the Riverchase Galleria who, according to family attorney Benjamin Crump, claim that Emantic was trying to help the situation on Thanksgiving night. “Several people have said that he was responsible for saving their lives,” he said to me. Shots had rung out at the mall, and an 18-year-old man was hit. So, too, was a 12-year-old girl whom the Hoover police department called an “innocent bystander.” But Bradford, a recently discharged Army veteran who had a permit to carry a firearm in his open-carry state, was the only person who died that night.
The Hoover police department has had difficulty explaining why Bradford is dead. First, it was because he was supposedly the mall shooter (he wasn’t). “Thank God we had our officers very close,” Nick Derzis, the Hoover police chief, told AL.com. “They heard the gunfire, they engaged the subject, and they took out the threat.” Then a day later, the department told us that he “likely did not fire the rounds” that struck the two victims. But wait! Bradford “may have been involved in some aspect” of the crime, the police claimed in a since-deleted tweet. That seems likely why both the city of Hoover and the department said in a joint statement on Monday that “the initial shooter” was still at large and that Bradford “brandished a gun during the seconds following the gunshots, which instantly heightened the sense of threat to approaching police officers responding to the chaotic scene.” (Crump claims that the Hoover officer pulled the trigger without issuing any verbal warnings or commands; the department has yet to respond to Rolling Stone’s request for further comment.)
Yet another Hoover statement on Monday clarified the “brandishing” remark, specifying only that “Mr. Bradford held a gun in his hand.” The Galleria prohibits guns, but Alabama is one of 45 states with some form of open-carry laws on the books. In 2013, Alabama’s state legislature clarified that “the mere carrying of a visible pistol, holstered or secured, in a public place, in and of itself,” did not constitute the crime of disorderly conduct.
But Bradford would have had his gun in his hand if he were trying to help, right? Using his legally licensed firearm to stop a shooter? Isn’t that what the NRA and President Trump have told us to do?
This is their prescription for public safety: American streets and venues as a Second Amendment theme park, a Westworld come to life but with real blood and real consequences. It is not so much macho fantasy as it is an idea sold by a gun lobby seeking to enhance its income (which appears to be dwindling). Now, a president who only understands masculinity and power as violence and aggression is happy to endorse the notion that a shooting can only be ended by more shooting. That theory has many fatal flaws, but its central one is that the color of our skin appears to disqualify us for the role of a Good Guy With a Gun.
Bradford’s death is hardly the only evidence of this. Two days after Bradford was killed, Jemel Roberson’s family buried him.
Outside of being black, Roberson fit the Good Guy with a Gun image to a T. The father of a nine-month-old with another baby on the way, the 26-year-old aspired to be one of the supposed Good Guys: a police officer. It was nothing-good-happens-after-o’clock in the morning on November 11th, and Roberson was working as an armed security guard at Manny’s Blue Room lounge in Robbins, just south of Chicago. He actually stopped a shooting himself — not by killing the perpetrator, but by detaining him. As Roberson kept his knee in the shooter’s back, he was the hero of the night. Until a police officer from suburban Midlothian showed up and, according to bystanders, ended Roberson’s life with virtually no warning.
Similar to what Hoover did with Bradford, Midlothian Chief Daniel Delany misidentified Roberson as “a subject with a gun” before recanting and calling him “a brave man who was doing his best to end an active shooter situation at Manny’s Blue Room.” Is that how it works? Do we only get to be the Good Guy With a Gun after we’re dead?
The lack of ability to imagine black people as heroes may be one explanation for these shootings. That was one of the countless things that James Baldwin was right about. American fiction is a significant contributor to our ideas of heroism both on the page and onscreen, and as the author both wrote and said in 1965, “It comes as a great shock to see Gary Cooper killing off the Indians, and although you are rooting for Gary Cooper, that the Indians are you.” Regardless of color, we all are trained from an early age not merely to synchronize whiteness and heroism, but are fed narratives that discourage us from forming any other conclusion. Barack Obama wasn’t enough to change that, to say nothing of Lando Calrissian, Roger Murtaugh or Axel Foley. Not even T’Challa from Black Pantheror Chris from Get Out. A childhood of seeing men of color as cannon fodder for Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and other assorted Good White Guys With Guns has an effect on folks.
This is why we don’t expect the NRA or the president to say a word about Bradford and Roberson, all but vindicated in their deaths. Nearly two years later, we are still waiting for them to adequately respond to the death of Philando Castile, the Minnesota school worker who even told the officer during the traffic stop that he was a Good Guy With a Gun and wasn’t believed. We are most useful to them either as victims or as the victimizers. Never as the hero.
A frontier-justice solution to crime will exacerbate this problem, producing disproportionately more black deaths. The late director George Romero was smart enough to encapsulate this in 1968, concluding his zombie classic Night of the Living Dead with the surviving black protagonist, Ben, gunned down by a white man dispatched to restore order. Ben was holding a rifle, to boot. (If you haven’t seen it, consider if the ending of Get Out went sideways.)
This isn’t about whether or not you like guns, whether you’d like to stockpile them or melt them all down. This is about everyone being able to enjoy the full freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus equal protection under the law. I don’t point to Bradford and Roberson as cautionary tales in order to discourage black folks from arming themselves; violent white extremism on the Right has become the central terror threat to the United States, after all. The Black Panthers of the Sixties taught us this lesson, most notably in 1967 when their armed presence in California’s capitol led to the passage of sweeping firearms control legislation that the NRA actually supported. Naturally, because while the gun lobby sells to everyone, it speaks primarily for white, conservative men. They skate by, never taking account for the urban gun violence that men like Donald Trump are all too eager to exploit.
When I asked Pipkins why her late son EJ carried a gun, she said, “Protection, pretty much. There is just so much going on. He had it for the reason why any other decent American would have one.” Alas, were we actually Americans, entitled to all of the Constitution’s freedoms, Bradford might still be alive. We can’t be the Good Guys With Guns until we are no longer the Usual Suspects.
What It Means to Be a Women's Rights Activist in Saudi Arabia
Monday, 10 December 2018 09:29
Al Najjar writes: "Activists like Eman Al Nafjan fought fearlessly for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, only to be brutally silenced."
Eman Al Nafjan was arrested in May 2018 and accused of threatening Saudi Arabia's national security. (image: Jawahir Al-Naimi/Al Jazeera)
What It Means to Be a Women's Rights Activist in Saudi Arabia
By Omaima Al Najjar, Al Jazeera
10 December 18
Activists like Eman Al Nafjan fought fearlessly for women's rights in Saudi Arabia, only to be brutally silenced.
first met Eman Al Nafjan in October 2006, just before she took up blogging and activism. At that time she was still working as an English instructor at the King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Science (KSAU) located within the heavily guarded Saudi Arabian National Guard compound on the outskirts of Riyadh. I was one of her students.
She immediately struck me as a progressive woman with strong opinions who cared about women's rights and did not shy away from stating it publicly. I still remember my first class with her - I thought her approach was highly unusual. She had us engage in an open discussion on debatable topics, encouraged us to write on a daily basis and share ideas on topics of our choice. This was something that was unheard of in Saudi schools, where we were not allowed to have an opinion or even question the teacher on any matter that involved religion, culture or politics. Eman taught us the value of freedom of speech and tolerance, insisting that all of us - whether conservative or liberal - expressed our opinions openly.
Two years later, in 2008, Eman started blogging as saudiwoman.me. At that time, social media networks and blogging websites were quickly becoming popular among Saudis. In a heavily regulated country like Saudi Arabia where the government decides what goes on TV, what news gets covered by the press and what books go on shelves in libraries and bookstores, blogging became a much-needed platform to speak out.
Eman's blog quickly gained popularity and international prominence, becoming one of the most-read blogs on Saudi Arabia worldwide. It is safe to say that she was one of the pioneers of online activism in my country. She braved writing about taboo topics that many others were afraid to tackle; she frequently posted on the male guardianship law which she called "the abuse system", she called for an end to child marriage and abuses by the religious police and she even exposed how Saudi authorities were spying on Saudi citizens through social media applications.
She provided the English-speaking world with a rare, uncensored, in-depth perspective on current affairs in Saudi Arabia. She built a name for herself in the blogosphere and even had big Western media outlets such as the Guardian, the New York Times and CNN approach her to write for them. And she accomplished all that while also pursuing a PhD and mothering four children.
I must say that Eman's class was the eye-opening experience that ultimately sparked my interest in activism and blogging. I started feeling more confident about speaking out in public.
As a student at KSAU, I was sometimes given the task of preparing presentations for foreign staff at the Saudi National Guard Hospital to brief them on local culture. My talks would often go into uncomfortable topics like discrimination against women and religious extremism, provoking heated discussions among some Saudi employees, who considered some of my views offensive. On one occasion, after a professor of religious studies filed a complaint against me, the university administration threatened to punish me by transferring me to Al-Imam Mohammed Bin Saud Islamic University if I didn't "tone my talks down". Al-Imam University is well-known as the heart of Wahhabism where strict conservative norms are observed.
That did not dissuade me from speaking out. In 2010, I launched my own blog, where I started writing about religious extremism and women's rights. It wasn't too long before I received my first hate mail and threats. A year later, the Saudi authorities blocked my blog and neither my readers nor I, the writer, could access it any longer.
Eman did not let me despair. When I set up an online campaign to get the blog unblocked, she helped spread the word and I eventually succeeded in regaining access to it. Yet, I felt compelled to tone down my writings, now that I had experienced the heavy hand of government censorship.
As I was making my first steps in blogging and activism and experiencing the oppressive practices of our government, the push against the driving ban on women in Saudi Arabia was picking up steam again. I, like many other Saudis of my generation, was not aware of the original anti-ban protest in 1990 in Riyadh led by 47 fearless women. The Saudi authorities had made sure to bury the story, so it would not encourage other women to rebel.
But they did. In 2007, Wajeha al-Huwaider, a prominent Saudi activist from the Eastern Province, collected and submitted signatures to the Saudi authorities asking for the driving ban to be lifted. Then in 2008, she filmed herself driving a car on International Women's Day and posted the video on Youtube. She was harassed and arrested for her actions.
In 2011, Manal al-Sharif followed in her footsteps and also uploaded a video of herself driving. This time, however, it was during exceptional circumstances - the Arab revolutions had just swept through the region. Hence, her call to defy the driving ban had a bigger impact on Saudi youth.
The Saudi authorities, unaware of the growing number of Saudis supporting the cause, thought that arresting Manal would bring an end to it. But they were wrong. The movement had gained momentum and much attention domestically and internationally and in 2013, Eman and a number of other women and men called for a drive-in protest on October 26.
I, too, joined the effort and supported the campaign, along with other fellow activists. Even though the protest had to be called off under pressure from the authorities, Eman made an extraordinary effort to expand the outreach of the movement by engaging community leaders, religious figures, social media influencers and writers.
Eman also laboured tirelessly whenever one of the other activists was arrested (whether Manal al-Sharif, Loujain Alhathlol, Maysaa Alamoudi or anyone else) to campaign for their release by making sure their cases remained in the media spotlight.
She, along with her fellow activists, pushed the public debate forward and paved the way for the lifting of the driving ban on women in Saudi Arabia.
The arrests of Eman and a dozen other Saudi women's rights activists in May this year and the smear campaign against them created a climate of fear among Saudis. After news came out that the women have faced torture, such as with electrocution, sleep deprivation, sexual molestation and threats of rape and death, many activists within the country decided to go into "hibernation".
The killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in early October was meant to send a chilling message to all Saudi activists, who had managed to flee abroad. Fear has struck our community but many of us decided to remain vocal and continue campaigning against the barbaric practices of the Saudi government.
We will continue campaigning for the release of Eman despite US President Donald Trump clearly giving Saudi Arabia a pass on human rights violations. The international community must not do the same; it should take urgent action and form an independent committee under the umbrella of the United Nations that is allowed to visit political prisoners and ensure they are not mistreated. The Saudi authorities cannot be trusted with giving political prisoners a fair trial or respecting the rights of detainees.
This is the least the world can do to help Eman and her fellow activists who have fought so fearlessly and selflessly for the rights of Saudi women.
Meanwhile, I and many other Saudi activists abroad, will not stop exposing the savagery of the Saudi government and the crimes it commits on a regular basis against its own people.
Trump's Pursuit of 'American Energy Dominance' Threatens the Entire Planet
Monday, 10 December 2018 09:27
Juhasz writes: "President Trump upended decades of U.S. policy that started with Richard Nixon when he declared that the goal of the United States was no longer 'energy independence' but rather 'American energy dominance.'"
The Sidney Coal Co.'s coal preparation plant in Sidney, Ky., in 2006. (photo: Brian Tietz/AP)
Trump's Pursuit of 'American Energy Dominance' Threatens the Entire Planet
By Antonia Juhasz, The Los Angeles Times
10 December 18
resident Trump upended decades of U.S. policy that started with Richard Nixon when he declared that the goal of the United States was no longer “energy independence” but rather “American energy dominance.” This wasn’t Trumpian hyperbole. Few policies have been pursued by the administration with more cohesiveness, zeal, and success — or with more potential to yield great and lasting harm.
Trump has unleashed a massive, untethered expansion of oil, natural gas and coal production, designed to make this country the world’s foremost dirty energy powerhouse. The policy not only worsens catastrophic climate change, it pushes the U.S. into a small and increasingly isolated club of autocratic regimes intent on maintaining a global commitment to fossil fuels.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke laid out Trump’s energy policy in Secretarial Order 3351: “Achieving American energy dominance begins with recognizing that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves. For too long America has been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. The Department is committed to an America-first energy strategy.”
Michael Nedd, then the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management, put it more succinctly: “We want to make the BLM a better business partner for the oil and gas industry.”
Just four days after his inauguration, Trump fast-tracked the Dakota Access oil pipeline. Within four months of its being operational, in June 2017, North Dakota reached an all-time record high of producing wells, followed less than one year later by the highest daily oil production in the state’s history.
In Trump’s first six months in office, expansive orders and rule changes across federal agencies resulted in a virtually frozen regulatory process, with nearly 300 federal regulations specifically related to energy production and environmental protection affecting public health, worker safety, tribal sovereignty and the climate rescinded, withdrawn, or otherwise stalled by mid 2017. Nor did the administration stop there.
The Environmental Protection Agency undid the Clean Power Plan and eliminated rules that regulated coal ash waste, required oil and gas companies to report and repair methane emissions, and limited toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. The EPA also took its climate change website offline, and Trump revoked several Obama-era executive orders on climate change.
Congress opened up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the Interior Department issued the first-ever oil production permits for federal waters in the Arctic. Ultimately, the plan is to open virtually all federal waters to oil and natural gas production. The department also rescinded rules that made offshore operations safer, put in place after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.
On coal, the Interior Department lifted a moratorium on new leases on federal lands, and by the end of 2017, six straight years of decline in U.S. coal production was reversed.
Early this year, the BLM changed its oil and gas leasing policy to limit public comment and environmental reviews, accelerate permitting, and expand leasing — making six times the amount of public land available compared to two years ago. As a result, the number of oil and natural gas wells on lands administered by the Interior Department increased by an astounding 85% from 2016 to 2017. With the onslaught of new activity, a BLM official in New Mexico admitted that his team lacks the resources to enforce the rules that remain, and locals report increasing violations that include oil spills.
Lawsuits and concerted organizing have limited some of the administration’s actions, but failed to halt the effects of its energy policy.Under Trump, the U.S. has broken its own record for the highest amount of oil and natural gas ever produced in, and exported out of, the country. The International Energy Agency recently predicted that the U.S. is on track to produce half of the world’s total oil and natural gas output by 2025.
At the same time, the president has failed to deliver on the promised benefits of “American energy dominance.” Instead of lower costs for U.S. consumers, the price of gasoline has been rising since 2016, and Thanksgiving drivers paid the highest pump prices in four years. After falling for two years, the price of electricity in 2017 was the highest in nearly 20 years, with 2018 on track to surpass it. And in place of “freedom from dependence on foreign oil,” U.S. imports of oil and natural gas are on the rise.
Instead, Trump has ushered the United States into a new oil bloc. Now, the United States, Russia and Saudi Arabia — not OPEC — dominate global oil supply. Energy strategist Julien Lee predicts that the actions of Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman will determine the future course of oil prices.
Trump has prioritized alliances with these oppressive, autocratic regimes, which are aggressively undermining global action on climate change. They wanted a more fervent partner in their struggle to save fossil fuels, and Trump has obliged them, not least by withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord.
The White House is forcing the United States into greater dependence on fossil fuels, just as the world’s preeminent climate authority, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has made clear how crucial it is to give them up. In its latest report, the IPCC calculates that humanity has only 12 years to act or pass a point of no return. We simply cannot allow Trump’s destructive policy to succeed.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.