RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Gunning Down the Easter Bunny: The Weaponization of Everyday Life Print
Monday, 16 April 2018 12:02

Berrigan writes: "Guns. In a country with more than 300 million of them, a country that's recently been swept up in a round of protests over the endless killing sprees they permit, you'd think I might have had more experience with them."

A gun and bullets. (photo: Shutterstock)
A gun and bullets. (photo: Shutterstock)


Gunning Down the Easter Bunny: The Weaponization of Everyday Life

By Frida Berrigan, TomDispatch

16 April 18

 


It’s been a terrible year for gun makers. The venerable Remington filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy after its sales fell 27.5% in the first nine months of Donald Trump’s presidency. (Its officials had expected a 2016 Hillary Clinton victory to ensure a burst of gun purchases.) And Remington wasn’t alone. Sales have been ragged across the industry. Gun company stocks have slipped, profits have fallen, price wars are breaking out, and corporate debt is on the rise. January 2018 was the worst January for gun purchases since 2012. (A mere 2,030,530 firearm background checks were logged that month, down by 500,000 from the same month in 2016!) It was the “Trump slump” in action.

The good old days for the gun makers -- you know, the ones when a Kenyan Muslim was in the White House and a mass of Democratic congressional flamethrowers was preparing to shut the spigot on gun purchases in America forever with draconian laws -- are long past. The National Rifle Association reigns; Republicans control Congress; Trump rules; gun control laws are something to be found in a galaxy far, far away; and all is safe, sound, and well in the world.

Or put another way, what’s often referred to as “fear-based” gun buying is no longer buoying the industry. One sign of this: in the past, mass shooting incidents (and the media brouhahas around them) were surefire gun-purchase inducers. Those background checks (a good measure of gun sales), for instance, rose 50% after Sandy Hook, 43% after the San Bernardino killings, and 40% after the Orlando Pulse nightclub massacre. But after last October's Las Vegas slaughter in which 58 died and hundreds were wounded, they sank by 13% compared to October 2016. And even the recent Parkland school killings and the gun debate and youthful protests that followed didn’t seem to help sales (at least not until quite recently).

So, fear and guns. After President Obama was elected and the Democrats took Congress, gun production tripled in this country (and imports doubled), while, according to recent studies, white men who fit a certain profile -- “anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears” -- stockpiled guns in record numbers. The gun, as one study reported, feels to them like “a force for order in a chaotic world,” though such owners are significantly more likely to use a gun in their home to kill or wound themselves or someone in their family than a burglar, intruder, or anyone else.

Think about a country filled with guns in numbers that should stagger the imagination, weapons that often have the power to rend flesh in ways that fit war, not the home. Then imagine the fears that have run rampart in this country in recent years and read the thoughts of TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan, as a mother, as the child of famed pacifists who protested violence and weaponry of every sort, and as a relatively sane soul in a country deeply on edge with itself.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


Gunning Down the Easter Bunny
The Weaponization of Everyday Life

uns. In a country with more than 300 million of them, a country that’s recently been swept up in a round of protests over the endless killing sprees they permit, you’d think I might have had more experience with them.

As it happens, I’ve held a gun only once in my life. I even fired it. I was in perhaps tenth grade and enamored with an Eagle Scout who loved war reenactments. On weekends, he and his friends camped out, took off their watches to get into the spirit of the War of 1812, and dressed in homemade muslin underclothes and itchy uniforms. I was there just one weekend. Somehow my pacifist parents signed off on letting their daughter spend the day with war reenactors. Someone lent me a period gown, brown and itchy and ill-fitting. We women and girls spent an hour twisting black gunpowder into newspaper scraps. I joked that the newspaper was anachronistic -- the previous week’s Baltimore Sun -- but no one laughed.

A man came by with a long gun, an antique, resting on the shoulder of his jerkin to collect our “bullets” and he must have read the gun terror written on my face.

“Wanna give it a try?” he asked.

“Sure,” I said, stumbling to my feet, pushing my gown out of the way, and trying to act like I didn’t have broken-rifle patches, symbols of the pacifist War Resisters League, all over my real clothes. I felt a surge of adrenaline as I took the heavy weapon in my way-too-small hands. He showed me how to wrestle it into position, aim it, and fire. There were no bullets, just one of my twists of powder, but it made a terrifying noise. I shrieked and came close to dropping the weapon.

And there it was: the beginning, middle, and end of my love affair with guns -- less than a minute long. Still, my hands seemed to tingle for the rest of the afternoon and the smell of gunpowder lingered in my hair for days.

Got Guns?

One in four Americans now owns a gun or lives in a household with guns. So how strange that, on that day in the late 1980s, I saw a real gun for the first and last time. I grew up in inner city Baltimore. I’ve worked at soup kitchens and homeless shelters all over the East Coast and stayed at dozens of Catholic Worker Houses around the country -- Providence, Camden, Syracuse, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles -- every one in a “tough” neighborhood. I lived in Red Hook, Brooklyn, in the mid-1990s, before you could get a $4 coffee or a zucchini scone on Van Brunt Street, before there was an Ikea or a Fairway in the neighborhood. All those tough communities, those places where President Trump imagines scenes of continual “American carnage,” and I’ve never again seen a gun.

Still, people obviously own them and use them in staggering numbers and in all sorts of destructive ways. Sensing that they’re widespread beyond my imagination, my husband and I have started asking the parents of our kids’ school friends if they own guns when we arrange play dates or sleepovers. We learned this from the father of a classmate of my 11-year-old stepdaughter Rosena. The dad called to make the arrangements for his son to come over after school. We talked logistics and food allergies and then he paused. “Now, I am sorry if this is intrusive,” he said, “but I do ask everyone: Do you keep guns in your house?” He sounded both uncomfortable and resolute.

I almost choked on my urge to say, “Don’t you know who I am?” In certain odd corners at least, my last name, Berrigan, is still synonymous with muscular pacifism and principled opposition to violence and weaponry of just about any kind, right up to the nuclear kind. But that dad probably didn’t even know my last name and it probably wouldn’t have meant a thing to him if he had. He just wanted to make sure his son was going to be safe and I was grateful that he asked -- rather than just assuming, based on our Volvo-driving, thrift-shop-dressing, bumper-sticker-sporting lifestyle, that we didn’t.

“You know how kids are,” he said after I assured him that we were a gun-free household. “They’ll be into everything.”

And right he is. Kids are “into everything,” which is undoubtedly why so many of them end up with guns in their hands or bullets in their bodies.

“Do you question everyone about their guns?” I asked the dad. He replied that he did and, if they answered yes, then he’d ask whether those weapons were locked away, whether the ammunition was stored separately, and so on.

“Thank you so much. I think we need to start doing that too,” I said as our conversation was ending and indeed I have ever since.

It’s a subject worth raising, however awkward the conversation that follows may be, because two million kids in this country live in homes where guns are not stored safely and securely. So far this year, 59 kids have been hurt in gun accidents of one sort or another. On average, every 34 hours in our great nation a child is involved in an unintentional shooting incident, often with tragic consequences.

The National Rifle Association’s classic old argument, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” takes on a far harsher edge when you’re talking about a seven-year-old accidentally killing his nine-year-old brother with a gun they found while playing in an empty neighboring house in Arboles, Colorado.

Two weeks after we learn this new parenting life skill in this oh-so-new century of ours, my husband Patrick is on the phone with a mom arranging a sleepover for Rosena. I hear him fumble his way through the gun question. From his responses, I assume the mom is acknowledging that they do have guns. Then there’s the sort of long, awkward silence that seems part and parcel of such conversations before Patrick finally says, “Well, okay, thanks for being so honest. I appreciate that.”

He hangs up and looks at me. “They do keep guns for hunting and protection, but they’re locked up and out of sight,” he tells me. “The mom says that the kids have never tried to get at the guns, but she understands the dangers.” (He had heard in her voice apology, embarrassment, and worry that the guns might mean no sleepover.)

I grimaced in a way that said: I don’t think Rosena should go and he responded that he thought she should. The two of them then had a long conversation about what she should do and say if she sees a gun. She slept over and had a great time. A lesson in navigating difference, trusting our kid, and phew… no guns made an appearance. And we know more about our neighbors and our community.

Anything Can Be a Gun

My son Seamus, five, received an Easter basket from a family friend. He was happy about the candy of course and immediately smitten with the stuffed bunny, but he was over the moon about what he called his new “carrot gun.” It wasn’t a toy gun at all, but a little basket that popped out a light ball when you pressed a button.

The idea was that you’d catch the ball, put it back in, and do it again. But that wasn’t the game my kids played. They promptly began popping it at each other. His little sister Madeline, four, was in tattle mode almost immediately. “Mom, Seamus is shooting me with his carrot gun!”

“Mom, mom, mom,” he responded quickly, “it’s a pretend play gun, not a real play gun. It's okay.” He made popping noises with his mouth and held his hand as if he were grasping a genuine forbidden toy gun. It was an important distinction for him. He’d been a full-throated participant in the March for Our Lives in Boston on March 24th, chanting with the rest of us “What do we want? Gun Control! When do we want it? NOW!” for four hours straight.

At the march, he pointed out that all the police officers managing traffic and the flow of people were wearing guns on their belts.

“I see a gun, Mom,” he kept saying, or “That police officer has a gun, Mom.”

Repeatedly, he noticed the means to kill -- and then four days after that huge outpouring of youth-led activism for gun security, Stephon Clark was indeed gunned down in his grandmother’s backyard in Sacramento, California. The police officers who shot him were looking for someone who had been breaking car windows in the neighborhood and they fired 20 shots into the dark in his direction. The independent autopsy found that he had been hit eight times, mostly in his back. Clark turned out to be holding only a cellphone, though the police evidently mistook it for a tool bar, which could have done them no harm from that distance, even if he had wielded it as a weapon.

Maybe the police saw a weapon the same way my five-year-old son sees one. He can make a stick or just about anything else, including that little basket, into a “gun” and so evidently can the police. Police officers have killed black men and boys holding pipes, water hose nozzles, knives, and yes, toy guns, too.

Where Does the Violence Come From?

Parkland (17 killed, 14 wounded). Newtown (28 killed, 2 wounded). Columbine (15 killed, 21 injured). School shootings are now treated as a structural part of our lives. They have become a factor in school architecture, administrator training, city and state funding, and security plans. The expectation that something terrible will happen at school shapes the way that three- and four-year-olds are introduced to its culture. Part of their orientation now involves regular “shelter in place” and “secure-school” drills.

At my daughter’s pre-school, the kids are told that they’re hiding from rabid raccoons, those animals standing in for marauding, disaffected white boys or men roaming the halls armed. As parents, we need to do more than blindly accept that these traumatic exercises are preparing our kids for the worst and helping them survive. Kids are vulnerable little beings and there are countless dangers out there, but they have a one-in-600-million chance of dying in a school shooting. We endanger them so much more by texting while driving them home from school.

After every episode of violence at a school -- or in the adult world at a church, night club, concert, movie theater, or workplace like San Bernardino’s Inland Regional Center or the YouTube headquarters -- there’s always a huge chorus of “why”? Pundits look at the shooter’s history, his (it’s almost always a guy) trauma, and whatever might be known about his mental health. They speculate on his (or, in the rare case of those YouTube shootings, her) political leanings, racial hatreds, and ethnic background. The search for whys can lead to hand wringing about hard-driving rock music or nihilistic video games or endemic bullying -- all of which could indeed be factors in the drive to kill significant numbers of unsuspecting people -- but never go far enough or deep enough.

Two questions are answered far too infrequently: Where do the guns come from? Where does violence come from?

Guns of all sizes and description are manufactured and sold in this country in remarkable numbers, far more than can be legally absorbed in our already gun-saturated land, so thousands of them move instead into the gray and black markets. Evidence of this trend shows up repeatedly in Mexico, where 70% of the weapons seized in crimes between 2009 and 2014 turned out to be made in El Norte. We have an estimated 300 million guns in this country, making us first by far in the world in gun ownership and some of them couldn’t conceivably be used for “hunting.” They are military-style weapons meant to tear human flesh and nothing but that -- like the AR-15 that 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz legally bought and used in his grim Parkland shooting spree.

This country, in other words, is a cornucopia of guns, which -- honestly, folks -- doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.

Where does the violence come from? I’ve already shared my inexperience with guns. Now, let me add to it my inexperience with violence. I don’t know what it’s like to have to react in a split second to or flee an advancing perpetrator. No one has ever come at me with a gun or a knife or a pipe, or anything else for that matter. And I count myself lucky for that. In a nation in which, in 2016 alone, 14,925 people were killed due to gun violence and another 22,938 used a gun to kill themselves, it’s a significant thing to be able to say.

And yet, I know that I’m the product of violence (as well as the urge, in my own family, to protest and stop it): the violence of white privilege, the violence of American colonialism, the violence of American superpowerdom on a global scale... and that’s no small thing. It’s a lot easier to blame active-shooter scenarios on poor mental-health screening than on growing up in a world layered with the threat of pervasive violence.

Power is about never having to say you’re sorry, never being held accountable. And that’s hardly just a matter of police officers shooting black men and boys; it’s about the way in which this country is insulated from international opprobrium by its trillion-dollar national security state, a military that doesn’t hesitate to divide the whole world into seven U.S. “commands,” and a massive, planet-obliterating nuclear arsenal.

And don’t think that any of that’s just a reflection of Trumpian bombast and brutality either. That same sense of never having to say you're sorry at a global level undergirded Barack Obama’s urbane dispassion, George Bush Junior’s silver spoon cluelessness, Bill Clinton’s folksy accessibility, George Bush Senior’s patrician poshness, Ronald Reagan’s aura of Hollywood charm, and Jimmy Carter’s southern version of the same. We’re talking about weapons systems designed to rain down a magnitude of terror unimaginable to the Nikolas Cruzes, Dylann Roofs, and Adam Lanzas of the world.

And it doesn’t even make us safe! All that money, all that knowledge, all that power put into the designing and displaying of weapons of mass destruction and we remain remarkably vulnerable as a nation. After all, in schools, homes, offices, neighborhoods across the country, we are being killed by our kids, our friends, our lovers, our police officers, our crumbling roads and bridges, our derailing trains. And then, of course, there are all those guns. Guns meant to destroy. Guns beyond counting.

So what might actually make us safer? After all, people theoretically buy the kind of firepower you might otherwise use only in war and pledge allegiance to the U.S. war machine in search of some chimera of safety. And yet, despite that classic NRA line -- “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” -- are we truly safer in a nation awash in such weaponry with so many scrambling in a state of incipient panic to buy yet more? Are my kids truly on the way to a better life as they practice cowering in their cubbies in darkened classrooms for fear of invading rabid “raccoons”?

Don’t you think that true security lies not in our arming ourselves to the teeth against other people -- that is, in our disconnection from them -- but in our connection to them, to the web of mutuality that has bound societies, small and large, for millennia? Don’t you think that we would be more secure and so much less terrified if we found ways to acknowledge and share our relative abundance to meet the needs of others? In a world awash in guns and fears, doesn’t our security have to involve trust and courage and always be (at best) a work in progress?

As for me, I'm tackling that work in progress in whatever ways I can -- with my neighbors, my town, my husband, and most of all my children, educating them in the ways violence scars and all those weapons just increase our journey into hell, never delivering the security they promise.



Frida Berrigan, a TomDispatch regular, writes the Little Insurrections blog for WagingNonviolence.org, is the author of It Runs In The Family: On Being Raised By Radicals and Growing Into Rebellious Motherhood, and lives in New London, Connecticut.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, as well as John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse's Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I'm a Peeliever and You Should Be, Too Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10204"><span class="small">Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Monday, 16 April 2018 08:52

Chait writes: "Trump has mixed his denials of the pee tape with obvious lies."

Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in London. The dossier contained explosive allegations about Trump and the Kremlin. (photo: Victoria Jones/PA)
Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in London. The dossier contained explosive allegations about Trump and the Kremlin. (photo: Victoria Jones/PA)


I'm a Peeliever and You Should Be, Too

By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine

16 April 18

 

ames Comey’s book describes a President Trump “obsessed” with allegations compiled in a dossier by British agent Christopher Steele that he was secretly recorded in Moscow in 2013 paying prostitutes to urinate on a bed that President Obama had slept in. I used to doubt that this episode really happened. I now believe it probably did. I am obviously far from certain, but since Steele’s dossier came out, an accumulation of evidence has tipped the balance from unlikely to likely. Let’s review what we’ve learned since the allegation first surfaced.

1. Christopher Steele is credible. Steele isn’t just some gumshoe. He’s an experienced intelligence collector whose work has been valued by the British and American governments. His sources seem to be serious, too, including “a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,” a “member of the staff at the hotel,” a “female staffer at the hotel when Trump had stayed there,” and “a close associate of Trump who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow.”

Steele himself has said that probably not every fact compiled in his dossier is true. The dossier was not intended as solid intelligence, but as a collection of leads. Still, the fact that Russia almost certainly murdered some of the sources for his reporting in the immediate wake of the dossier’s publication further attests to their credibility.

Update: One of the firmest denials Trump’s orbit has made of the Steele dossier has been its report that Michael Cohen met with Russian agents in Prague in the summer of 2016. Cohen has produced a passport showing no Czech visit. But McClatchy reports that Robert Mueller has evidence he did go to Prague to meet with Russians then, going through Germany, which would avoid any mark on his passport. In addition to constituting important evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, this is significant corroboration of Steele’s work.

2. Trump is unhealthily obsessed with Obama. Trump’s fixation with Barack Obama has been evident since his 2011 humiliation at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. But as we have mapped out the contours of Trump’s unbalanced psyche over the course of his presidency to date, the centrality of Obama has grown even more evident. He would routinely tell guests touring the Oval Office that the previous president had ignored the room. “Obama never used the Oval, but Trump is different,” he would say, in his customary third-person.

Obama hatred is the lodestar of Trump’s often confused policy-making. “It’s his only real position,” a top European diplomat told BuzzFeed last year. “He will ask: ‘Did Obama approve this?’ And if the answer is affirmative, he will say: ‘We don’t.’” Even bizarrely self-defeating actions like sabotaging the health-care exchanges, which will cause premiums to spike right before this November’s midterm elections, seem to be motivated by a desire to defile his predecessor’s legacy. Getting prostitutes to pee on the bed Obama slept in seems to be very much in character.

3. Trump has mixed his denials of the pee tape with obvious lies. Comey’s account describes Trump denying the pee tape, and, in the same breath, denying things that happened on a tape that has been seen by the entire country:

Trump also tried to convince Comey that he had not mocked disabled New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski at a campaign rally, and then turned to the detailed allegations of sexual assault against him.
“There was no way he groped that lady sitting next to him on the airplane, he insisted,” Comey writes. “And the idea that he grabbed a porn star and offered her money to come to his room was preposterous.”
And then Trump brought up “the golden showers thing,” Comey writes. The president told him that “it bothered him if there was ‘even a one percent chance’ his wife, Melania, thought it was true.” Comey writes that Trump told him to consider having the FBI investigate the prostitutes allegation to “prove it was a lie.”

Trump definitely mocked Serge Kovaleski:

And very credible accounts from Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal confirm him offering to pay for sex. If you hear somebody deny accusations X,Y, and Z all at once, and you know that X and Y are true, that has some bearing on whether you believe Z is true, also. Trump does not place the pee-tape allegation in some different category from things we know he did.

4. Trump’s alibi is at least partly false. Also according to Comey, Trump “argued that it could not be true because he had not stayed overnight in Moscow but had only used the hotel room to change his clothes.” But reporting by David Corn and Michael Isikoff reveal that Trump did spend a night at the hotel in Moscow where the episode was alleged to have taken place. Why would Trump offer up a false alibi for something that isn’t true?

5. Trump is comfortable with gross sexual behavior and can be blackmailed. We know more about Trump’s sex life now than we did in November 2016. He has had a lot of affairs. He has gone to great lengths to keep them quiet — which is to say, he can be blackmailed. And he is not averse to a sexually unconventional milieu. Corn and Isikoff have added some important reporting about a Las Vegas nightclub where Trump joined some of the entourage he had met with in Moscow:

The Act was no ordinary nightclub. Since March, it had been the target of undercover surveillance by the Nevada Gaming Con­trol Board and investigators for the club’s landlord—the Palazzo, which was owned by GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson—after complaints about its obscene performances. The club featured seminude women performing simulated sex acts of bestiality and grotesque sadomasochism—skits that a few months later would prompt a Nevada state judge to issue an injunction barring any more of its “lewd” and “offensive” performances. Among the club’s regular acts cited by the judge was one called “Hot for Teacher,” in which naked college girls simulate urinating on a professor. In another act, two women disrobe and then “one female stands over the other female and simulates urinating while the other female catches the urine in two wine glasses.” (The Act shut down after the judge’s ruling. There is no public record of which skits were performed the night Trump was present.)

Again, none of this is proof. All of it is at least somewhat suggestive.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Starbucks Arrests and the Toll of Routine Bias Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37309"><span class="small">Chas Danner, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Monday, 16 April 2018 08:46

Danner writes: "Over the weekend, a viral video showing the unwarranted arrests of two black men at a Philadelphia Starbucks led to protests and calls for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks."

Protestors demonstrate outside the Center City Starbucks where two black men were arrested on Thursday. (photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images)
Protestors demonstrate outside the Center City Starbucks where two black men were arrested on Thursday. (photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images)


The Starbucks Arrests and the Toll of Routine Bias

By Chas Danner, New York Magazine

16 April 18

 

ver the weekend, a viral video showing the unwarranted arrests of two black men at a Philadelphia Starbucks led to protests and calls for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks. The outrage earned nationwide media coverage, Twitter hashtags, and responses from Starbucks’ CEO and both Philadelphia’s mayor and police commissioner. Investigations into the incident are underway, as are the promises of policy reviews and policy changes that inevitably accompany such scandals.

As always, there are different versions of what happened, but for once, at least for now, many if not most observers seem to agree that arrests had to have been the end result of racial discrimination. The men appear to have been singled out for not buying anything, even though they said they were waiting for a friend, and were then reported to the police by a Starbucks employee. But while most news coverage has focused on the specifics of this one incident, the response from people of color has revealed yet another angle on the pervasive, routine bias that black Americans must contend with in public, and how discrimination is ultimately understood, or imperceptible, by others.

Below is what we know so far about what happened and the subsequent response — followed by some of what everyone probably should have known, shared by people who have lived through similar experiences.

The Videos

The first video of the two men’s arrests, which happened at a Starbucks in Philly’s Center City late Thursday afternoon, was posted on Twitter by one of the witnesses of the event, author Melissa DePino. That short video shows police leading the two men out of the Starbucks in handcuffs while appalled onlookers complain and press the officers for an explanation:

Another longer cell-phone video from a different angle, which seems to start just after the police arrive, was later uploaded on YouTube. Because of background noise, it is difficult to make out all of what the officers and two men are saying to each other in the video, but the men clearly remain calm throughout the encounter, and at least one of them can be seen and heard expressing disbelief as to why they are being asked to leave. The video also shows more of the confrontation between patrons of the Starbucks and the officers over the incident:

So What Happened?

In her tweets highlighting the episode, Melissa DePino, who is white, said that the police had been called since the men hadn’t ordered anything, but they hadn’t ordered anything because they were still waiting to meet a friend. That friend, a white real estate developer named Andrew Yaffe, arrived after the police and can be seen confronting the officers in both videos, asking them why they were called, and wondering aloud if it was “cause there are two black guys sitting here meeting me?” Other people in the Starbucks can also be heard saying that the men did nothing wrong.

In the longer video, before the men are handcuffed, Yaffe tells the police that he and his friends will just leave and go somewhere else, but one of the officers dismisses the idea.

“They’re not free to leave,” the officer replies. “We’re done with that.”

The officers then handcuff the men, who do not resist, and take them outside.

So far, the two men’s identities have been withheld, but some local reports indicate that they work as realtors. The lawyer for the two men, Lauren A. Wimmer, told BuzzFeed News that the two men were waiting to meet Yaffe to discuss some business opportunities. Before Yaffe arrived, according to Wimmer, a white female manager had asked the men, who had not ordered anything yet, to leave the Starbucks. She then called the police after the men said that they were waiting for their friend. After Yaffe arrived to find his friends being arrested, he called Wimmer for help.

The Philadelphia police later said that the men were arrested for “defiant trespassing,” but were released about nine hours later, at 2 a.m. Friday, after the Starbucks employees and the district attorney’s office declined to press charges.

On Saturday, Wimmer insisted that her clients “were blatantly discriminated against based on their race,” though it’s not yet clear if the men intend to file any lawsuits over the incident.

Also on Saturday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross made a statement defending the arrests, mainly along the line that the officers had followed procedure. He said that the department had received a 911 call about “a disturbance and trespassing” at the Starbucks location, and when the responding officers arrived, Starbucks employees told them that the two men had come into the establishment, sat down without buying anything, and then asked to use the restroom. The employees said they rejected the request, since it is Starbucks’ company policy to deny bathroom access to nonpaying customers, and then asked the men to leave. Ross said that according to the employees, the men refused to leave, even after being warned that the police would be called.

Ross claimed the two officers who responded to the call politely asked the men to leave three times, but they refused, forcing the officers to arrest them. The officers, who were eventually joined at the scene by a police supervisor, followed department policy and “did absolutely nothing wrong,” Ross explained, since they were responding to a private business’ trespassing complaint and had a legal obligation to remove the men. Ross, who is black, also emphasized that the department conducts implicit bias training for its officers to prepare them for scenarios like the one on Thursday. Implicit bias is when a person’s attitudes and stereotypes — based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, appearance, or sexual orientation — have an involuntary, unconscious effect on their judgment and actions. Ross said that he did not believe that such bias had affected the officers’ conduct during the incident.

No one else has reported the Starbucks employees’ perspective yet, but witnesses seem to contest the version Ross passed along. One patron who spoke with WPTI-TV confirmed that the incident began after the men were refused access to the restroom, but she claimed that the Starbucks manager did not ask the men to buy something or leave, and just called the police instead. She also said that she had seen a white woman obtain the code for the bathroom without buying something right before the men were arrested, and that during the incident, another person in the Starbucks announced that she had been sitting in the location for hours without purchasing anything.

The witness told WPTI-TV that the two men were just chatting quietly while they waited in the Starbucks, and that they remained calm during the entire ordeal. “These men were discriminated against and unjustly detained,” she asserted. Melissa DePino, who tweeted the original video, also told Philadelphia Magazine that she was sitting very close to the men, and didn’t even notice them until the police arrived and confronted them. “They never did anything remotely aggressive,” DePino added.

No witnesses have described anything the men did that could qualify as causing a “disturbance.”

On Saturday, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney put out a statement saying that he was “heartbroken” over “an incident that — at least based on what we know at this point — appears to exemplify what racial discrimination looks like in 2018.” Kenney also promised that the city would work to review Starbucks’ policies.

Not surprisingly, the story quickly led to online protests, including a lot attention from Black Lives Matter activists, as well as calls for a boycott of Starbucks, complete with recommendations for alternative black-owned coffee shops in the Philadelphia area.

One popular response was to characterize the two men’s only crime as “waiting while black,” a reference to how black Americans are often racially profiled and violently confronted for nothing more than “walking while black.” Overall, equal levels of criticism appear to have been directed at the police officers, Starbucks, and the Starbucks employees responsible for the 911 call. In Philadelphia itself, small protests were also organized over the weekend at the Starbucks where the incident occurred.

How Starbucks Responded, Then Re-Responded

After first promising to investigate what happened on Friday, Starbucks’ initial statement, issued a day later, didn’t go over very well. The company vaguely apologized “to the two individuals and our customers” over the incident and said it was “disappointed this led to an arrest” and would review its policies:

Then, after half-a-day of worsening backlash, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson offered a much stronger and more specific response. Johnson reapologized to the two men, insisted that the company “stands firmly against discrimination or racial profiling,” and promised to conduct an investigation into the incident, make any necessary changes to the company’s policies, and share what they learned in a companywide meeting. Johnson said the video of the arrests was “hard to watch” and he admitted that the company’s “practices and training led to a bad outcome” and that “the basis for the call to the Philadelphia police department was wrong.”

He also said that he would travel to Philadelphia “to speak with partners, customers and community leaders as well as law enforcement,” and hoped to be able to meet with the two arrested men so that he could apologize to them in person. It’s not year clear if or when that will happen.

According to Johnson, the “store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did.” That may be true, but if so, it’s not clear how the manager — or anyone even faintly aware of the numerous high-profile news stories about racial injustice, particularly at the hands of police, over the past several years — could have not anticipated that outcome. It’s also not clear if Starbucks will discipline the manger, though one report on Sunday night indicated that the company has confirmed that she no longer works at the store, though that may not necessarily mean she was fired.

Regardless, it’s likely that Starbucks will now try to respond to this incident forcefully, especially since the company has worked so hard to build a reputation as one of the more progressive corporations in America, including high-profile efforts to address racism, albeit with mixed results. The company also heavily promotes how important diversity and inclusion is to its company culture, meaning it needs to protect its employer brand (how current and prospective employees view the company), in addition to protecting its consumer brand.

Yes, This Kind of Thing Happens All the Time

But it might happen less if more people pay attention to how black men and women have responded on social media, sharing their own similar experiences and related anxieties, and explaining how they feel forced to act in most places of business.

ESPN’s Joel D. Anderson got one thread started on Twitter, explaining that he was struck by the resignation the two men in the Starbucks video seemed to show about their ordeal:

Others nodded in agreement (and these are just some of the many like-minded responses that showed up on social media over the weekend):

Comedian W. Kamau Bell, who shared his own story about getting kicked out of a coffee shop on This American Life a few years ago, revisited that experience and pointed out that, despite the subsequent outrage, nothing changed at that establishment afterward. He said he hopes that won’t be the case this time around:

Another journalist added that one of the reasons he likes to write in libraries instead of coffee shops is so he can avoid suspicious looks. A television producer, meanwhile, responded by sharing a story about having the cops called on her while trying to cash her paycheck at a bank:

She also pointed out that it could have gotten much, much worse if she hadn’t kept her cool:

In another thread, writer Elon James White detailed the mental toll such experiences have had on him across his life:

White went on to explain that he doesn’t feel that anxiety in a predominantly black space, and the tension is not just psychological, but something he can feel in his body. He also emphasized, as many have, the importance of just believing someone when they share stories of discrimination, particularly since “most times we know what the fuck we just experienced”:

That, of course, echoes one of the central points of the #MeToo movement when it comes to reports of sexual harassment and assault: the importance, first and foremost, of believing victims, instead of trying to rationalize, recontextualize, or in any other way dismiss their accounts.

As writer and activist Andray Domise pointed out in an exasperated Twitter thread over the weekend, too often, people of color pay a steep price — from criminalization to violence to losing their very lives — because white people “cannot police their imagination” during their encounters with people of color.

It’s also a point that Melissa DePino has been trying to make since her tweet went viral, in that she is trying to raise white awareness about white cluelessness when it comes to understanding racial discrimination and bias.

“Ever since I posted [the video],” she tweeted on Friday, “I’ve had white strangers AND friends say ‘there must be something more to this story.’ That assumption is a big part of the problem.”

She later elaborated in an interview with The Root’s Monique Judge:

DePino said she was asked by more than one person if it was possible the men had done something she hadn’t seen; if maybe they had been recognized because they had been to the same Starbucks on a different day and caused trouble; if it was possible she hadn’t seen the entire incident.
“So many people saw what happened,” DePino said. “We all spoke up. We followed the police out of the store. It was crazy.”

Judge goes on to emphasize how essential it is for people, and especially white people, to recognize and account for their own biases. Believing the victims of discrimination is essential, but so is trying to prevent discrimination, either through intervention, or by recognizing how bias influences thoughts and actions and results in situations like what happened in Philadelphia. In the case of testing for and counteracting implicit bias, there is also still much left to be learned.

In the case of the Starbucks incident, bystanders recognized what was happening and tried to intervene, as well as capture and publicize what they saw. It made a difference, since this story has now become national news. It also came with little risk in this case. Whether they realized it or not at the time, DePino and Andrew Yaffe, the two men’s late-arriving friend, can challenge police officers to their faces and get angry in public places and loiter in the comfiest Starbucks chairs for hours without fearing any of the same consequences that people of color must.

But for Ernest Owens, an editor at Philadelphia Magazine, the weekend-long attention on the Starbucks arrests also demonstrated some infuriating realities about how stories of discrimination are processed by the media and wider public. In particular, he argued that the only reason the arrests went viral was because there was a video of it, and that video was filmed by a white woman. “It takes other white people to say something is racist before the mob of them believe it,” he explained on Twitter. “If those two Black men didn’t have other white people “validating” them — this wouldn’t have gone viral.”

As Owens and many others have tried to explain this weekend, some variation of what happened in that one Starbucks happens every day all over the country to a lot more people than most of us realize. Addressing it will demand attention and empathy, from outside communities of color, at times when there is no spectacle or novelty to focus on, or corporation’s app to delete, or white woman’s cell phone video to share.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
LGBT 'Conversion Therapy' Is Dying a Quick Death Across America. Good. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36366"><span class="small">Samantha Allen, The Daily Beast</span></a>   
Monday, 16 April 2018 08:43

Allen writes: "There is perhaps no other LGBT-related issue in the U.S. that has garnered such bipartisan levels of support. There's a broad consensus that conversion therapy is bad."

Bans on conversion therapy are still coming with seemingly accelerated momentum. (image: Daily Beast)
Bans on conversion therapy are still coming with seemingly accelerated momentum. (image: Daily Beast)


LGBT 'Conversion Therapy' Is Dying a Quick Death Across America. Good.

By Samantha Allen, The Daily Beast

16 April 18


There is perhaps no other LGBT-related issue in the U.S. that has garnered such bipartisan levels of support. There’s a broad consensus that conversion therapy is bad.

t’s hard to imagine the Trump presidency going down in history as a fantastic time for LGBT rights. And yet LGBT people have been scoring several successive victories on the state and local level on a particularly critical issue: making conversion therapy a crime.

Since Donald Trump and Mike Pence took office, five states—New Mexico, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Nevada, Washington—have banned the medically condemned practice of trying to change a minor’s sexual orientation and gender identity, bringing the total number of U.S. states with such bans up to 10.

Several Florida municipalities, major cities like Philadelphia and New York, and other smaller cities have also now banned conversion therapy during the Trump-Pence administration.

These bans on conversion or “reparative,” therapy are still coming with seemingly accelerated momentum: As Amber Phillips noted in her recent Washington Post appraisal of state-level LGBT victories, it seems “likely” that over a dozen states and D.C. will have made it illegal to subject a minor to this ostensibly therapeutic but demonstrably cruel practice by the end of the legislative session.

A conversion therapy ban in Maryland, as Into reported, is basically a done deal now that it has passed the House of Delegates.

As Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty highlighted, one of the most moving speakers in support of the impending Maryland ban was bisexual Republican delegate Meagan Simonaire who shared a story about a girl who underwent conversion therapy and experienced “significant pain, self-loathing, and deep depression”—all before disclosing that she herself was the subject of the story.

Just this week the Hawaii House of Representatives voted in favor of a conversion therapy ban, as Into also noted. And in the opposite corner of the country, the Maine House narrowly voted in favor of a conversion therapy ban after a lengthy debate, as the Portland Press Herald reported on Thursday.

“I know there are young people who are far more vulnerable than I was back then,” said Democratic representative and bill sponsor Ryan Fecteau. “I want to protect them from the harm that can come from a trusted professional telling them one way or another, that they are broken, that the core truth of who they are is wrong and even disgusting.”

Lawmakers of all political affiliations are seeing conversion therapy for what it is—and taking decisive action to stamp it out.

Although a proposed ban recently failed in Virginia, the success stories of the last two years are far outweighing the failures. This is one rare LGBT-related area in which the United States appears to be outperforming Canada and the U.K., which have tended to trend ahead of America in terms of formal LGBT protections.

The U.K. has nationwide discrimination protections for LGBT people but still hasn’t banned conversion therapy, even though as Stonewall notes, “all major counseling and psychotherapy bodies, as well as the [National Health Service] have concluded that conversion therapy is dangerous and have condemned it.”

Both last year and this year, the Church of England has asked the British Parliament to move forward with a ban—but so far, there has been no progress.

(The European country of Malta, on the other hand, became the first in the continent to ban conversion therapy in 2016, and as NBC News reported, and now charges a fine of up to 10,000 euros with a brief jail sentence for a single violation.)

In Canada, the province of Ontario has a ban on conversion therapy in place and the Manitoba province website states that “conversion therapy can have no place in the province’s public health-care system” but the city of Vancouver has not yet done so, and no other provinces have banned it despite impassioned pleas from LGBT advocates.

“Where are the provinces?” asked Daily Xtra columnist Rob Salerno in fall 2017. “Why haven’t they stepped up to ban conversion therapy outright?”

The relative inaction on the issue internationally only brings the momentum to ban conversion therapy in the U.S. into sharper relief: By the end of 2018, if the expected state-level bans fall into place, around a third of the U.S. population will live in a state or municipality where conversion therapy is illegal.

That’s no small feat for a country where anti-LGBT groups currently hold as much sway as they do on a federal level.

These bans won’t just pay hypothetical dividends, either: They will save real children’s lives. In January of this year, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimated that 77,000 LGBT minors in the United States today will be subjected to conversion therapy by the time they turn 18, whether it happens in the office of a licensed health professional or a religious adviser.

That would only add to the estimated total of nearly 700,000 American adults who have already gone through some form of conversion therapy in their lives.

“The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great and include depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior,” the American Psychiatric Association warns, and the American Academy of Pediatrics notes that “it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

***

Conversion therapy is both pointless and painful. At its best, it can inflict considerable psychological damage on a child without changing their sexual orientation or gender identity whatsoever.

At its worst, it can lead to suicide, as appeared to happen in the 2015 case of transgender teenager Leelah Alcorn, whose death prompted calls for a failed federal ban on conversion therapy called “Leelah’s Law.”

State and local-level conversion therapy bans, by comparison, don’t always make front-page national news, appearing more often in local papers or LGBT-specific outlets. But there is, as writer Nico Lang put it last year, a “national movement” growing around these bills that will benefit the lives of LGBT youth for generations to come.

“2017 could prove a watershed year in the push to ban the practice,” Lang predicted, and he was right: Before 2017, five states—New Jersey, California, Oregon, Illinois and Vermont—banned conversion therapy over a time span ranging from 2012 to 2016. Since that year, that total has now doubled.

That speed seems to be a testament to the agility with which state-level LGBT organizations and national LGBT groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Center for Lesbian Rights can coordinate to get this legislation passed locally.

Democratic senators have tried to introduce federal legislation like “Leelah’s Law” to ban conversion therapy nationwide but in a Republican-controlled Washington, such a move is mostly a symbolic gesture.

By contrast, on the state and local level, it is much easier to find and build a broad base of support for conversion therapy bans—and as Mark Joseph Stern has recently noted for Slate, at least four Republican governors, including Chris Christie, have now signed conversion therapy bans. Maryland governor Larry Hogan, who said he would sign the coming conversion therapy ban, is also a Republican.

There is perhaps no other LGBT-related issue that has garnered such bipartisan levels of support—and it’s easy to see why: There’s a broad consensus in this country that conversion therapy is bad—or, at least, ineffective.

A 2014 YouGov poll found that only eight percent of respondents believed it was possible to change someone’s sexual orientation from gay to straight, with 28 percent answering they were “not sure.” Other polling data cited by the Williams Institute suggests that sizable majorities in states like Florida and Virginia believe conversion therapy should be banned.

So although the 2016 GOP platform technically included support for conversion therapy—largely, it seems, as a result of influential anti-LGBT figures like Family Research Council president Tony Perkins—it’s clear that most Americans, and plenty of Republican elected officials, see this issue as a no-brainer: Conversion therapy doesn’t work and is potentially deadly, ergo it shouldn’t be practiced on children.

That's not to say the efforts to ban conversion therapy in the U.S. won’t hit a deep red wall. Indeed, bans have been proposed in Republican-controlled states like Kansas and Idaho but don’t seem likely to pass anytime soon. But the fact that more moderate Republican governors have signed such bills when they do manage to reach their desks is a promising sign.

It might seem too good to be true—or too delicious an irony— that the state of conversion therapy in the United States would deteriorate so rapidly when the Current vice president is someone who has not condemned the practice in his own words and once campaigned on redirecting money from an HIV program to “institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.”

But that’s exactly what’s happening. Conversion therapy isn’t dying a slow and painful death, but a quick one. The Trump administration may not be remembered as a golden age for LGBT folks, but it will almost certainly go down in history as the moment the tide turned against conversion therapy.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
It Is Unbelievable That Missouri's Governor Is Still in Office Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Sunday, 15 April 2018 13:39

Pierce writes: "We will spend most of our time on this week's tour in Missouri, where the sex scandal surrounding Governor Eric Greitens got deeper and uglier with the release of a legislative report that pretty much fitted Greitens' political career for a shroud."

Eric Greitens and Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
Eric Greitens and Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)


It Is Unbelievable That Missouri's Governor Is Still in Office

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

15 April 18


The allegations against Eric Greitens are horrific, and his reaction isn't much better.

(Permanent Musical Accompaniment To This Post)

Being our semi-regular weekly survey of what’s goin’ down in the several states where, as we know, the real work of governmentin’ gets done, and where the lines are long and the fighting is strong.

e will spend most of our time on this week’s tour in Missouri, where the sex scandal surrounding Governor Eric Greitens got deeper and uglier with the release of a legislative report that pretty much fitted Greitens’ political career for a shroud. From The Kansas City Star:

What happened next, she testified under oath to a Missouri House committee investigating allegations of misconduct against Republican Gov. Eric Greitens, is spelled out in graphic detail in a 25-page report and transcripts of testimony that the lawmakers released Wednesday. It’s the first time the public has heard sworn testimony from the woman at the center of allegations of misconduct against the governor. The woman told lawmakers that in March 2015, as she tried to leave the basement of his St. Louis home, Greitens grabbed her in a "bear hug" and laid her on the floor. Then he started fondling her, pulled out his penis and coerced her into oral sex while she wept “uncontrollably.” The woman told the committee that Greitens had led her down to the basement, taped her hands to pull-up rings, blindfolded her, spit water into her mouth, ripped open her shirt, pulled down her pants and took a photo without her consent.
He threatened to make the photos public if she ever told anyone about their encounter, and called her "a little whore," the woman told lawmakers. After her hands were freed, she said she felt she had no other choice but to perform oral sex if she was going to get out of the basement. The woman and Greitens had several sexual encounters over the next few months in 2015, she testified. Some were consensual. Others were not. On at least three occasions he hit her.

There were five Republicans and two Democrats on the committee hearing this godawful testimony, and the committee found the woman’s testimony to be credible.

Republican legislative leaders — including House Speaker Todd Richardson and Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard — announced the report was enough to warrant a special session to consider disciplinary actions, including impeachment. Attorney General Josh Hawley later issued a statement saying Greitens' alleged conduct detailed in the report "is certainly impeachable," and he called on the governor to resign. Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, said the testimony in the report "is beyond disturbing. He later added: "The power given to the Missouri General Assembly to take disciplinary action or remove elected officials from office is one of the most serious and consequential powers the Constitution grants the legislature. We will not take that responsibility lightly. We will not act rashly, but we will not shrink from it."

Greitens, a rising star in Republican politics, is in serious trouble and, seeing how things work in Washington, apparently is determined to brazen this out.

He declined the committee’s request for him to testify, as well as an invitation to provide documents. But in a statement to the media shortly before the report's release, Greitens said the allegations against him were "false" and "outlandish." He also panned the committee's process, which conducted its work behind closed doors, and for not waiting until after his criminal trial begins in May before releasing its findings. He said the attacks against him are part of a "political witch hunt." "It was decided to publish an incomplete document made in secret," he said, later adding: "We have heard some of the stories they've been pushing in the press, and they are downright false." He refused calls to resign.

Sure are a lot of witches to hunt these days.

The situation is an astonishing collision of alleged sexual assault, political ambition, a huge imbalance of power and influence, and quite ordinary human frailty, as this account from the Star illustrates.

The ex-husband of Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens’ alleged victim told a legislative committee that he feared for his life and that a legal fund was set up for him after he was contacted by reporters and at least one lawmaker. However, the alleged victim told lawmakers that her former husband had threatened as far back as 2015 to expose the details of her affair with Greitens and allegations that he abused her and photographed her without consent. Despite the man’s claims of reluctance to go public, his ex-wife told lawmakers that the day after their conversation about Greitens, “he kept saying, I’m going to ruin this guy, I’m going to ruin this guy.” The man’s decision to go public with the allegations against Greitens in early January has rocked Missouri politics, leading to a criminal trial and a legislative investigation that could force the governor from office less than two years into his governorship.
The former couple gave similar accounts about Greitens’ behavior, but their explanations of how the alleged behavior became public knowledge—potentially ending the career of a rising Republican star—are wildly different. This was either a father reluctantly coming forward out of fear for his life and concern for his kids, or it was an ex-husband seeking revenge on his ex-wife and the man he blamed for the breakup of their marriage.

But this week’s development is an important pivot. The Missouri state legislature has set itself on a collision course with the state’s governor. Josh Marshall’s joint has a good round-up of the reaction to the legislative report and the woman’s testimony.

Republican Attorney General Josh Hawley, a one-time Greitens ally, called for the governor to “resign immediately” over the “impeachable” conduct described in the report. “The House Investigative Committee’s Report contains shocking, substantial, and corroborated evidence of wrongdoing by Governor Greitens,” Hawley said in a Wednesday evening statement.
Hawley is currently challenging U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) for her Senate seat. McCaskill also called on Greitens to step down, criticizing him for putting his “wife and children through this kind of pain.” “The transcripts paint the picture of a vulnerable woman and a man who preyed on that vulnerability. I am disgusted, disheartened, and I believe Governor Greitens is unfit to lead our state,” Missouri Rep. Ann Wagner (R) said in a statement. Republican Rep. Jean Evans used similar language, saying “violence against women is always wrong” and Greitens should “do what is in the best interest of the people of Missouri and resign.”

It appears that Greitens even is losing the fringe of his party. Again, from the KC Star:

The report about Greitens' alleged behavior “surpasses disturbing,” said Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler. “It is disgusting.” Her strongly worded statement stopped short of calling directly on Greitens to resign, but Hartzler said his alleged behavior is not “befit for a leader in Missouri or anywhere else for that matter.” “Although he is certainly due his day in court, these reports further call into question his character as an individual, regardless of whether a law has been broken or not,” Hartzler said. She praised the “deliberate steps” taken by the Missouri General Assembly to respond to the allegations and said she was praying for the governor’s wife, Sheena Greitens, their children and others who have been affected by the scandal.
“More now than ever before we are in desperate need of honorable people with integrity willing to dedicate themselves to public service,” Hartzler said. “Our government needs it and the people of Missouri and our nation deserve it.”

One suspects that Greitens is going to decide at some point in the very near future that it’s time to go home and write the book about how he was hounded out of public life.

We leave Missouri and hop up to Michigan, where the state told the people of Flint, who still do not have clean tap water, that it is suspending bottled water delivery, and where Governor Rick Snyder decided to give up on another misbegotten scheme regarding the food the state feeds the inmates in its prisons. From The Detroit News:

Michigan’s Republican-led Legislature voted to privatize prison food service in 2012, a move that was projected to save the state $16 million a year as contract workers replaced more than 370 state employees. Snyder announced plans to end the outsourcing in February after two vendor contracts were marred by food quality complaints, instances of maggot infestation and inappropriate contact between kitchen employees and prisoners, including sexual activity. “We haven’t experienced the overall costs savings that we desired,” said Rep. Dave Pagel, R-Berrien Springs, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Corrections. “It’s something we gave a fair shot to. We tried, and it just hasn’t seemed to work.”

Yeah, “maggot infestation” is certainly a mark against the legislation, even if the legislature itself seems willing to live with the problem.

And we conclude, as is out custom, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Rum Igniter Friedman of the Plains continues to bum around the Caribbean while keeping us updated on matters back home. At a particularly feisty session of the legislature, there was a big brawl over a proposal to end the deduction of capital gains taxation. This being Oklahoma, naturally, cows were involved. From Nondoc:

Lawmakers with a heavy agriculture presence in their district are among those most opposed to SB 1086, since cow-calf operations pay capital gains on the heifers they purchase, feed, breed and sell while pregnant. “The main effect is it would hurt farmers and ranchers who are already working on narrow margins,” said Rep. John Pfeiffer (R-Orlando). “It’s kind of a more specific model, but I’ve got a lot of constituents who go out and bring heifers in. They’ll go out and they’ll buy a semi-load or two of heifers up north — from some of the big ranchers in Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana — and they’ll bring them in and graze them on our good Oklahoma wheat we have here. And they’ll breed them, then they’ll turn around and sell them as bred heifers. “The problem is that, as (SB) 1086 is currently written, these guys who, depending on the cattle markets and how much they have to buy these for, are working on very thin margins. They then (would) have to turn around and pay 5 percent income taxes on those heifers once they’ve sold them.”

All in favor say, “Moo.”

This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 Next > End >>

Page 1280 of 3432

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.

RSNRSN