Skip to content

Month: July 2015

This is how far they’ve moved to the right on abortion

This is how far they’ve moved to the right on abortion

by digby

Politifact:

[Senator Tammy] Baldwin said Walker’s views on abortion are more restrictive “than any Republican president in recent times.”

Walker supports outlawing abortion in all circumstances. The three most recent GOP presidents each supported exceptions, such as allowing abortion to protect the life of the mother.

We rate Baldwin’s statement True.

If you want to know what the hardcore anti-abortion people believe, just look at that statement: today the right to life of a fetus actually supersedes the right to life of a woman. Think about that. They have so little regard for the human being in whose body the fetus gestates that they believe it’s better for her to die than to have an abortion.  Not that we didn’t know that.

And all the Villagers think The Great Whitebread Hope is the moderate who can win the race. Because meatloaf.

A good way to handle Fox News

A good way to handle Fox News

by digby

Fox is working itself into a frenzy over San Francisco again:

Scott Wiener, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, knew Fox News was lurking.

“They’ve been stalking various members of the board of supervisors for the last week. They went to someone’s home. One of my colleagues said they were following her around in her district last week,” Wiener told ThinkProgress in a phone interview.

Fox News became interested in local San Francisco politicians like Wiener after the murder of Kathryn Steinle by an undocumented immigrant. Fox saw this as an opportunity to point the blame at the Board Of Supervisors for making San Francisco a “sanctuary city” that does not actively seek the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Or, as Wiener put it, Fox News is trying to “take advantage of a horrific crime to bash immigrants.”

When Fox News finally ambushed him in the hallway, Wiener knew what he was going to do. He didn’t want to answer the questions because he knew Fox News was not going to make a good faith effort to cover the issue. He didn’t want to just duck his head and hide, because he knew how that looked on TV. So he addressed Fox News directly: “Fox News is not real news. And you’re not a real reporter.”

This short clip has made Wiener a hero in his city. The response in San Francisco has been “overwhelmingly and enthusiastically positive. People are thrilled. There is such a deep seated frustration with Fox News and the fringe it represents,” Wiener said, saying he’d also received messages of support from around the country.

Fox could not be more thrilled to have this story to flog. It’s got it all, liberal hippies in San Francisco, an undocumented Mexican murder suspect and a lovely young victim who happens to be white. It’s their version of #blacklivesmatter. Except without the context of centuries of oppression and systemic injustice.  (Actually, now that I think about it, there is a historical context to this whole notion of the evil “other” raping and killing innocent young white women, isn’t there?)

.

QOTD: John McCain

QOTD: John McCain

by digby

In the New Yorker

“This performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me,” McCain said. “Because what he did was he fired up the crazies.”

“We’ll see how this plays out, but there is some anger in my state,” McCain said. He mentioned the continuing challenges of border security that were vividly highlighted when tens of thousands of Central American minors crossed into America last summer. “People who otherwise might be more centrist are angry about this border situation.”

I really doubt that. The people who are angry about the border situation are ill-informed xenophobes who blame every perceived problem on someone else, usually people of color. They are not “centrist” about anything. They are right wingers who, by the way, McCain also courted when he was running for the nomination and trying to hold on to his Senate seat. Mr Integrity isn’t above a little demagoguery when it’s necessary.

Where does he think Trump got his ideas?

.

Serena Williams, racism & the subjugation of women, by @Gaius_Publius

Serena Williams, racism & the subjugation of women

by Gaius Publius

Dave Zirin, writing at The Nation, has a great under-the-radar catch regarding the vilification of women’s tennis star Serena Williams. And like much of what Zirin writes (after all, he does work at The Nation), there are major social and political implications to this story. In particular:

  • The emergence of a once-in-a-century miracle of athletic talent and development
  • Right-wing racism and #BlackLivesMatter
  • The relentless body-shaming of women (among other things, a method of social control)
  • An ordinary story of the propagandistic hatred of the “left” by our mainstream idea-minders
  • A poverty of defense for that talent relative to the widespread 1960s defense of Muhammad Ali

That’s a pretty good list for one “sports” story. I’ll try to tell it without borrowing too much of Zirin’s own writing. You should read the piece whole, if you have time. It’s very good.

Serena Williams, the Muhammed Ali of our Time

The background: Serena Williams is not only one of the most magnificent athletes of our time — Zirin compares her to Muhammed Ali; as an athlete I compare her also to Magic Johnson — but she’s a touchstone for all of the other issues listed above. Rolled into one story is racism, body-shaming of women, and the way the “left” is commonly treated by media and cultural defenders of the status quo.

Let’s start with the way Williams has been treated lately. Judd Legum at ThinkProgress (my emphases everywhere):

Serena Williams’ victory at Wimbledon, her fourth Grand Slam in a
row
, was a singular athletic achievement. Williams’ victory was her
twenty-first Grand Slam victory overall
and strengthened her claim as
the greatest female tennis players of all time — and one of the greatest
athletes ever in any sport. It was celebrated by millions around the
world.

David Frum had a different reaction.

Frum, a former adviser to George W. Bush who is now the Senior Editor
of The Atlantic, strongly suggested that Williams was on steroids based
on her physical appearance[.] …

Frum expanded on his suspicions in a series of tweets he later deleted, claiming they were intended to be “a private Twitter conversation with a friend.” In his deleted tweets, Frum compared Serena to admitted dopers in other sports like Mark McGwire and Lance Armstrong.

Daniel Koffler, a medical student and competitive power lifter who
has worked as a Certified Strength And Conditioning Specialist, says
there’s no reason to suspect Williams based on her physical appearance.
“Women can, and very frequently do, achieve levels of muscular size and
strength not just equal to but greater than Serena Williams’ without
using steroids,” Koffler told ThinkProgress.

Koffler said it impossible to tell with certainty whether someone has
used steriods based on their physical appearance. But, according
Koffler’s, Williams’ physique creates “no rational basis for heightened
suspicion.”

Legum notes that Williams is “one of the most frequently drug tested players in men’s or women’s tennis.” What’s the objection from Frum and other similar commenters? Apparently this:

Serena Williams at the beach (click to enlarge; more here)

Consider all the frightening boxes just this image checks off in the easily frightened mind:

  • A very strong woman
  • A very strong black person (who’s not light-skinned, by the way)
  • A very proud, unintimidated person, who throws body-shaming back in the faces of the critics

There’s much that’s scary to confront in an image like this, in behavior like this. Couple that with what’s known about her greatness (the correct word for her athletic accomplishments; 21 grand slam victories is a near-unbreakable record), and even ignoring what’s known about her politics — more below — this is a challenging woman.

I would even say this: A very frightening woman for two groups, those who fear blacks (they are many) and those who fear woman (there are a great many more). In fact, this could almost be more about fearing and attacking a woman who happens to be black than it is fearing and attacking a black person who happens to be a woman.

Now Zirin:

Serena Williams Is Today’s Muhammad Ali

As a political symbol and an athletic powerhouse, Serena Williams is “the greatest” in her sport.

There are numerous articles—terrific articles—defending Serena Williams
against the racism and sexism that have long stalked her career. This
will not be one of those articles. As long as gutter invective is hurled
at Serena, there will always be a need to defend her—and by extension
stand up for everyone who feels the primary sting of these attacks. (J.K. Rowling is even standing up for Serena, adding a new dimension to her #blackgirlmagic.) But, just as I wrote last week
about not merely “defending” women’s sports but actually going on
“offense,” we need to be similarly aggressive in stating factually just
who Serena is becoming before our very eyes. If our eyes remain narrowed
in a defensive stance, we could be missing a transcendent chapter in
sports and social history beginning to coalesce
.

A “transcendent chapter in sports and social history.” First, this is why he will invoke Ali. Second, this is a joyful piece, not a mournful one.

More:

Serena Williams just won her 21st Grand Slam. That’s the same number
every other active women’s player has collected combined. In her last 28
matches she is 28-0,
and at the US Open this August, Ms. Williams will be favored to win the
sport’s first calendar Grand Slam since Steffi Graf did it 27 years
ago. At 33, Williams actually seems to be gaining strength, and as John McEnroe said to ESPNW’s Jane McManus,
among women, “she could arguably be the greatest athlete of the last
100 years.” I think this even understates her case. She is our Jordan.
She is our Jim Brown. She is our Babe Ruth, calling his shots. She is no
longer content to dodge bullets, but understands how to stop them.
Serena is that rare athlete who has not only mastered her sport. She’s
harnessed it.

But Serena Williams is more than just our 21st-century Michael
Jordan. If we take a break from defending her, which her detractors do
not make easy, it becomes increasingly clear that she is also perhaps
our Muhammad Ali. That’s sacrilege in some circles, and understandably
so. Ali risked years in federal prison to stand up to an unjust war,
becoming the most famous draft resister in history. His very presence at
different points inspired the first Pan-Africanist stirrings of Malcolm
X, the anti-war evocations of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the very
mental survival of a prisoner half-way around the world named Nelson
Mandela. There is and never will be anyone like Ali, without question.
But this is also not the 1960s, and there will also never be anyone like
Serena.

That this is not the 1960s is a key element of this story. Note my fifth bullet at the top of this piece.

More about Williams and Ali:

Serena Williams is our Ali, and before defending that statement, I
want to break down what, in my view, makes Ali “Ali.” To be in Muhammad
Ali’s tradition of athletes, there are three basic boxes one would need
to check: The first is that the sportsperson in question would need to
be amongst “the greatest” in their field. As mentioned above, Serena
more than checks that box. Secondly, one would have to be polarizing in a
way that speaks to issues beyond the field
: thrilling some people
politically and enraging others with every triumph. Similarly, a loss
would feel like more than “just a game” to their fans: more like a punch
to the gut. Lastly, to even be in this conversation, one would have to
not just “represent” or symbolize a political yearning but actually
stand for something, and risk their commercial appeal by taking such
stands
. Serena doesn’t only check these boxes. She has, I would argue,
confronted—and overcome—more obstacles than even the great Muhammad ever
had to face. Her political powers of representation, every time she
emerges victorious, is off the meter.

Symbolically, the very audacity of Serena Williams—a black woman
from Compton who has owned a country-club sport with style, flair, and the occasional leopard suit,
is without comparison. She is “peak Tiger Woods” in skill, but cut with
Ali’s transgressive style: the equivalent of the Champ telling the
craggy, macho world of boxing that he was “so very pretty.” But not even
Ali had to achieve in an atmosphere as inhospitable as Serena’s
athletic setting
. … Even at his most denigrated, Ali’s loudest
detractors conceded that his physical body was a work of athletic
sculpture. … Not Serena. Instead,
she has had to face a tennis world that has made it clear in tones
polite and vulgar that it would be so nice if she wasn’t there. … While
overwhelmingly male sports media and many tennis fans mocked and
continue to belittle her appearance, Williams brushes them off—at least
publicly—like so much shoulder dust. The greater her stature, the more
pathetic they look. The higher her profile, the lower they seem. In
Ali’s day, William F. Buckley saw it as his “white man’s burden” to tear
him down. Serena has Buckley’s media spawn attempting the same and they look just as small, just as pathetic. …

Let me send you to The Nation for the rest; it’s a terrific read.

Williams Does Not Have a 1960s Wind at Her Back

Note, as Zirin does above, that one of the major differences between Williams and Ali is the lack of “movement” support. Ali was active in a time that honored him for his bold, popular-among-many, anti-establishment stances. Sadly (for us), that was pre-Reagan, and pre-Reagan’s seduction of “ordinary Americans” (my term is “troglodyte Reagan Democrats”) into the fog of racism and authoritarianism from which they had briefly emerged.

As Zirin notes, Williams takes many explicitly leftist, populist, anti-racist stands — for example, support for boycotts against the flying of the Confederate flag, support for the murdered victims of the Emanuel AME Church massacre, support for pay equity in tennis, and many similar causes (Zirin has a good list; click to read).

So not only does Williams check off the hated “black” and “woman” boxes; she ticks the “leftie agitator” box as well — which is Zirin’s point. Note again, though, his is not a mournful piece. It’s a celebratory one. Like Ali, Serena Williams has a career to cheer and enjoy, and fortunately for us, it’s unfolding in front of us.

Body-Shaming, Social Control & Women

A note about body-shaming as social control: When a society constantly and heavily criticizes a group, in this case women, almost from birth, members of that group frequently go into hiding emotionally and become malleable against the onslaught of further criticism. Which is the point.

In the case of women and their bodies, it doesn’t matter whether there is praise for those who meet the “standard” or blame for those who don’t. The measuring rod against which all women and few men are constantly judged becomes a constant reminder of social unacceptability. In simpler terms, that “measuring rod” is a stick to beat them with — constantly.

If you want to keep a sub-population under control, to dampen their rebellious, resistance and defensive impulses, start while they’re young and constantly criticize them. This is how colonies of chimpanzees guarantee passive and sexually receptive post-estrus females — females who have begun to come “into heat” —  by constantly and randomly abusing the pre-estrus young and early adolescents. In the case of chimpanzees, the abuse is overtly physical.

Ponder that comparison, and it’s easy to see the parallels with our own species. It’s also easy to see the fear that loss of dominance inspires in so many males. Do you think the Williams pushback is a black-only story? Do this: Carefully watch all the “frat-boy” beer commercials — and “aging frat-boy” off-road truck commercials — that are the constant feed and propagandistic fare during football games. It’s testosterone junction during those games, and those commercials both nurture (feed) the need for dominance and encourage (propagandize) it.

Our Dual Natures

There’s great good in us. We have an angelic nature; I believe the Bard is right about that. But we are only half-angels. The other half is nothing to be proud of.

Hamlet expresses just this duality in his thinking about our species:

[I]t goes so heavily with my disposition; that this goodly frame the
earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy the
air, look you, this brave o’er hanging firmament, this majestical roof,
fretted with golden fire: why, it appeareth no other thing to me, than a
foul and pestilent congregation of vapours
. What a piece of work is a
man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving
how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel! in apprehension
how like a god!
The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor
Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so.

One can look at our species and see “a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours” or an angel “infinite in faculty.” In apprehension “like a god,” the “paragon of animals.”

Or both. I’m a “both” person myself, but that’s a metaphysics for another day. Those poles express not either-or, but a continuum. Most humans don’t inhabit the middle of that continuum — congregation of vapours vs. paragon of animals — and many tend to one extreme or the other.

In Serena Williams’ case, we have a person to make us proud to be us, a woman inhabited by, as Lincoln put it, one of “the better angels of our nature.” Time to celebrate that.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

Beyond the hate by @BloggersRUs

Beyond the hate
by Tom Sullivan

One story that really struck me in the wake of the Charleston murders and the Confederate flag debate in South Carolina was actually about Kentucky. James W. Loewen, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Vermont mentioned it on NPR. He explains in his July 1 article for the Washington Post, “Why Do People Believe Myths About The Confederacy? Because Our Textbooks And Monuments Are Wrong.” He writes, “As soon as Confederates laid down their arms, some picked up their pens and began to distort what they had done, and why.” The project to rewrite history began in earnest:

Take Kentucky. Kentucky’s legislature voted not to secede, and early in the war Confederate Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston ventured through the western part of the state and found “no enthusiasm as we imagined and hoped but hostility . . . in Kentucky.” Eventually, 90,000 Kentuckians would fight for the United States, while 35,000 fought for the Confederate States. Nevertheless, according to historian Thomas Clark, the state now has 72 Confederate monuments and only two Union ones.

Neo-Confederates also won western Maryland. In 1913, the United Daughters of the Confederacy put a soldier on a pedestal at the Rockville, Md., courthouse. Montgomery County never seceded, of course. While Maryland did send 24,000 men to the Confederate armed forces, it sent 63,000 to the U.S. Army and Navy. Nevertheless, the Confederate monument tells visitors to take the other side: “To our heroes of Montgomery Co. Maryland / That we through life may not forget to love the Thin Gray Line.”

Pretty stunning stuff. Loewen provides examples of how the “states’ rights” rationalization for secession quickly replaced slavery in Southern memory and in schoolbooks, until people will insist slavery had nothing to do with the “War Between the States” (itself renamed), in spite of plenty of contemporary evidence to the contrary. Then, of course, there is the romance of the “Lost Cause” and the battle flag.

Not to minimize the racist component behind the fetish for the stars and bars, but what gets lost in that simplistic analysis is the psychic impact the Civil War had on Southerners. They were superior by nature and breeding to their northern counterparts:

For most Southern proponents, the argument went something like this. In 1066, William the Conqueror subdued the Saxons — a barbarous, uncivilized race — not only providing England with cultural refinement but also imposing upon the island a class of gentry who were genetically equipped to rule. The enduring features of the subdued Saxon race — which because of medieval sociopolitical reality did not tend to intermarry with their Norman overseers — were a resentment of just authority, a tendency toward fanaticism and a reflexive valorization of liberty for its own sake. The Puritan settlers of Massachusetts were the descendants of those vanquished Saxons, separatist fanatics who burned witches until deciding to dump tea into Boston harbor instead.

[snip]

The colonies of the South, on the other hand (Jamestown, but also later colonies in the Carolinas), were established by members of Elizabeth’s and James’s courts, descendants of the Norman conquerors, the ruling class of England. Though the federal union that followed the Revolution sufficed, for a time, to assuage the centuries-old enmity between representatives of these bloodlines, the writer for that 1863 issue of The Southern Literary Messenger insisted that “none of the circumstances which blended the interests of both people … none of the alliances and intimate associations of Society itself — have availed to obliterate any of the decided marks of this innate, fixed, enduring difference.”

Then Southern gentlemen lost a war on their own soil to common yankee tradesmen and shopkeepers, Saxons, and worse, were forced to accept (though many never did) their former property as co-citizens. That had to be a bitter pill. “Heritage not hate” barely scratches the surface. The Confederate flag represents simmering resentment, a big middle finger to the rest of the country over that loss a century and a half ago.

Someone on a FB thread pointed out that the bulk of Southern troops were dirt poor and hardly aristocrats. True. Neither are the pickup truck drivers flying Confederate flags from the back of pickups down here lately. But they absorbed the mythology nevertheless.

Most likely the dirt poor were not the men of means who erected stone monuments to memorialize the Lost Cause in town squares across the South. Nor the ones who crafted an alternate, more flattering, less treasonous origin story for the war, and promote it still in textbooks.

“Teaching or implying that the Confederate states seceded for states’ rights is not accurate history. It is white, Confederate-apologist history. It bends – even breaks – the facts of what happened,” writes Loewen. And that’s just the way they like it. After a century and a half of determined resistance to history and facts, is it any wonder why conservative politicians, many from the Old South, spout patent nonsense with the same dogged defiance?

“Welcome to civilization”

“Welcome to civilization”

by digby

Here’s a little reminder of Rick Perry’s “sophisticated” foreign policy version”

And when they look up and see an RAF, Danish, or American bomber coming in, they feel precisely as you and I would feel. That sight must seem like the answer to a prayer, a prayer that can be expressed in every faith: “Save my family, save my home, save my village, save me, from this evil.”
[…]
What all of these various hate groups have in common is a disdain for, and a wish to destroy, our Western way of life.

And someone needs to tell them that the meeting has already been held. It was decided, democratically, long ago – and by the way through great and heroic sacrifice – that our societies will be governed by Western values and Western laws.

Among those values are openness and tolerance. But to every extremist, it has to be made clear: we will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your intolerance. We will not let you destroy our peace with your violent ideas. If you expect to live among us, and yet plan against us, to receive the protections and comforts of a free society, while showing none of its virtues or graces, then you can have our answer now: No, not on our watch!

You will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live by. And if that comes as jarring news: then welcome to civilization…

I suppose that if you find sophomoric chest beating and meaningless bellicose bellowing to be an effective foreign policy you’ll be impressed with Perry’s depth and acumen.

.

Trustworthy is as trustworthy does

Trustworthy is as trustworthy does

by digby

So the hawks are having a hissy fit because the Iran deal doesn’t allow for no-notice spot inspections whenever we feel like it. They are simply shocked that we would allow Iran to get away with such a thing.

Unfortunately, it’s partly our own fault. Iran is just learning from our earlier arms control behaviors. Jonathan Schwarz explains:

[D]uring the 1990s the U.S. demonstrated with Iraq that it would routinely abuse the weapons inspections process in order to uncover such legitimate secrets — and use them to target the Iraqi military and try to overthrow the Iraqi government.

The United Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM, was created in 1991 after the Gulf War to verify that Iraq no longer had any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs. And though we now know Iraq was essentially disarmed within several years, UNSCOM stayed in business thanks to a combination of Iraq’s lies about its past WMD activities and a U.S. desire to maintain harsh economic sanctions justified by Iraq’s purported WMD.

By the mid-1990s, Iraq claimed that the U.S. was using UNSCOM as cover for espionage aimed at things that had nothing to do with WMD, such as Saddam Hussein’s location. While the U.S. strenuously denied this for years, it turned out to be true. Moreover, former UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter contends that the U.S. attempted to manipulate UNSCOM so that it could be used as a tool in an attempted coup against Saddam Hussein organized by the U.S. in 1996.

Iraq acted at the time just as the U.S. would if the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had been infiltrated with “inspectors” who wanted to assassinate Bill Clinton and then showed up at the White House. For instance, when Clinton bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in 1998, one of the justifications he gave was that Iraq had “shut off [UNSCOM] access to the headquarters of its ruling party.” The CIA later discovered that Saddam had in fact been at the party headquarters when UNSCOM arrived, and had stopped UNSCOM from entering “to prevent the inspectors from knowing his whereabouts, not because he had something to hide.”

Moreover, the U.S. made extensive use of UNSCOM to target Iraq for bombing campaigns. According to Ritter, toward the beginning of the UNSCOM process CIA agents who were part of the inspection team used GPS to record the precise location of sites used for Iraqi military manufacturing — sites that soon afterwards were struck by U.S. cruise missiles. And as the Washington Post reported and the U.S. Air Force later confirmed, the U.S. used UNSCOM’s data to choose targets for Operation Desert Fox, including many that had nothing to do with Iraq’s purported WMD programs. (In retrospect, what’s remarkable about the history of UNSCOM isn’t Iraq’s real but largely minor obstruction, but its extensive cooperation. Ritter remembers inspections when he was “looking through a logbook dealing with presidential security, such as how they arranged convoys” and at Iraqi intelligence headquarters “examining the darkest secrets of how they recruited agents and how they paid them.”)

So Iran’s refusal to allow snap inspections doesn’t prove that its leadership wants to conceal a nuclear weapons program. It more likely suggests that its leadership simply wants to preserve its conventional military and personally remain alive. This is especially plausible given that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was crippled in an 1981 assassination attempt carried by out the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition organization that supported Iraq during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war. Making this even more threatening from Iran’s perspective, the MEK is now beloved by much of the U.S. foreign policy elite, and has apparently killed numerous Iranian nuclear scientists with Israeli funding and training.

Yes, they are liars too. That’s why these deals are so hard to negotiate — nobody trusts each other. If they did, there wouldn’t be a need for an agreement in the first place. But let’s not pretend that we have been paragons in all this. One of the reasons why it’s so hard to get this done is that our history in the region is also replete with double crosses and interference.

The hawks basically want Iran to cry uncle — or rather they want to show the world that they made Iran cry uncle. Unfortunately, the only method we have for efficiently getting that job done would be self-defeating — Armageddon takes us out too. Just standing around demanding stuff doesn’t seem to work for some reason.

.

Validating the Donald

Validating the Donald

by digby

In Salon today, I wrote about the right wing media’s immigration backlash strategy by validating Donald Trump’s nonsense:

[A]s much as the political establishment understands that this is a terrible strategy, they simply don’t have control of the base — or even of their own media, which is desperate to keep that base happy and attentive. Outlets like Fox News are always looking for a way to get off the defensive and give their audience something to use to counter-attack. And the use of the tragic murder of San Francisco resident Kate Steinle by an undocumented immigrant is a perfect example.
Nobody can deny the awfulness of the crime. An innocent young woman was randomly shot and killed while walking along a tourist area with her father; that’s horrifying beyond words. But on Fox and elsewhere in the right-wing media, Steinle wasn’t a victim of the rampant gun violence endemic to this country (which they normally defend as a regrettable price to pay for freedom.) No, according to conservatives, Steinle was the victim of illegal immigration, because the man accused of shooting her had a long history of criminal behavior and previous deportations; and because the city of San Francisco is a so-called “sanctuary city,” meaning it does not allow its local police to assist federal immigration enforcement, except in certain limited circumstances. While such policies are anathema to immigration hawks, “Evidence suggests that these laws don’t just make cities safer for illegal immigrants; they make them safer for everyone,” as Mother Jones explains.

In a nutshell, Fox News and others are crassly using Steinle’s killing as vindication of Donald Trump, and by extension all those members of the base who applaud his nativist agenda.

Fox is especially cynical, using Steinle’s murder to create a parallel narrative to the discussion we’ve all been having about systemic racism. In their story (like Trump’s) the victims are the white people being gunned down by “illegal immigrants” in the streets. In the process they are bludgeoning liberals over what they see as an over-emphasis on race — which is a shallow show of opportunism which disrespects both Steinle and all other victims of gun violence.

Here, for example is the allegedly straight news reporter Megyn Kelly, via the Washington Post’s Eric Wemple:
Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco? Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again, sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the President spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Kate Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?
This might make some sense if Donald Trump weren’t completely full of it. If there was an epidemic of criminal behavior from undocumented immigrants, perhaps you could make a case that it was commensurate with centuries of systemic racism and injustice, and demand that the president step up to comment. But it isn’t. Steinle’s murder was tragic. But while this sort of crime is painfully common in this country, undocumented immigrants commit very few of them. This post from Think Progress provides the relevant statistics

Read on … they really are shameless.

QOTD: President Obama

QOTD: President Obama

by digby

“We should not be tolerating rape in prison, and we shouldn’t be making jokes about it in our popular culture. That is no joke. These things are unacceptable.”

It’s good to hear him say we shouldn’t make jokes about it. I’ve been cringing about that for decades. But prison rape is more than a joke. It’s very conveniently used by prosecutors and police as an extra-legal weapon with which to threaten citizens and defendants when they want them to cooperate. Certainly plenty of people think prison rape is more than just a joke — it’s just punishment for committing crimes.

But rape is not a legal punishment and any system which benefits from its practice is inherently unjust. In fact, it is torture which, by the way, we certainly allowed the CIA to perform on terrorist detainees at will.

This is from a post of mine from 2009:

Breaking Down The Sense Of Impenetrability


by digby




The torture debate has often been pretty sickening over the years. But there has been one common technique described over and over again that was particularly revolting — and which I wrote about in the past: This excerpt is from Jane Meyers book:

“A former member of a C.I.A. transport team has described the ‘takeout’ of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, during which a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location. A person involved in the Council of Europe inquiry, referring to cavity searches and the frequent use of suppositories during the takeout of detainees, likened the treatment to ‘sodomy.’ He said, ‘It was used to absolutely strip the detainee of any dignity. It breaks down someone’s sense of impenetrability. The interrogation became a process not just of getting information but of utterly subordinating the detainee through humiliation.’ The former C.I.A. officer confirmed that the agency frequently photographed the prisoners naked, ‘because it’s demoralizing.”





There were also forced enemas, as reported by the New York Timesback in 2005:

None of the approved techniques, however, covered some of what people have now said occurred. Mr. Kahtani was, for example, forcibly given an enema, officials said, which was used because it was uncomfortable and degrading.

Pentagon spokesmen said the procedure was medically necessary because Mr. Kahtani was dehydrated after an especially difficult interrogation session. Another official, told of the use of the enema, said, however, “I bet they said he was dehydrated,” adding that that was the justification whenever an enema was used as a coercive technique, as it had been on several detainees.





There was also this, which as far as I know was never part of the criminal complaint against any of the guards:

A US military investigation, carried out by Major General Antonio Taguba, uncovered evidence of war crimes against the inmates, including: breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.







There have been many similar reports of sodomy and other sexual abusecollected by the Center for Constitutional Rights, which have routinely been dismissed as some kind of slick propaganda training by Al Qaeda. Now we have a former Guantanamo prison guard also validating the charges — and implicating medical personnel (which isanother sick aspect of this that we’ve discussed at length, but still don’t know the extent of.) Scott Horton reports:

[T]the Nelly account shows that health professionals are right in the thick of the torture and abuse of the prisoners—suggesting a systematic collapse of professional ethics driven by the Pentagon itself. He describes body searches undertaken for no legitimate security purpose, simply to sexually invade and humiliate the prisoners. This was a standardized Bush Administration tactic–the importance of which became apparent to me when I participated in some Capitol Hill negotiations with White House representatives relating to legislation creating criminal law accountability for contractors. The Bush White House vehemently objected to provisions of the law dealing with rape by instrumentality. When House negotiators pressed to know why, they were met first with silence and then an embarrassed acknowledgment that a key part of the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality under existing federal and state criminal statutes. While these techniques have long been known, the role of health care professionals in implementing them is shocking.







The medical personnel involvement is sick and after all the stuff about force feeding and using prisoners’ psychological profiles for interrogation purposes, I guess I’m not as surprised as Horton is. But the fact that the white house consciously and knowingly used anal rape to control, interrogate and punish prisoners and went to some length to protect those who were doing it from scrutiny, still has the power to stun me. 

Just this week, this happened:

As the American Psychological Association copes with the damage reaped by an independent investigation that found it complicit in US torture, the group announced on Tuesday that its chief executive officer, its deputy CEO and its communications chief are no longer with the APA.

All three were implicated in the 542-page report issued this month by former federal prosecutor David Hoffman, who concluded that APA leaders “colluded” with the US department of defense and aided the CIA in loosening professional ethics and other guidelines to permit psychologist participation in torture.
[…]
Anderson, Honaker and Farberman join Stephen Behnke, the APA’s former ethics chief also implicated in torture, in the first wave of APA departures as the organization seeks to rebuild its credibility. Behnke has issued a combative statement threatening unspecified legal action.

“This is a major step toward reforming the APA and the profession,” said Stephen Soldz, a longtime APA critic on torture affiliated with Physicians for Human Rights…

Soldz is part of a group pushing for the APA to refer the Hoffman report to the FBI and justice department for potential criminal inquiries. Thus far, the APA has committed to providing the report to the Senate committees overseeing the military and CIA, and a call to end all psychologist participation in US interrogation and detention operations is slated for APA consideration at a major conference next month.

Thus far, there is no indication from the justice department that it intends to revisit the politically fraught question of legal accountability for torture, which ended in 2012 without prosecutions. The defense department, which still assigns psychologists to Guantanamo Bay, has yet to comment; and the White House has stayed out of the fray.

It’s hard to believe that a professional psychological association would lend its expertise to torture, but they did. And the US government is still committed to protecting them and their own for having done it.

We have a torture problem in this country.

Update:  Here’s an older post from Gaius about prison rape. Guess what? It turns out that it’s mostly done by the guards. Surprise.

.

.

Is the pope even a christian? Some conservatives aren’t so sure.

Is the pope even a Christian? Some conservatives aren’t so sure.

by digby

I wrote a while back about the Christian right going to war with itself. And I concluded with this:

First we have we have the likes of Ted Cruz saying that the Catholic intelligentsia, as represented by John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito are not up to the job of properly defending social conservatism on the Court. True, all but Kennedy voted against marriage equality. But the others are supposed to persuade him. The deal was that the Catholics would provide the intellectual arguments that would prevail when they got a majority — a majority largely delivered through bloody battles fought by the evangelical right. Cruz, being one of the very few pointy headed intellectual evangelical elites, feels they have failed to deliver their side of the bargain.

And for over two decades Republicans have been telling us that there is no difference between the political and the religious realm. Many have even declared that America is a Christian nation, full stop. Now we have leading Catholic politicians, Bush and Santorum, distancing themselves from religion because the the global leader of their church is not observing that nice little agreement that held the religious right together. Their loyalties are to the party first, which isn’t surprising. They are politicians. But the question is how many other Catholics will follow suit.

Here’s more evidence of that schism:

I’m pretty sure Ann Coulter just said the pope isn’t a Christian. That doesn’t offend me particularly but then I’m not a Catholic. I can easily imagine that a sincere Catholic believer might not like it. Even the conservatives.

.