Month: April 2016

by digby

I find this astonishing:

Among Republicans, 49 percent view Donald Trump favorably; less than half have favorable opinions of Ted Cruz or John Kasich. About a third has unfavorable opinions of Trump and Cruz, while 44 percent don’t have an opinion of Kasich.

The reason that’s astonishing is that none of them have a majority of Republicans who view them favorably. Has that ever happened before?

Contrast that with the Democrats who are also in the middle of a very spirited contest. (The poll I cited above hasn’t released any numbers on the Democratic race so I couldn’t compare exactly.  The following comes from a recent Gallup poll)

Seven in 10 Democrats have a positive view of each of their party’s two contenders. Clinton has a little more negative baggage, with a 26% unfavorable rating compared with Sanders’ 13%. Sanders has a somewhat higher percentage responding “Never heard of/Don’t have an opinion.” But they are both well-liked.

That number includes Democratic leaners so most of the independents are captured.

Gallup notes:

In March 2012 … Mitt Romney, had a 67% favorable rating at that point, much higher than either Trump’s or Cruz’s today. In 2008, in a March Gallup poll, John McCain came in with an 87% favorable rating from Republicans, and Obama had a 79% favorable rating from Democrats. Clinton back then had an 80% favorable rating among Democrats, a little higher than she is getting today — but not by much. 

Republicans to date are clearly more fractured and certainly less positive about the two leading candidates for their party’s nomination than are Democrats. Carried forward, this means that the Republicans could have more of a challenge motivating voters in the fall. Something that could disrupt this pattern would be the entry of a current non-contender (like Paul Ryan) into the race, but this too would likely leave at least some supporters of the current candidates up in arms and upset.

*I did conflate two polls there so the comparison between the GOP and the Dems may not be fully accurate. But in general the point stands. A majority of people who vote for Democrats like both of their candidates and Republicans not so much.

.

 

They seem nice

by digby

This story by Benjy Sarlin about the Trump followers on reddit is really interesting. It’s a perfect place for them to organize and gather and apparently, they have recently become the sites hottest users:

A large faction within Reddit has always had an anti-establishment and libertarian streak, and many users promoted Ron Paul’s candidacy in 2012. For most of the 2016 cycle, though, Bernie Sanders supporters dominated the site like no one in its history. The subreddit r/SandersForPresident has 225,000-plus subscribers and serves as a grassroots organizing hub for the campaign. A few months ago, a simple picture of Sanders walking to work became a viral phenomenon. Could the same site’s users really be that drawn by Trump?

You bet they could. Longtime users said Trump taps into an anti-PC counterculture within Reddit that feasts on spreading offensive material — a campaign to “fat shame” random women sparked a site-wide civil war and made international news — and then reveling in the response. Certain corners of Reddit have long served as an assembly line for posts mocking “SJWs,” slang for “social justice warriors,” whom they view as a humorless cabal of left-wing oppressors. It just took the right users to recognize the crossover appeal with Trump.

In interviews with MSNBC, r/The_Donald’s moderators declined to provide their real names, but credited the subreddit’s rapid growth to CisWhiteMaelstrom, who took the lead promoting it earlier this year after messaging its creators with a master plan. The username is an ironic reference to “Cisgender,” a term popularized by transgender rights activists to describe the majority of people whose gender aligns with their biological sex at birth.
[…]
CisWhiteMaelstrom (let’s call him “Cis”) told MSNBC over the phone that he is a law student in his early 20s looking to go into whichever field will allow him to make the most money. And his carefully plotted approach to building the site, in many ways, mirrors Trump’s approach to building a political following.

Before getting into campaign politics, Cis had already earned some online notoriety for his regular posts on r/TheRedPill, a hub for anti-feminists and pickup artists that’s frequently accused of spreading misogyny. In communing with Reddit’s social outcasts, he said he saw a kindred spirit in Trump, who already had a following among the “alt right,” an online movement often associated with white nationalism that was concentrated in anonymous message-board sites like 4chan.

He did ban open white supremacist activity from the Trump reddit, so that’s good. But other than that he’s captured the whole gamut of younger male Trump followers, most of whom act like barbarians.

The goal was to foster a community where Trump fans could be themselves in all their glory without apology. In practice, that means a whole lot of hanging out and bashing critics as “cucks,” a slang term that originated among white nationalists who liken establishment conservatives to “cuckolds” that tolerate infidelity from their wives. It’s since spread to the broader network of Trump supporters.

The “anything goes” approach is a major contrast to r/SandersForPresident, where moderators take care to discourage users from drifting into places that reflect poorly on the candidate.

Another important difference from the Sanders subreddit is that Cis said he deliberately avoids turning the subreddit into a hub for volunteers, out of fear that nuts-and-bolts discussions of phone banking would water down its appeal as an Internet funhouse. There is some information for users on how to register to vote in primary contests, but much like Trump’s campaign, the operation was designed to grab people’s attention first and then hope that energy translates to on-the-ground results.

There is some anti-establishment overlap between the two sides, though. Trump supporters have put up a number of popular posts showing solidarity with Sanders voters’ complaints about their primary’s delegate selection process. Many of the highest rated posts on r/The_Donald are generic anti-Hillary Clinton memes, partly because — Cis theorizes — Sanders supporters upvote them along with Trump fans.

Despite the circus atmosphere, r/The_Donald’s moderators stressed that support for Trump was earnest even if the tactics were ironic. Even a cursory look at the subreddit suggests this is true — for every post covered in five layers of Reddit in-jokes, there are plenty more that are simple rah-rah expressions of support.

Clicking through r/The_Donald is like walking into a rowdy clubhouse for (mostly) men who feel under siege from “political correctness.” It’s a place for like-minded bros to enrage the left and then high-five each other when they take the bait — all while knowing their leaders will forcefully remove anyone who interrupts their good time and mock the interlopers on the way out.

In other words: It’s a digital Trump rally.

Lovely fellows. Very inspiring.

.

Good news for the Newtown families

by digby

Maybe this will lead to some sanity when it comes to these AR-15 monstrosities which have no purpose but mass injury and killing:

In a major blow to gun companies, a judge in Connecticut on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 10 families affected by the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School against the maker of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used in the shooting.

The three gun companies named in the case had argued for the lawsuit to be dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), or PLCAA for short. It’s a 2005 federal law that provides gun businesses general immunity from civil lawsuits. Connecticut State Judge Barbara Bellis rejected the gun companies’ motion.

The families are suing the maker, distributor and seller of the rifle, which the gunman used to kill 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, in less than five minutes on December 14, 2012. They argue the rifle shouldn’t have been entrusted to the general public because it is a military-style assault weapon that is unsuited for civilian use. They say the gun companies knew—or should have known—about the high risks posed by the weapon, including the ability for a shooter to use it to inflict maximum casualties and serious injury.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied. The families look forward to continuing their fight in court,” Josh Koskoff, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, said in a statement.

The families and attorneys for the three gun companies had met for a crucial hearing on February 22. The defense lawyers had argued to dismiss the lawsuit, saying their clients are shielded by PLCAA, which prevents gun violence victims from taking legal action against firearms distributors whose weapons are used in crimes and fatal shootings.

More at the link.

There’s no good reason for people to have these guns either for self-defense or hunting or any reason other than spraying bullets as fast as possible to inflict injuries and death on large numbers of people. Nobody needs to do that. Nobody has a right to do that.

.

.

Ted Cruz the wily dominionist


by digby

I wrote the following for Salon today:

Probably one of the most unlikely scandalettes of the 2016 primary has to be the National Enquirer “expose” of Senator Ted Cruz’s alleged serial infidelity. Nobody knows to this day where the story originated although some reporters suggested after it was run that the Rubio campaign had shopped it to them earlier in the campaign. But Donald Trump is known to be quite close to the publisher of the Enquirer (a man aptly named David Pecker) so it’s always possible the story was run for his benefit.

But whatever its provenance, the story caused quite a ripple not so much because it’s unbelievable that any politician might have a zipper problem (it’s almost a requirement for office) but that it was the very pious Cruz being accused. This is the man, after all, whose first victory speech began with “God bless the great state of Iowa, let me first of all say, to God be the glory.”

He announced his candidacy at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University where he laid out his vision for the country. And he told a story that he tells on the trail all the time:

When my dad came to America in 1957, he could not have imagined what lay in store for him. Imagine a young married couple, living together in the 1970s, neither one of them has a personal relationship with Jesus. They have a little boy and they are both drinking far too much. They are living a fast life.

When I was three, my father decided to leave my mother and me. We were living in Calgary at the time, he got on a plane and he flew back to Texas, and he decided he didn’t want to be married anymore and he didn’t want to be a father to his 3-year-old son. And yet when he was in Houston, a friend, a colleague from the oil and gas business invited him to a Bible study, invited him to Clay Road (ph) Baptist Church, and there my father gave his life to Jesus Christ.

And God transformed his heart. And he drove to the airport, he bough a plane ticket, and he flew back to be with my mother and me.

There are people who wonder if faith is real. I can tell you, in my family there’s not a second of doubt, because were it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ, I would have been saved and I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household.

It may seem odd that his “testimony” is his father’s story but it makes sense. Cruz himself was a very smart kid who grew up in Texas and went to Princeton and then Harvard Law which doesn’t provide quite the same pathos as his daddy’s tale of sin and redemption. And his sad is definitely important to his career — he’s a genuine evangelical preacher and wingnut firebrand, well known on the conservative speaking circuit. He brings with him all the authentic street cred his son could possibly need in this crowd.

Cruz’s campaign strategy was built on the foundation of support from the ultra-conservative evangelical base of the Republican party; this recent Pew Poll shows that nearly half of his total voters are white observant evangelical Christians, most of whom attend Church at least weekly. By contrast Trump gets a share of evangelicals but more mainline protestants and Catholics who attend church less than once a week.(This article by Jeff Sharlet in the New York Times magazine about Trump and the prosperity gospel types is fascinating. I’m not even sure they’re really social conservatives …)

I wrote about Cruz’s original strategy (based upon Carter’s peanut brigade) a while back in which he had planned to sweep the southern states and build up a bit lead, just as Hillary Clinton has done on the Democratic side. It didn’t work out for him because it turns out that a lot of the southern conservatives he was counting on were mesmerized by a decadent, thrice married, orange New Yorker. Who would have ever guessed? But he has shown tremendous tenacity, hanging on long after all the Big Boys of the Deep Bench fell by the wayside and it’s now a two man race to the finish.

The adultery accusations don’t seem to have hurt Cruz with his base voters although it’s possible we haven’t yet seen the effects in more socially conservative states. But Cruz has built up a lot of credibility in that crowd over the years. He’s won the straw poll at the Values Voter Summit three years in a row. Two years ago he made a huge splash in anticipation of announcing his run for president by giving a rousing speech in which he declared, “we stand for life. We stand for marriage. We stand for Israel!” which sums up the foundation of the evangelical right’s philosophy.

Cruz is an anti-abortion warrior of the most strident kind. He wants to ban abortion with no exception for rape or incest. He unctuously explains it this way:

“When it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person, and needs to be punished and punished severely. But at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don’t believe it’s the child’s fault. And we weep at the crime, we want to do everything we can to prevent the crime on the front end, and to punish the criminal, but I don’t believe it makes sense to blame the child.”

He holds the same view of a 12 year old girl being forced to give birth to her own sister: tough luck.

He has led the charge against Planned Parenthood in the Senate, urging a government shutdown if the president didn’t agree to defund it. And he’s gone farther than that:

If I’m elected president, let me tell you about my first day in office. The first thing I intend to do is to rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by Barack Obama. The next thing I intend to do is instruct the Department of Justice to open an investigation into these videos and to prosecute Planned Parenthood for any criminal violations.

Ted Cruz is a lawyer and ex-attorney general of Texas who has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Unlike Donald Trump when he makes a statement like this, he cannot claim to be ignorant of the fact that the president instructing the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation o anyone would be the very definition of abuse of power and quite likely an impeachable offense.

His dismissive comments on contraception are insulting to every woman:

“Last I checked, we don’t have a rubber shortage in America. Look, when I was in college, we had a machine in the bathroom, you put 50 cents in and voila. So, yes, anyone who wants contraceptives can access them.”

He’s equally adamant about gay marriage, and insists that he will work to overturn Obergefell just as he will work to overturn Roe vs Wade. He says

“It’s not the law of the land. It’s not the Constitution. It’s not legitimate, and we will stand and fight.”

Again, this is a man who argued cases before the Supreme Court and presumably knows very well that marriage equality is the law of the land.

He has defended a ban on late term abortions and a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state Capitol. He argued that the pledge of allegiance should include the words “Under God.”  According to this astonishing article by David Corn in Mother Jones, he even defended a state ban on dildos arguing the state had an interest in “discouraging…autonomous sex”, comparing masturbation to hiring a prostitute or committing bigamy and declaring that no right exists for people to “stimulate their genitals.” (His college roommate tweeted a hilarious reaction to that story yesterday.)

He’s all in on the “religious liberty” legal theory as defined by the Manhattan Declaration and enjoys keeping company with some of the most radical dominionists in the nation, including David Barton the junk historian who also runs Cruz’s number one Super Pac Keep the Promise. That Super PAC is funded by a couple of Cruz’s megabucks donors, Texas energy barons Farris and Dan Wilks, both of whom are ultra conservative Christians. He’s even tight with the bigots who spearheaded the recent sweeping anti-LGBT legislation in North Carolina,  congressional candidate and evangelical pastor Mark Harris and the former HGTV twins the Benham brothers, whose show was cancelled over their anti-Gay activities. And then there is his father Rafael Cruz, who is counted among the most militant extremist preachers in the country and who believes his son was sent by God to turn America into a theocracy.

Ted Cruz’s confrontational political philosophy is revolutionary. His policy agenda is at the farthest edge of conservative movement thinking, even including gold buggery and the abolition of the IRS and half a dozen other agencies and functions of the federal government. His foreign policy advisers include anti-Muslim cranks like Frank Gaffney.  His ideology is doctrinaire right wing conservative. And he is a fanatical conservative evangelical Christian whose beliefs place him at the fringe of an already non-mainstream worldview.

It’s not surprising that people would have a hard time believing that such a man would be a serial adulterer. But when you think about it, he would hardly be the first conservative Christian leader to be undone in such a way. In fact, it’s so common you have to wonder if it isn’t an occupational hazard. So far, he’s weathered the storm. But he is a fully realized right wing radical deeply embedded in the conservative Christian right.  If any of it turns out to be true, Cruz will have a very long way to fall.

Incentives for the perverse
by Tom Sullivan

Not all political deflections are bright and shiny. Hyperventilating over public aid to those at the bottom of the wealth curve is an oldie but goody. Is Wall Street defrauding the planet to the tune of trillions? Well, but LOOK! Over there. A poor person. Eating!

Properly incentivizing the poor is a perennial handwringer for Fox News and other watchdogs of personal morality on the right (who otherwise think the government should mind its own damned business). Nicholas Kristof, however, spares some column inches this morning on the incentives driving our beleaguered corporate persons at the top. He gets downright snarky about it:

A study to be released Thursday says that for each dollar America’s 50 biggest companies paid in federal taxes between 2008 and 2014, they received $27 back in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts.

Goodness! What will that do to their character? Won’t that sap their initiative?

The study in question comes from Oxfam. The group finds:

• From 2008 – 2014 the 50 largest US companies collectively received $27 in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts for every $1 they paid in federal taxes.
• From 2008 – 2014 these 50 companies spent approximately$2.6 billion on lobbying while receiving nearly $11.2 trillion in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts.
• Even as these 50 companies earned nearly $4 trillion in profits globally from 2008 – 2014, they used offshore tax havens to lower their effective global tax rate to just 26.5%, well below the statutory rate of 35% and even below average levels paid in other developed countries. Only 5 of 50 companies paid the full 35% corporate tax rate.
• These companies relied on an opaque and secretive network of more than 1600 disclosed subsidiaries in tax havens to stash about $1.4 trillion offshore. In addition to the 1600 known subsidiaries, the companies may have failed to disclose thousands of additional subsidiaries to the Securities and Exchange Commission because of weak reporting requirements.
• Their lobbying appears to have offered an incredible return on investment. For every $1 spent on lobbying, these 50 companies collectively received $130 in tax breaks and more than $4,000 in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailouts.

Such behavior deprives countries of needed funds for everything from education to infrastructure, and feeds the rampant economic inequality that has become palpable. But what’s worse, of course, is what these perverse incentives must be doing to corporate persons’ souls. Kristof continues:

The Panama Papers should be a wake-up call, shining a light on dysfunctional tax codes around the world — but much of the problem has been staring us in the face. Among the 500 corporations in the S.&P. 500-stock index, 27 were both profitable in 2015 and paid no net income tax globally, according to an analysis by USA Today.

Those poor companies! Think how the character of those C.E.O.s must be corroding! And imagine the plunging morale as board members realize that they are “takers” not “makers.”

But that’s the thing about economic inequality. It also means different rules for those on top and those at the bottom. Sharper sticks must be brought to bear to ensure the “takers” are kept off the public dole. To save their souls, of course. Those at the top get sweeter carrots. Much, much sweeter.

Kristof tips his hat to the Obama administration for cracking down on offshore tax havens. But even more, members of Congress should get take a break from call time long enough to pass the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, and it should “stop slashing the I.R.S. budget (by 17 percent in real terms over the last six years).”

Snap poll: What sort of incentive do you think Congress responds more to in an election year, carrots or sharp sticks?

What a nice young man

by digby

His mother must be so proud:

Hey, you can buy your own bumper sticker:

That’s actually pretty polite compared to some:

This was Roger Stone’s pathetic effort:

Yeah, it’s only the beginning.

.

Torturous diplomacy

by digby

From the sound of it, the administration is getting an earful from foreign leaders about GOP crazy talk:

“I want to remove even a scintilla of doubt or confusion that has been caused by statements that others have made in recent weeks and months,” Kerry told reporters. “The United States is opposed to the use of torture in any form, at any time, by any government or non-state actor.”

Kerry’s comments echo those of CIA Director John Brennan who told NBC News in a recent interview that his agency will not participate in “enhanced interrogation” practices, such as waterboarding— even if a future president gave the order to do so.

“This is a standard that we insist others meet and therefore we must meet this standard ourselves,” he said. “I know personally that the fierce anger that arises in war when fellow countrymen are attacked whether they are soldiers or civilians can sometimes prompt fury, rage, revenge, but there is a sharp dividing line between societies that abandon all standards when times are tough and those that due their absolute best to maintain those standards because ultimately upholding core values is what makes a nation strong.”

Yeah well, I’m going to guess there won’t be as much opposition to torture as he claims if the country is attacked again. And there’s this guy out there getting votes from millions of Americans:

Go to 2:55. Listen closely and you’ll hear the Republican front-runner for he presidency say this:

Stephanopoulos: Do we win by being more like them?

Trump: Yes, I’m sorry you have to do it that way. I’m not sure everyone agrees with me I guess a lot of people don’t. We are living in a time that’s as evil as any time that there has ever been.

You know, when I was a young man I studied medieval times.That’s what they did. They chopped off heads.

Stephanopoulos: So we’re going to chop off heads?

Trump: We’re going to do things beyond waterboarding. Perhaps. If that happens to come.

Maybe that’s all bluster. But that two minutes of hate is one of the most chilling exchanges I’ve ever heard coming from anyone, much less a leading American presidential contender.

He is the candidate of American psychopaths. And apparently we have millions of them.

.

The schlong remains the same

by digby

538 is featuring a fun conversation among its writers about how “masculinity” is playing into this election. There’s discussion about both the GOP and the Dems and how the first woman potential nominee might play into it. Obviously Trump’s literal evocation of his manly member in a presidential debate brought the whole thing into stark relief.

But I found this quite astonishing:

Harry Enten: I think it has more to do with society overall. A ridiculously high 68 percent of Trump supporters say society is becoming too soft and feminine. Cruz and Kasich supporters come in with 57 percent and 52 percent, respectively. Now compare those numbers with the Democratic side, where Sanders supporters were slightly less likely than Clinton supporters to say that (28 percent vs. 31 percent).

A whole lot of the differences between the two parties can probably be attributed to that one perception.

This quote from the Trump voter who shoved a protester in the face this week in New York makes it very clear:

“Hey, I’ll snatch anybody up if they yell in my face over anything. I have my personal rights and my personal space. They’re gonna start yelling about some bullshit, I’ll snatch ya ass up. That’s all.”

Mike added that he is “hell yeah” supporting Trump for president because he is “no bullshit. All balls. Fuck you all balls. That’s what I’m about.

Trump’s response when the protester who was assaulted was being led out:

“That guy walking out with his arms held high like he’s a big shot. Only because 10 years ago he couldn’t have gotten away with that stuff, believe me. Believe me.”

I think perhaps these macho Republicans are making this whole thing waaaay too complicated. They should just have all the candidates drop their drawers and display the goods. Why should they have to take Trump at his word? Let’s see what they’ve got — and what they’re hiding.

Update: Oh dear. I somehow came upon this piece from 2003 today:

POLITICALLY, the United States is split down the middle these days. The dead-heat presidential election of 2000 followed congressional elections in 1996 and 1998 which were also, in effect, drawn by the two main parties. The Republicans and the Democrats are now preparing for next year’s elections in the belief that the outcomes could be just as close.

What does this deep, central division mean? Are the voters split between yin and yang? Masculine, feminine? Mars, Venus? The Economist thought an answer might be found by looking at a leading member of each party and, perhaps more revealingly, at the districts that send them to the House of Representatives in Washington, the chamber the Founding Fathers designed to be closest to popular opinion.

In the House, Dennis Hastert is the Republican speaker, Nancy Pelosi the leader of the Democratic minority. Mr Hastert, a hulking former wrestling coach, is a fairly straightforward conservative: he is against abortion, gay marriage, the Kyoto protocol; for the invasion of Iraq, the death penalty. Ms Pelosi, a tiny bird-like woman, is an unabashed, card-carrying liberal.

Yes, Denny Hastert was certainly an avatar of America’s manly virtues.

.

More Trumpian degradation

by digby

Let me say upfront that I think these people have a perfect right to say what they want. Political speech is the most protected speech and they were just repeating a slogan of the front runner for the Republican Party, which they are entitled to do. The University agreed and didn’t even release the names of those who did it. (They decided instead to curtail some activities but I honestly don’t even understand doing that. Their memo calling for tolerance and decency seem like the proper approach.)

But that doesn’t mean Trump’s campaign to deport millions of people and his rhetoric calling undocumented immigrants rapists and criminals is not gross and disgusting. This episode illustrates yet again just how Trump and the others are bringing this racist poison to the surface of our culture. Maybe it’s a good thing in the long run and it will allow the infection to drain. But it might just spread too.

Several events for Ohio University’s Greek Week, an annual, weeklong event focused on philanthropy, have been canceled after some Sorority and Fraternity Life members painted “Build the Wall” on an area typically designated for graffiti last week.

The Greek Week events, set to take place between April 11 and 18, were amended after unnamed members of Sorority and Fraternity Life painted the graffiti wall by Bentley Hall, including the phrase “Build the Wall,” according to a letter sent Sunday to sororities and fraternities.

The phrase has been a part of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign to construct a wall between the United States and Mexico to discourage immigration from South and Central American countries.

The letter was addressed to the “OU Sorority and Fraternity Life community and supporters,” and was signed by the Interfraternity Council, Multicultural Greek Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council and the Women’s Panhellenic Association.

“This phrase is offensive and hurtful to many individuals as it is directly tied to the Hispanic/Latino/a community, makes them feel marginalized, and the message was interpreted that they do not belong at Ohio University,” the letter stated.

The affiliation and names of the Greek members involved are not stated in the letter, as it “is not at the center of this controversy.” Those individuals will not face sanctions, and, according to the letter, were within their rights to free speech.

The Post obtained a copy of the week’s highlighted events prior to the changes announced Sunday. Airbands, an annual event in which groups perform skits and dances, a dodgeball tournament and a 90s Field Day were listed on the original schedule but are not listed on the letter.

The governing councils also made the decision to not approve or support any official or unofficial social activities involving alcohol during Greek Week, the letter stated.

The graffiti wall by Bentley Hall was painted over with the words “Build The Wall!!” and “Trump 2016” on Thursday.

In wake of the pro-Trump graffiti, the Hispanic and Latino Student Union at OU held an emergency meeting Thursday in the Multicultural Center, where top university officials such as President Roderick McDavis were in attendance, according to a previous Post report.

The Post could not confirm if the graffiti the letter referenced was the same that prompted the meeting Thursday.

McDavis sent an email to students Friday urging them to learn about other cultures and to be understanding.

“Indeed, this wall is a place of free speech and expression; however, the words painted were troubling because they had a very different meaning to some than they may have to others viewing the message or even to those who painted the message,” McDavis said in the email.

The letter stated that the week’s events are meant to promote the ideals of leadership, service, philanthropy and other values.

I’ve never understood the allure of the fraternity thing but then I’m not much of a joiner.  But I know many people really love it and get a lot out of it so my opinion isn’t relevant.  But there’s no doubt that “build the wall” is one of the most provocative and xenophobic of all of the Trump’s slogans.  If they’d written “Make America Great Again” or even copped the Nixonian “The Silent Majority” it wouldn’t have been as pointed and frankly, racist. Why would fraternities pick that slogan if they weren’t making a racist point?

Anyway, I still defend their right to say it.  It’s a political campaign and this is an actual policy being proposed by a leading candidate for president. You can’t suppress it.  But people certainly have a right to meet it with more speech.  I hope those students who are against Trump and his policies will be equally engaged in the process.

.

A wise piece of advice

by digby

Not from me, a study about how to issue an effective apology:

There are six components to an apology – and the more of them you include when you say you’re sorry, the more effective your apology will be, according to new research.

But if you’re pressed for time or space, there are two elements that are the most critical to having your apology accepted.

“Apologies really do work, but you should make sure you hit as many of the six key components as possible,” said Roy Lewicki, lead author of the study and professor emeritus of management and human resources at The Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business.

In two separate experiments, Lewicki and his co-authors tested how 755 people reacted to apologies containing anywhere from one to all six of these elements:

1. Expression of regret

2. Explanation of what went wrong

3. Acknowledgment of responsibility

4. Declaration of repentance

5. Offer of repair

6. Request for forgiveness

The research is published in the May 2016 issue of the journal Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. Lewicki’s co-authors were Robert Lount, associate professor of management and human resources at Ohio State, and Beth Polin of Eastern Kentucky University.

While the best apologies contained all six elements, not all of these components are equal, the study found.

“Our findings showed that the most important component is an acknowledgement of responsibility. Say it is your fault, that you made a mistake,” Lewicki said.

The second most important element was an offer of repair.

“One concern about apologies is that talk is cheap. But by saying, ‘I’ll fix what is wrong,’ you’re committing to take action to undo the damage,” he said.

The next three elements were essentially tied for third in effectiveness: expression of regret, explanation of what went wrong and declaration of repentance.

The least effective element of an apology is a request for forgiveness. “That’s the one you can leave out if you have to,” Lewicki said.

I think we could all use a primer on how to effectively apologize. I know I sometimes forget how to do it right and I’ve been apologizing for decades …

Update: While googling something else I came upon this piece about effective parenting in which a woman says she doesn’t make her child say she’s sorry for being mean to one of her peers anymore because it’s insincere:

I’d rather she apologize when she understands, and genuinely feels like it is important to reach out and mend the fences. Now, that does not mean I ignore her offending behavior and let it lie, it just means that I don’t make her say it until she means it.

By making her say words to someone, that she does not yet comprehend, or even mean in her heart, I am teaching her that it is more important to care what others think, than to speak her truth.

Blecccch. If you want to know what the hell is wrong with our culture, this sort of tripe is a good example. No wonder everyone acts like animals.

.