February 12 and 13, 2017
News and Views
DEFUND CALIFORNIA ???
http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-threatens-to-defund-california-875211331873
AM JOY 2/11/17
Video -- Trump threatens to defund California
Joy Reid plus current and former California leaders discuss strategies under consideration for resisting Donald Trump, who demands that the state comply with his immigration policies. Former White House counsel John Dean also joins to discuss. Duration: 12:35
QUID PRO QUO ?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/magnitude-of-trump-adviser-flynn-s-russia-scandal-gains-clarity-874908739801
Magnitude of Trump adviser Flynn's Russia scandal gains clarity
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 2/10/17
Video -- Rachel Maddow reports on the still-developing scandal that Donald Trump national security adviser, Mike Flynn, reportedly discussed U.S. sanctions with Russia before Trump was in office, and that communication existed during the campaign. Duration: 12:02
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nation-tracker-poll-does-trump-support-have-a-ceiling-or-a-floor/
Poll: Does Trump’s support have a ceiling -- or a floor?
The range of Trump’s potential support - both to the high and low side - is actually bigger than you might think
VIDEO ONLY.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/flynn-trump-washington-post-russia
Bombshell Report Suggests Trump's National Security Adviser Is Dishonest and a Threat to US Policy
He also may not be very bright.
DAVID CORN
FEB. 10, 2017 9:58 AM
Photograph -- Carlos Barria/Reuters/ZUMA
The Trump-Russia scandal has so far resided in the territory between smoke and fire. Donald Trump associates have reportedly been investigated for interactions with Russia, but the FBI has not released information on these contacts. Trump has pushed an America First policy, but he has curiously denied or downplayed the US intelligence conclusion that Vladimir Putin mounted an extensive covert campaign to subvert the 2016 election to benefit Trump and instead has cultivated an odd bromance with the Russian autocrat. A series of memos written by a former counterintelligence officer contained allegations that Russian intelligence had spent years cultivating or co-opting Trump and gathering compromising information on him and that the Trump camp had colluded with Russians, but the specifics have not been confirmed.
Yet now one piece of the Trump-Russia puzzle has been clearly depicted: Trump's national security adviser was in cahoots with Russia to undermine the US government's effort to punish Moscow for hacking the US election—and he apparently lied about it. If Trump does not fire him—and if Washington's political-media complex (including Republicans) does not go ballistic over this revelation—then the Putinization of America has taken another big step forward.
On Thursday night, after a long and wild day of Trump news (Trump attacking Sen. John McCain, Kellyanne Conway seemingly breaking the law, an appeals court ruling against Trump's Muslim travel ban, and much more), the Washington Post dropped a bomb: a thoroughly reported article with the headline "National Security Adviser Flynn Discussed Sanctions With Russian Ambassador, Despite Denials, Officials Say." It began:
National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Flynn's communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.
Here was Flynn working against US policy—against steps President Barack Obama had ordered in response to Putin's meddling in the US election. He was in essence telling Moscow not to fret over these sanctions and that Russia would be rewarded once Trump moved into the White House. He was explicitly aiding the enemy that had attacked US democracy.
This move was in sync with the approach taken by Trump, who has refused to criticize Russia for intervening in the election. After Trump's first call with Putin as president, the White House accounts of the call contained no indication that Trump had even raised the subject.
Moreover, the Post story—which was based on interviews with nine current or former officials at security and law enforcement agencies—suggests that Flynn is not honest and not smart.
Since the news first broke weeks ago that Flynn had talked with Kislyak in December, Flynn and the White House have denied that sanctions were discussed. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer insisted Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was about more mundane matters, such as conveying holiday greetings and setting up a post-inauguration call between Trump and Putin. In an interview with CBS News last month, Vice President Mike Pence asserted, "They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia." Pence noted that he had spoken to Flynn about this. If so, it would seem that Flynn lied to him.
The Post reports there is no ambiguity about Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador:
All of those officials said Flynn's references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.
"Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time," said a former official.
A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. An administration official stressed that Pence made his comments based on his conversation with Flynn. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.
Which brings us to the not-very-smart part of this story. How do all these officials know what was really said between Flynn and the Russian? US intelligence routinely conducts surveillance aimed at Russian diplomats and monitors their communications. The Post story clearly indicates that Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was intercepted and that a transcript of it has been passed throughout the intelligence community. Flynn, of course, should have been aware that any discussion he had with the Russian ambassador was vulnerable to surveillance. After all, not too long ago he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
This is a scandal. A big scandal. Republicans and Democrats should be screaming for investigations and public hearings.
This makes Flynn's behavior dumb on two counts. First, he should not have explicitly discussed undermining US policy with Kislyak, because he ought to have realized this conversation would be picked up by US intelligence. Second, he should not have told Pence and others that sanctions had not been covered in the conversation, because he should have known there was evidence of what had actually transpired during his chat.
On Wednesday, Flynn denied to the Post that he had discussed the sanctions with Kislyak. The next day, the paper reports, "Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn 'indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up.'" So he has shifted from an emphatic denial to weasel words. The FBI, according to the paper, is continuing to investigate, though it's unclear if any laws were broken. The Logan Act of 1799 does prohibit US citizens from meddling in US foreign policy matters, but it has never been successfully applied.
Flynn's conversation with Kislyak, it turns out, was part of a series of contacts. And this, too, is suspicious, given Flynn's history of interactions with the Putin regime. In December 2015, he was paid by RT, the English-language propaganda arm of Moscow, to attend a gala, where he sat at a table with Putin. (Flynn has steadfastly refused to say how much he pocketed for this appearance.) The Russian ambassador told the Post that he had been communicating with Flynn since before the election, but he declined to say what they had discussed. Oddly, he would not reveal the origin of his relationship with Flynn.
Last month, Pence declared there had been no contact between the Trump campaign and Russia. "Of course not," he said. "Why would there be any contact between the campaign? This is all a distraction, and it's all part of a narrative to delegitimatize the election and to question the legitimacy of [Trump's] presidency." But when Flynn was talking to Kislyak prior to the election, he was a senior campaign aide and surrogate for Trump. Pence was peddling a falsehood. And this raises the question: Why was Trump's top national security aide talking to Russia while Moscow was attacking the US election to help Trump? What was he signaling to Moscow? What was he being told?
This is a scandal. A real scandal. A big scandal. Republicans and Democrats should be screaming for investigations and public hearings. (Yesterday, House Democrats did resort to a little-used legislative tool to force a debate on both Trump's conflicts of interest and the possible ties between his inner circle and Russia.) And Flynn should be booted. The evidence is strong that he lied and that he cozied up to Moscow while it was assaulting American democracy. Worse, for a supposed national security maven, he acted in a stupid manner and practiced awful tradecraft. Placing the nation's security in his hands of a dishonest and reckless fellow is risky business.
The Trump-Russia story has faded in recent days, amid other Trump chaos. But if this Flynn news does not cause a firestorm—and threaten Flynn's position—then something is very rotten in the nation's capital.
UPDATE: On Friday morning, the Trump administration confirmed that Flynn did speak to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions. And Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee, called for Flynn's dismissal with this statement: "The allegation that General Flynn, while President Obama was still in office, secretly discussed with Russia’s ambassador ways to undermine the sanctions levied against Russia for its interference in the Presidential election on Donald Trump's behalf, raises serious questions of legality and fitness for office. If he did so, and then he and other Administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious, and he should no longer serve in this Administration or any other."
DAVID CORN
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook.
Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.
GO, ACLU!
https://action.aclu.org/secure/trumpFOIA?ms=web_170120_nationalsecurity_TrumpFOIA_banner
ACLU demands Trump documents
DEMAND TRANSPARENCY FROM TRUMP
Donald J. Trump has not fully answered questions about his looming conflicts of interest. His ethical and financial conflicts threaten to undermine the public’s confidence in fair government – and even our national security.
The ACLU is demanding access to key documents concerning Trump’s conflicts of interest. The public has a right to know – and we need your help to make sure we get the full story.
On day one of the Trump presidency – and on behalf of the American public – the ACLU took legal action: We filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Office of Government Ethics and three other government offices. FOIA is a crucial tool for ordinary Americans to provide checks and balances on elected officials – this won’t be our last one.
Don’t forget: the American president is accountable to YOU – and it’s your job to hold him accountable. Obtaining information on Trump’s actual or potential conflicts of interest is critical for a functioning democracy – and insisting on this kind of oversight is how we keep presidential power in check.
This demand is just a first step to keep President Trump’s administration transparent and accountable. Let’s make it clear that we need answers now.
To the Office of Government Ethics:
Do not delay – release all documents pertaining to Donald Trump’s actual or potential conflicts of interest. Trump has kept the American people in the dark for too long. For the sake of our democracy, we need you to bring this matter into the light and give the public access to this vital information.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/ivanka-trump-scolded-kellyanne-conway-for-dragging-her-brand-into-an-ethics-mess-report/
Ivanka Trump ‘scolded’ Kellyanne Conway for ‘dragging her brand into an ethics mess’: report
David Edwards DAVID EDWARDS
12 FEB 2017 AT 13:13 ET
Photograph -- Ivanka Trump (ABC News)
President Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, has reportedly “scolded” his top adviser for promoting her clothing line from the White House.
Although President Trump was said to have praised Kellyanne Conway after she appeared on Fox News and encouraged people to buy Ivanka’s products, the first daughter did not approve of the government-sponsored promotion, according to Politico.
A Trump administration official told CNN that Conway apologized to the president after the incident, but she later claimed on Twitter that “POTUS supports me.”
Ivanka, however, apparently did not share her father’s feelings.
“In her attempt to do Trump’s bidding, she may have crossed one of the people closer to Trump than herself — Ivanka Trump,” Politico’s Tara Palmeri reported on Sunday. “A source close to Trump said that his daughter scolded Conway for dragging her brand into an ethics mess and told her not to mention it again on TV.”
“This was a continuation of a conversation that Ivanka Trump had with her father weeks earlier about leaving her business out of the politics, that Conway wasn’t aware of,” the report added.
It wasn’t Ivanka’s duty to tell Conway not to do that. It’s an ethics violation, and one of some dozen now that I’ve counted. Whoever is President, and his/her whole staff, needs to 1) learn the rules governing that office, and 2) follow them. I feel sorry for Ivanka. She is his daughter and won’t have her privacy anymore. She has that doll-like beauty that looks innocent and fragile. Too late.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nation-tracker-poll-does-trump-support-have-a-ceiling-or-a-floor/
Poll: Does Trump’s support have a ceiling — or a floor?
CBS NEWS
by Anthony Salvanto, Jen de Pinto, Fred Backus, Sarah Dutton, Kabir Khanna
February 12, 2017, 11:00 AM
The nation is not simply divided. The last election left many wondering if they really understood the views of Americans who disagreed with them, or whether they were truly being heard at all. A single poll number can’t always answer those puzzles, so here we look deeper at all the groups who support and oppose the Trump administration at its outset: who they are, what they want and - most of all - what might change their minds.
It turns out that while there are hard-and-fast views on either side of the nation’s divide, the range of President Trump’s potential support - both to the high and low side - is actually bigger than you might think.
In this study, people separated themselves into four groups: the strongest of Trump backers (who we’ll call the Believers); those backing him but waiting for him to deliver (the Conditionals); those opposing him for now but waiting to see some results (the Curious) and those who seem immovably, firmly opposed (The Resistors.) We’ll plan to follow these groups over time. Here’s how they break down now:
nation-tracker-overall-1.jpg
The Believers: (22 percent of the nation.)
These are the president’s strongest backers, who like what he’s doing and how he’s doing it; defend him against his critics, and see him as defending the country against threats.
They put no conditions on their support: “I’m a Trump supporter, period.”
They like the last three weeks: eighty-five percent say he’s off to a “good start” and doing what he said he’d do during the campaign, or more.
nation-tracker-believers.jpg
Three-fourths of them agree with his policies and almost all of them are at least glad he’s “shaking up Washington.” At the moment it is terrorism that comes first. Fighting ISIS is their top priority for the new administration and think people ought to evaluate him on whether he keeps them safe, more so than on whether he creates jobs. They’re overwhelmingly for the travel ban (at 91 percent support) and two-thirds would also be for a religious test for those seeking entry. Most would have the President ignore the courts if the courts overturn the ban.
The want the wall and believe Mexico WILL pay for it. They overwhelmingly like how he’s dealing with Russia. And asked to pick something that would signal America being great again, the top choice is “restoring law and order” at home, followed by making sure America is the most powerful nation in the world.
Most believe Mr. Trump is right on the facts, when he’s challenged. They’re defiant toward any who would challenge the President, they think the he ought to pay attention to those who voted for him (which they overwhelmingly did) before reaching out to Democrats or others who oppose him. Describing those who challenge or protest against Mr. Trump, they pick words like “naïve” and “dangerous.”
In governing style, they want Mr. Trump to take care of his voters first, not try to reach out to others. They like his tweets and think it is a good way for a president to communicate. A quarter do feel he’s been spending too much time talking about TV shows, but the main thing they would not want Mr. Trump to do is start acting like a typical kind of politician.
These are some of the older and retired non-college voters of the sort who backed him in November (and, for that matter, a year ago in the primaries.) On partisanship they’re mostly Republicans and some independents, and more of them turned out in the Presidential election than any of the other groups identified here. One-third of them didn’t vote, but like him - they feel he speaks for them and respects them. They call themselves conservative, but don’t care whether Mr. Trump is conservative, per se - these are views you may recall from the primaries last year, when many Trump voters didn’t care about finding the most conservative candidate in the primaries. And half of them think Mr. Trump is aiming to execute his agenda and go back to his business - which jibes with their notion of him as not being a typical politician.
The “Conditional” Supporters (22 percent of the nation)
Americans who say “I support Trump, but he has to deliver”
They “don’t agree with everything” so far but are “at least glad he’s shaking things up.”
nation-tracker-conditionals.jpg
Much more economically-focused and transactional, these voters will remove their support if he doesn’t “fix the economy” for them. They’re also concerned about safety, but aren’t as all-in with everything Mr. Trump does, especially in terms of style. A quarter don’t like the tweets.
They don’t think he’s correct on all the facts, but rather that “facts are debatable” and he’s trying to make a point, or misspeaks. They like the ban but are more likely than the strongest backers to think he “went too far” with it. The do NOT think a religious test would be constitutional, and would prefer Mr. Trump work through the courts. They’re a little more leery about Russia. One-third admit he’s off to “a rough start” but remain optimistic.
They have plenty in common with the strongest supporters though, including no desire to reach out to opponents.
The “Curious”: They’re Opponents Now, but Could Reconsider (21 percent of nation)
These Americans oppose Mr. Trump at the moment but “would reconsider” supporting him if he does a good job. They’re looking for more than just results, though – they want Mr. Trump to reach out to them, and they want respect.
Half of them at least like the fact he is “shaking up Washington.” Ninety percent say he’d gain at least some support from them if he improves the economy -- though fewer than half think he’s spending time focused on jobs now. And just as strong in their calculus is him “showing respect” for opponents. Four in ten of them say that respect could earn him their “full support.”
But right now 84 percent of this group say that he doesn’t speak for people like them, and 4 in 5 say he doesn’t respect or understand people like them.
nation-tracker-curious.jpg
They’re a little younger, more likely to be women, and more likely to be independent than Democrats. Fewer than one in ten identify themselves as Republicans.
They want an improved economy just like his supporters and could back Mr. Trump if he delivers one -- but they feel personally alienated by the President right now. They want him to reach out, but are not optimistic he will, leaving this group looking like a missed opportunity for the President at the moment.
They’re more inclined to say Democrats should work with Mr. Trump than oppose him on everything. Half say Democrats should take the deals they can get and then look toward 2020.
At the start, the things President Trump is doing don’t resonate with them. They think the travel ban has gone too far and should be lifted; they overwhelmingly think at least some refugees should be admitted. Half think he has gone too far in his dealings with foreign allies (six in ten are concerned about that). Most of them think he does not have the right approach to Russia. In addition, many think he is focusing too much on the election, his approval ratings, TV shows, the wall and the travel ban.
Women make up over half of this group, and more than a quarter are under age 30. Politically, they’re split between Democrats and independents.
The Resisters: (35 percent of nation)
“I am against Trump, period.”
A large group consisting mainly of Democrats, and with a larger share of minority Americans than the other groups, these Americans don’t foresee themselves ever supporting the president. They’re angry and pessimistic, though they do concede that Mr. Trump is doing what he said he’d do in the campaign. (None of them voted for him, though.)
The biggest differences between this group and the curious are: Resisters want the Democrats to oppose Mr. Trump on many more things, rather than try to work with him; demographically, they are much more likely to be either African-American or Hispanic.
Four in ten of them did not vote in the 2016 election. They have a lower rate of participation than those on the opposite side who strongly support Mr. Trump. One in ten feels “motivated” by the Trump presidency right now, so the Democrats may still have some work to do rallying this part of their base.
They overwhelmingly disagree with both President Trump’s policies and the way he’s doing things now, at a rate of over nine in 10, and nearly all think the Trump administration is off to a rough start.
nation-tracker-democrats.jpg
Few of them believe there is much Mr. Trump can do to gain their full support, but like the more persuadable opponents, most say he will gain at least some support if he shows respect for people with different views. There is little hope among this group of Americans that this will come to pass. However – nearly all say the president doesn’t speak for them, respect or understand them, or will try to do things to earn their support.
On governing, they’re different from the “Curious” group on what they want Democrats to do. 8 in 10 of them want Democrats to oppose Trump at least on things they care most about, including 37 percent of them want Democrats to oppose Trump at every turn.
Seven in 10 think he how he handles himself as president matters a lot. But rather than talking about creating jobs, most of them think he spends too much time talking about the border wall with Mexico (which nearly all think is a bad idea), the travel ban, TV shows, his approval ratings, and how he did in the election this past November.
For the Nation Tracker we interviewed over 2,200 panelists, a higher than usual sample size, and balanced, among those who reported voting, between Trump voters and Clinton voters in the same proportion as the election.
The CBS News 2017 Nation Tracker is conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 2216 U.S. adults between February 8-10, 2017. The margin of error for the full sample is +/- 2.6.
You can find the methodology for the poll here, the cross tabs here, and the toplines here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-dossier-on-trump-gaining-credibility-with-law-enforcement/
Russian dossier on Trump gaining credibility with law enforcement
By JEFF PEGUES CBS NEWS
February 10, 2017, 7:30 PM
Last Updated Feb 11, 2017 10:21 AM EST
CBS News has learned that the 35-page dossier compiled by a former British spy is gaining credibility among law enforcement. Before he was sworn in as President, Donald Trump dismissed the document, but sources tell CBS News that investigators continue to vet it to see whether there is any truth to the allegations.
British diplomat warned John McCain about Russia's Trump intel
Play VIDEO
British diplomat warned John McCain about Russia's Trump intel
At issue is whether the Russian government gathered compromising information on the president during his years of doing business in country as a private citizen. The FBI is leading the investigation but several intelligence agencies are also involved. Typically an investigation of this scale would involve the sources and methods of the CIA and NSA. CNN first reported the sustained interest in the dossier by the intelligence community.
The dossier first came to the attention of U.S. officials several months ago, and it took time for it to circulate. A U.S. official familiar with the document’s origin says that even people who discounted it initially have begun to take it more seriously.
This is in part, government sources say, because of statements candidate Trump was making on the campaign trail. While the Obama administration was denouncing what it alleged were Russian efforts to influence the election through cyber attacks, Mr. Trump praised Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Ultimately, the dossier’s existence was confirmed when it was revealed that FBI Director James Comey briefed then President-elect Trump with a summary of its unsubstantiated allegations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-describes-his-most-significant-cases/
Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch describes his most significant cases
CBS/AP
February 12, 2017, 9:04 AM
Photograph -- Neil Gorsuch speaks after U.S. President Donald Trump nominated him to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 31, 2017. REUTERS
Last Updated Feb 12, 2017 4:15 PM EST
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee has returned a 68-page questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of confirmation hearings expected in March.
In the questionnaire, Judge Neil Gorsuch lists what he considers the 10 most significant cases he presided over while on a federal appeals court.
Top of his list is a 2016 case in which he wrote for a panel of judges who sided with a Mexican citizen seeking permission to live in the U.S.
Also listed is a 2013 case involving a family business that raised religious objections to paying for contraception for women covered under its health plans. Gorsuch wrote that the majority he joined in concluded that the family business had “demonstrated a likelihood of success” of their religion-based complaint in court. In a separate concurring opinion, the judge said he explained why the individuals in the family “also had standing to sue and were entitled to relief.”
Trump denies Gorsuch's criticism of attacks on judiciary
Play VIDEO
Trump denies Gorsuch's criticism of attacks on judiciary
Gorsuch states that none of the opinions he authored has been reversed.
The questionnaire also contains a long list of his published writings and speeches. It also included a list of the ten most significant litigated matters Gorsuch personally handled.
Gorsuch has come under heavy scrutiny in the last week, following Mr. Trump’s vociferous criticism of the courts on Twitter.
In meetings with senators, the Supreme Court nominee has agreed that the president’s remarks on the judiciary branch were disheartening and “demoralizing.”
In related news, an AP analysis of Gorsuch’s rulings shows him as a defender of free speech and a skeptic of libel claims. His record puts him at odds with President Donald Trump’s disdain for journalists and tendency to lash out at critics.
On other First Amendment cases involving freedom of religion, however, Gorsuch’s rulings in his decade on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver reflect views more in line with the president and conservatives, the AP review found. Gorsuch repeatedly has sided with religious groups when they butt up against the secular state.
In a 2007 opinion involving free speech, Gorsuch ruled for a Kansas citizen who said he was bullied by Douglas County officials into dropping his tax complaints. “When public officials feel free to wield the powers of their office as weapons against those who question their decisions, they do damage not merely to the citizen in their sights but also to the First Amendment liberties,” Gorsuch wrote.
Trump, who announced Gorsuch as his pick on Jan. 31, has said he is waging a “running war” against the news media and wants to make it easier to sue for libel. The president, who nominated Gorsuch for the high court, has used his political stature to fire off harsh attacks on relatively powerless critics such as the father of a dead soldier or a beauty pageant winner.
Gorsuch has sided with those lower on the power scale. In cases in 2007 and 2016, Gorsuch agreed with the court majority in upholding public employees’ claims of retaliation for exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and association.
He repeatedly has interpreted libel law in light of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, rejecting claims based on small mistakes in the offending material. He sided with a broadcaster who may have overstated a prisoner’s gang ties and a University of Northern Colorado student who mocked a professor in an online parody that showed him in a Hitler-style mustache.
POOR LADY. SHE’LL BE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT IT DIDN’T HAPPEN IN THE AIR.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spooked-passengers-deplane-after-pilots-bizarre-rant-on-intercom/
Spooked passengers deplane after pilot's bizarre rant on intercom
CBS/AP
February 12, 2017, 7:33 AM
Photograph -- pilot-1.jpg, Image of the pilot making statements about her divorce and the presidential election on United Airlines flight from Austin to San Francisco, Feb 11, 2017.
Photograph -- passenger-2.jpg, “We were a little afraid having someone somewhat unstable flying the plane,” said passenger Pam O’Neal. KPIX/SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO — A United Airlines pilot was removed from a plane bound for San Francisco International Airport after a bizarre rant about politics and her divorce, reports CBS station KPIX in San Francisco.
It happened Saturday before United Flight 455 left from Austin, Texas.
The pilot got passengers’ attention when she boarded the plane in her street clothes.
“She shows up dressed like a civilian and asks to us to take a vote to see whether she should change into her uniform or fly as is,” said Pam O’Neal, who was aboard the flight.
Passenger Randy Reiss tweeted, she “asked if we were ok with her flying like that… then says ‘sorry I’m going through s(sic) divorce.’”
She then used the plane’s overhead PA system to rant about President Trump and Hillary Clinton — calling them both “a–holes” and then ranting about her divorce. That’s when passengers began tweeting to United to get a new pilot.
“She started off by saying that she had not voted for either Trump or Clinton because they’re a bunch of liars,” said passenger “O’Neal. “That’s an odd way to start of the welcome to your flight. It really sort of went downhill from there and didn’t make a lot of sense to any of us.”
“We were a little afraid having someone somewhat unstable flying the plane,” said O’Neal.
About 20 passengers said they didn’t feel safe with her in the cockpit and got off the lane [sic].
Apparently, Reiss was one of them. He left, tweeting, “So, ya’ll i’m shaking right now. I just left my @united flight 455 ‘cos the captain demonstrated that she was not mentally in a safe space.”
“She was not on the right state of mind,” said Portugal. “We were a little afraid having someone that was somewhat unstable flying the plane”
After the pilot was removed he tweeted, “new captain on board. Apologized. We’re off. Radio silence.”
Looking back on the situation he added, “Being a pilot is a tough & stressful job. This particular pilot did not seem emotionally equipped to do that job today. I hope that she gets the help she probably needs.”
United Airlines spokesman Charlie Hobart confirmed the pilot wasn’t in uniform when she boarded the plane. He said the delay lasted about two hours.
Hobart said he didn’t know why the pilot was allowed on the plane in plain clothes or if anyone thought something was amiss before she boarded. He says the company will discuss the incident with the pilot.
In a statement United said: “We hold our employees to the highest standards and have replaced this pilot with a new one to operate the flight, which has since departed from Austin. We apologize to our customers for the inconvenience.”
https://www.laprogressive.com/innocent-blood/
The Long and Deadly Struggle Against the Tyranny of Human Stupidity
BY JAIME O'NEILL
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2017
Five years ago, while visiting my daughter in France, I plucked a book from her shelves and began reading it in her guest bedroom. The front windows in that room look out upon a street re-named decades ago in honor of the American infantry division that liberated my ex-pat daughter’s village and dozens of other Normandy villages in the summer of 1944.
The book I began to read in that room bears the title Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed. It was written by Philip Hallie who chronicles the efforts of people of the village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon to save their Jewish neighbors from death in the concentration camps. Le Chambon is located far to the south of where my daughter has taken up residence, but reading of French resistance in the year I was born took on special vividness, requiring less imagination than it might have asked of me back at home in California.
The primary protagonist in the book is Pastor Andre Trocme. In the early pages of this small slice of the history of those horrors, the author recounts how Trocme was hauled before the police chief in nearby Limoges in February of 1943. This is what the author shares with readers about that interrogation, and the realization Pastor Trocme took from the experience:
“This was a moment Trocme would never forget,” he writes. “In fact, his overnight stay in the police station in Limoges changed his view of mankind. He discovered people like the captain–patriotic, sincere, above all, severely limited. These people were capable of repeating hate-ridden clichés without concern for evidence or for the pain of others. Before he entered the police station in Limoges he thought the world was a scene where two forces were struggling for power: God and the Devil. From then on, he knew that there was a third force seeking hegemony over this world: stupidity. God, the Devil and halfwits of mind and heart were all struggling with each other to take over the reins.”
He told me that the men who tortured him were often drunk, and that any olfactory reminder of the booze on their breath could still make him nauseous.
About ten years ago, I did a rather long piece for a local alternative weekly about a Dutch survivor of the holocaust, a guy who spent seven months in Mauthausen, one of the lesser known concentration camps. His name was Bert Schapelhouman. He survived the horrors of that place in 1944 and ’45, and the horrors before he was sent to Mauthausen. Though not as familiar to most people as Auschwitz or Buchenwald, it was just as bad.
I listened to this dear man tell his story over the course of several days of interviewing in his immaculate home, watched as he teared up at some of the memories being prompted by my questions. Though he wasn’t Jewish, he was sent to Mauthausen because he was suspected, rightly, of resistance activity. He was 19 at the time, and his fingernails and toenails were pulled out with pliers during the interrogations that took place in his village before he was loaded on a train for the internment camp.
He told me that the men who tortured him were often drunk, and that any olfactory reminder of the booze on their breath could still make him nauseous.
And he also told me of their thick stupidity, and the easy arrogance that came with those limitations. Though he was 6 ft. tall, he weighed just over 80 pounds when he was liberated from Mauthausen. A few years later, he managed to gain entry to Canada, then later to the U.S. where he became a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, a solid advocate and supporter of a range of human rights and humanitarian causes. A good, a decent, and an intelligent warrior against stupidity and the arrogance that stupidity so readily enables.
DEVASTATING IMITATIONS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING NEARLY ALL POLITICAL/SOCIAL CARTOONING, IS A BASICALLY UNKIND THING, AND PERHAPS A DEADLY WEAPON. I WANT TO SIDE WITH THE FRENCH PEOPLE, BECAUSE I THINK THEY TEND TO BE "LIBERAL" IN THEIR THINKING, BUT THE CARTOONS OF MOHAMMED THAT SET OFF EXTREME HATRED AND VIOLENCE AMONG THE ISLAMIC PEOPLE THERE WENT OUT OF BOUNDS. TOTALLY FREE THOUGHT, I AGREE WITH, BUT NOT TOTALLY FREE SPEECH WHEN IT DOES NOT COME ANY WHERE NEAR A FAIRMINDED APPRAISAL OF ANOTHER GROUP. RACISM YIELDS MORE RACISM IN RETURN FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE, AND THE RESULT CAN BE LITERALLY WAR. SO RATHER THAN ATTACKING A WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE, SINGLE OUT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO VERGE ALL THE WAY OVER INTO UNFAIR BEHAVIOR. I SOMETIMES FEEL THAT THEY TO SOME DEGREE DESERVE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM, AS LONG AS THAT REACTION IS LEGAL, MORAL AND ETHICAL. FIGHT WITH WORDS, AND NOT WITH DEADLY WEAPONS. I DO CONFESS THAT I LOVE A GOOD CARTOON, HOWEVER.
THANK GOODNESS THIS WAS NOT AN AMERICAN PAPER .…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/newspaper-goofs-uses-snl-pic-of-alec-baldwin-for-trump-story/
Newspaper goofs, uses "SNL" pic of Alec Baldwin for Trump story
AP February 12, 2017, 10:17 AM
Photograph -- This screen grab of the Friday, Feb. 10, 2017 digitized version of Dominican Republic’s El Nacional print edition shows comedian Alec Baldwin doing his impression of President Donald Trump on “Saturday Night Live,†next to a photo of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the paper’s international page with the Spanish headline: “Trump says settlements in Israel don’t favor peace.” The Spanish caption under Baldwin’s photo reads: “Donald Trump, president of U.S.” The newspaper published an apology on Saturday. EL NACIONAL VIA AP
SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic - Alec Baldwin does a pretty convincing Donald Trump impersonation - just ask a newspaper in the Dominican Republic.
El Nacional published an apology on Saturday after mistakenly running a photo of the actor doing his impression of the U.S. president on “Saturday Night Live” instead of Trump himself.
Accompanying an article in its Friday edition headlined in Spanish: “Trump says settlements in Israel don’t favor peace,” a photo of a scowling Baldwin in a blond wig appears next to a photo of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a statement posted on its website, the Dominican newspaper said a photo of Baldwin imitating Trump - over the caption “Donald Trump, president of the USA” - was published on page 19 and the mistake went unnoticed by the newspaper’s staff.
“El Nacional apologizes to its readers and anyone who felt affect by the publication” of the photo, the statement said.
Trump has lashed out at the way “Saturday Night Live” has lampooned him, saying Baldwin’s semi-regular portrayal of him “stinks.”
Baldwin was in fine from Saturday night, portraying Trump suing judges of the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, which ruled against the administration on his travel ban last week.
Trump People's Court - SNL by Saturday Night Live on YouTube
https://www.laprogressive.com/courts-check-trump/
Checks and Balances in the Age of Trump
BY MARIA ARMOUDIAN
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 10, 2017
The struggles between national and state governments have marked the country’s development since its founding and have arisen under many presidents, including under Barack Obama’s eight years. For example, twenty-one states sued the administration over its policies protecting rights of transgender people and requiring overtime pay under certain conditions. Thirteen states sued to block the Affordable Healthcare Act, claiming it was unconstitutional. Texas alone sued the Obama Administration at least 48 times. At least one case related to immigration. The state sued Obama over his order to give deportation relief for a class of undocumented immigrants.
Perhaps the two most dramatic eras of the local-versus-federal policies arose during the fights over slavery and desegregation. Before the Civil War era, the USA was torn between “slave states” and “free states.” The federal government passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, requiring the return of those African Americans who escaped their bondage in the Southern “slave” states and reached safer ground in the Northern “free” states. In acts of defiance, many in the free states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts.
Fast forward to the era of desegregation and the roles reversed. After the landmark desegregation cases, particularly Brown v. Board of Education, it was now the Southern states that sought to defy the national government, refusing to let African Americans into “whites only” public schools, universities and public amenities.
Today’s conflicts are also ethical issues, arising primarily from two realities—a rapidly warming planet that threatens all of our survival and the unfolding humanitarian crises connected to decades of “might-makes-right” policies that have empowered a select few to own or control most of the world’s wealth at the expense of the rest of humanity. While the power-hungry few enjoy wild wealth and frequent impunity, some 75 percent of humanity struggle to survive.
The new President has shot back that he will strip federal funds from “sanctuary cities” that have vowed to protect immigrants from mass deportation.
These two fundamental ethical questions are a large part of the wedge between Donald Trump and these local and state officials in the USA. Today, we are on encountering another divisive era of US history, as two contests: One between scientifically-based facts and Donald Trump’s scorched earth policies that will damage the planet on which our survival depends. The other is a basic humane policy that recognizes our collective roles in the displacement of millions of our fellow members of our global village.
It is on the latter issue that the legal battles have begun. As of this writing, at least 39 cities and 364 counties nationwide have declared themselves as “sanctuaries” for immigrants. They have avowed to resist participating in the thoughtless Trump orders. Taking the legal fight one step further, the City of San Francisco and the states of New York, Washington, Virginia and Massachusetts have filed lawsuits to legally fight the Trump orders to severely limit immigration.
The new President has shot back that he will strip federal funds from “sanctuary cities” that have vowed to protect immigrants from mass deportation. And in the spirit of Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre,” Trump has sacked the acting U.S. attorney general who questioned the constitutionality of his executive order, replacing her with someone vowing to support his efforts. His recent pick for the U.S. Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, is par for the Trump course—highly ideological and young enough to influence the law of the land for decades. After all, justices get to serve for life, “on good behavior.”
American politics is supposed to have checks and balances that make it hard for thoughtless or extremely ideological policy to become law. But that tends to only work in a divided government, when the three branches are populated with enough from the opposition party to provide a veto on bad lawmaking. But now, the three branches are mostly in the hands of a republican party that has drifted far from the center.
The remaining check is coming from the states, which have limited resources to challenge a unified government such as the one we are witnessing today. Their ability to challenge Trump’s “unified” government will depend on the courts, which in some cases, they have been able to do. And if the Democrats fail to block the confirmation, the Court, too, remains on the ideological right. And the decks are then stacked against thoughtful, scientifically-based, and compassionate policy-making for a wide range of issues.
WWII LIVES ON IN THE WORLD AS IN OUR HEARTS – BOTH ARE SAD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/greek-city-evacuated-to-defuse-wwii-bomb/
Greek city evacuated to defuse WWII bomb
AP February 12, 2017, 8:47 AM
Photograph -- ap-17043309198536.jpg, Greek Army officers conduct preparation work before they excavate an unexploded World War II bomb which was found 5 meters (over 16 feet) deep, at a gas station in Thessaloniki, Greece Sunday, Feb. 12, 2017. Bomb disposal experts are to tackle the device, found buried beneath a gas station, on Sunday in an operation expected to last about six hours, with all residents in a nearly 2-kilometer (1.2-mile) radius being evacuated. AP PHOTO/GIANNIS PAPANIKOS
THESSALONIKI, Greece - Authorities in the northern Greek city of Thessaloniki evacuated an estimated 75,000 people Sunday so army experts could defuse a 500-pound unexploded World War II bomb found under a gas station.
The evacuation started at 7 a.m. (0500 GMT). Police went house-to-house ringing bells and knocking on doors to remind people living within a 1.2-mile radius, mostly in the western suburb of Kordelio, to leave their homes.
Bomb disposal experts started work at 11.30 a.m. (0900 GMT), 90 minutes later than planned, but defused the bomb in only 30 minutes, Central Macedonia governor Apostolos Tzizikostas announced.
The bomb was now going to be taken to an army firing range.
“The first phase of the bomb disposal has been a total success,” Tzizikostas announced. “There remains its removal from the site. Residents will still not be allowed in their homes, because the removal and transport contains dangers.”
Many people left the area in their cars, but some were bused to schools and sports halls elsewhere in the city.
“We heard on TV that, if the bomb explodes, it will be like a strong earthquake,” a worried Michalis Papanos, 71, told The Associated Press as he and his wife, Yiannoula, headed out of their home.
Alexander Bogdani and his wife, Anna Bokonozi, left on foot, pushing a stroller with their toddler daughter.
“They have warned us ... we are afraid for the child,” Bogdani said.
The city’s main bus station was shut down, trains in the area were halted and churches canceled their Sunday services. The city also booked a 175-room hotel where people with limited mobility and their escorts were taken on Saturday.
Among the evacuees were 450 refugees staying at a former factory, who bused to visit the city’s archaeological museum.
One resident says he recalls the day the bomb fell.
“The bombing was done by English and American planes on Sept. 17, 1944. It was Sunday lunchtime,” said Giorgos Gerasimou, 86, whose home is half a mile away from the bomb site.
He said the Allies were targeting local German rail facilities and he remembers the day clearly because one of his 10-year-old friends was killed in the bombing.
Nazi Germany occupied Greece from 1941 until October 1944.
I HOPE THE MEDIA WILL ALWAYS BE AROUND TO FILM THESE THINGS. THAT WILL HELP PREVENT ANY UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE AN IMPARTIAL WITNESS TO PREVENT EVIL FROM EMERGING.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-crackdown-sweeps-across-u-s-cities/
Immigration agents carry out raids in several U.S. cities
By CARTER EVANS CBS NEWS
February 11, 2017, 8:14 PM
Play VIDEO -- Feds carry out immigration raid in six states, detaining hundreds
LOS ANGELES -- Agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have conducted sweeps in several cities this past week. Officials say they’re rounding up illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.
From New York City to Los Angeles, activists are speaking out against immigration raids across the country. Photos from an operation in Atlanta show agents arresting alleged immigration fugitives and criminals.
In Texas, video on social media showing a man being detained by an ICE agent in front of a fast food restaurant sends a chilling message, according to Austin City Council Member Delia Garza.
“The video I saw this morning was a man on his knees at a Whataburger,” Garza said. “That is a very horrible optic thing for families to see, for children to see.”
Agents arrested 161 immigrants in Los Angeles this week. The vast majority had criminal convictions and outstanding deportation orders -- a targeted operation that is not a response to President Trump’s crackdown, according to David Marin, the director of the ICE office in Los Angeles.
“This operation was in the planning stages before the administration came out with their current executive orders,” Marin said.
On Friday, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly tried to set the record straight at the border in San Diego
“First of all, they’re not rounding anyone up,” Kelly said. “The people that ICE apprehend are people who are illegal and then some.”
Earlier this week, Kelly told Congress that under the Obama administration, immigration agents expressed frustration that they were not able to do their jobs and morale was low.
“I bet if you watch the morale issue, you’ll be surprised going forward,” Kelly said.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti is now asking ICE for greater transparency about ongoing operations. Los Angeles is one of many cities across the country with police departments that have said they will not enforce federal immigration laws.
https://www.laprogressive.com/trump-regime/
Keeping the Faith in Dangerous Times
BY LANCE SIMMENS
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 12, 2017
The collective pulse of the nation is redlining. Our blood pressure is at dangerous levels. Stress has pervaded the normal course of action in our daily lives. Since the advent of the Trump regime attention to the seemingly hourly swings of the political pendulum has been a boon for cable television but has left a nation and a world afflicted by high anxiety.
The first two weeks of the Trump Era have been filled with missteps, miscues, and miscommunication. The avalanche of executive orders spewing forth from this unguided death star are dispensed with little or no communication from those who have knowledge about the nuances and complexity of public policy. Our peripatetic cheerleader-in-chief swings wildly at pitches both inside and outside the strike zone and cannot distinguish between a fastball and a knuckler. So far he is missing far more than connecting and sooner or later his rookie wildness will have serous [sic] consequences.
Our peripatetic cheerleader-in-chief swings wildly at pitches both inside and outside the strike zone and cannot distinguish between a fastball and a knuckler.
I stand guilty of engaging in the constant commentary that is flooding the internet and watching much too much television. Having spent a lifetime in politics I should be given at least some dispensation from the disbelief that I experience on a regular basis these days, but that is still no excuse. It is apparent, however, that many people have been energized to action that have either never done so or not done so in a long, long time. Just witness the large-scale demonstrations that have captured media attention over the past several weeks. What is also apparent is that many who rarely engaged in debate or in some instances verbal combat over policy and politics have joined the fray. The tenor and volume of vitriol is palpable and many who might normally simply end a debate with a witty comment and lol are now turning to unfriending or blocking further communications.
I certainly understand and appreciate an energized electorate but what is happening is scary. The level of frustration is not dissipating but deepening. More and more folks are genuinely worrying about things they used to not pay attention to. The stakes are enormous and mostly people are worried more so for their kids than themselves. But there is a widespread and prevalent sense of public fear that is taking its toll on our national psyche. Gone is any shred of optimism. Gone is any sense of American exceptionalism. Our President is equating Soviet discipline (read state sanctioned murder) with the killers within our own country. One can only imagine what the public reaction would have been had our most recent President asserted such.
Already Trump has accumulated a lengthy list of questionable, illegal, or unconstitutional actions. His administration has introduced us to alternative facts, a Muslim ban that is not a ban, a massacre that did not exist, a tortuous defense of crowd estimates done simply in his own head, voter fraud that once again does not exist other than in his own warped mind, incomprehension of the terms diplomacy and respect for friends and foes alike, and several attacks on the very foundation of a tripartite government.
It remains to be seen how long it will take for adults in his own party to tire of constantly pushing a very dangerous envelope and start acting in the interests of the nation and the world at large. But surely that day will come and hopefully before it is too late. In the meantime it is important for all of us to do what we can to draw attention to the dangers around us. At the same time we must not allow the deviousness and deception that is a hallmark of the President’s temperament and behavior to drive us to self-destructive actions.
Keep the debate civil, keep the protests peaceful, and work within the system to effectuate real and meaningful change. Otherwise we fall into the same trap that Trump’s irrationality will render: namely, feeding the opposition with ammunition with which to use against us. Make no mistake, these are dangerous times. Remain vigilant but resolute in the belief that we are better than how we currently appear to many. To resurrect an axiom from the Sixties, keep the faith!
Lance Simmens
I WANT TO MAKE ONE GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT THE RIGHTIST VIEW OF PUBLIC EDUCATION -- THAT IT SPREADS "DANGEROUS LIBERAL IDEAS" -- LIKE TREATING EVERYONE EQUALLY IS ABSOLUTELY THE WAY WE SHOULD BE, AND IS VERY, VERY "AMERICAN." ALL NEW IDEAS ARE DANGEROUS TO SOMEBODY'S SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS DOGMAS. I SAY, DOWN WITH DOGMA AND UP WITH REAL SPIRITUAL IMPROVEMENT. JESUS DIDN'T SAY WE SHOULD BE EXTRA HARD ON THE POOR TO GIVE THEM "AN INCENTIVE" TO WORK HARDER. THAT'S WHAT THE CORPORATE CLASSES TEACH, BECAUSE THE MORE DEMORALIZED AND UNEDUCATED OUR PEOPLE ARE, THE MORE THEY CAN BE DOMINATED, AND THAT'S GOOD FOR PROFITS. DON'T WANT NO DAMNED UNIONS AROUND HERE MESSING UP OUR PROFIT MARGIN.
https://www.laprogressive.com/white-privilege-makes-people-uncomfortable/
‘White Privilege’ Makes Some Uncomfortable
BY JAMES HAUGHT
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2017
He taunted me: “You’re a racist, you know.”
“No, no, no,” I protested — but he continued:
“Just look at yourself. You were born white, male and smart. You could go out into the world and take whatever you could get — and you never stopped to think that I couldn’t do it.”
I was speechless. Finally, I answered: “Damn! You nailed me precisely.”
Whites needn’t feel ashamed of their privilege — but they should work hard to ensure that everyone in every ethnic group gets the same benefits.
Until that moment, I never saw clearly that society stacked the deck in my favor, giving me benefits not available to minorities. It was sobering. Later, I learned that sociologists call my advantage “white privilege.”
Currently, the wealthy white community of Westport, Conn. (average family income $150,000), is in an uproar because a human rights group and the public library invited high school students to write essays on the topic: “In 1,000 words or less, describe how you understand the term ‘white privilege.’”
To the surprise of sponsors, a backlash arose. Some white parents felt insulted and claimed that the essay contest was designed to make their teens ashamed of their benefits. National news coverage followed.
The chairman of the Westport human rights group, a retired black IBM vice president, replied:
“There’s a lot more controversy around it than many of us expected…. All of a sudden, we’re race-baiting or trying to get people to feel guilty. That’s not what it’s all about.”
Actually, the topic isn’t simple. There are many other sorts of privilege beyond race. People born with high I.Q. have advantage over those born with less. Americans with normal weight and appealing features get better acceptance than those who are heavy or homely. People with affluent parents who sent them to good universities have a leg up over youths from blue-collar families who couldn’t afford college—or graduate with crushing student loan debt (which is much worse for black graduates). Foreign-looking people with odd names — especially Hispanics — don’t get the same breaks as standard white Americans. Despite years of female progress, males still hold advantage. Despite progress, gays still are less accepted than “straights.”
I was born in the 1930s in a little West Virginia farm town with no electricity or paved streets. But even there, I was privileged. My father was the town postmaster and my mother a teacher — which put us in the white-collar elite, compared to sweaty farmhands. It gave me confidence and self-worth that never left me.
Last year’s “Black Lives Matter” crusade spotlighted racial privilege. At one protest, a white woman held a sign saying, “They don’t shoot white women like me.” That’s another white privilege.
Here’s the bottom line: Whites needn’t feel ashamed of their privilege — but they should work hard to ensure that everyone in every ethnic group gets the same benefits.
James A. Haught
PeaceVoice
https://www.laprogressive.com/la-school-board-election/
LA School Board Election: Revisiting a Duplicate Contract
BY POSTED BY ADMINISTRATOR
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2017
[LAUSD STANDS FOR: Los Angeles Unified School District]
Photograph -- LA School Board Election
Los Angeles United School District Board of Education member Steve Zimmer talking with parents. (Photo: Pandora Young)
On March 7, 2017, Los Angeles will play a duplicate round of last November’s presidential election, and we’ll have the opportunity to trump last year’s presidential fiasco.
You vote to resist deep-pocketed, super-wealthy, 1%-politics when you vote in March for LAUSD School Board District 4’s incumbent, Steve Zimmer.
Since January 20, the billionaires have displayed a dummy hand of hubris, lies and slander. That is, the same hand playing out right now in DC is being played right here in LA by multi-millionaire, former-mayor Dick Riordan. The choice of the monied-1%, champions a dystopian DeVos-flavored future devoid of truly accountable or equitable public education.
In contrast, our path of Resistance steps neatly across the millions of dollars employed to hobble Steve Zimmer’s policies that are people-responsive, and people-powered. You vote to resist deep-pocketed, super-wealthy, 1%-politics when you vote in March for LAUSD School Board District 4’s incumbent, Steve Zimmer.
These are some issues to consider when reviewing the leaflets and immutable forum and conversations littering the landscape:
A school’s “chartering” agency is tasked with its oversight. That means assuring its policies and operations are truly accountable to the public; that means assuring all the public is served, and not just some of it.
At the same time there is inherent tension between any special interest and its regulators, even not-for-profit charters.
So what will a school regulatory system look like when it is governed by electeds who are financed by charter partisans such as the CA Charter Schools Association and private equity Education-sector investors?
Two of Steve Zimmer’s challengers are beholden financially to precisely such groups and individuals vested in the special-interests of Charter Schools.
Steve Zimmer is not.
Who will be free of bias to regulate these schools in the best interests of all our public school children?
A school board is concerned with ideology; its superintendent and staff with operations and realizing policy.
LAUSD’s expensive escapades with technology-driven chicanery were coaxed by LAUSD staff, approved and overseen by its board. It’s an intimate tango, to be sure, but the original sin lies among the folly of its architect and engineers, not the signal operators.
The financial underwriters of the creative team choreographing LAUSD iPad ignominy were Eli Broad and his allied billionaires. John Deasy was their impresario, handpicked to lead LAUSD. And it was the leadership of Mónica Garcia that orchestrated board approval and oversight of Deasy’s debacle; Eli Broad’s billions supported both Deasy and Garcia.
Deasy is long gone but his operations remain under legal scrutiny. Garcia is displaced as board president, yet her role as promoter of Deasy’s technology agenda is unchallenged and her mantle as Broad’s acolyte uncensored.
Fast forward to March’s school board election where three candidates benefit directly from Broad and his allies’ wherewithal. Two would tar Zimmer falsely with exclusive blame for the iPads via mailers from Independent Expenditure Committees of the 1%, while the third – Garcia – actually was the scheme’s chief champion. Taxpayer accountability should swamp all three.
Broad’s wealthy billionaire-class underwrite and motivate a central stalking-horse of “Education ®eform”: to disintegrate that core of the teaching profession, its professional teachers.
As financiers of the defeated Vergara v California, the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of five statues “protecting” classroom teachers, Education-®eforming industry titans seek to circumvent this judgment through elections. By supporting a plaintiff’s witness for LAUSD school board, defendant would be transformed to plaintiff; the LAUSD itself would accuse its very own constituent teachers.
This Trojan horse strategy could affect widespread collateral damage to business-labour relations, tilting advantage toward those billionaires whose special interests are advanced in supporting their candidate’s role-reversal.
Obligated by financial support and legal testimony, such a board member’s fealty would be inherently compromised. These candidates are unqualified, in the paradigm of Rick Perry who would shutter the department he is appointed to run, or Steve Mnuchin who would abolish all populist protections governing his.
Consider how these three issues support the billionaire’s latter-day agenda for a privatized America.
Resisting the will of the 1% means transcribing the will of the 99% onto ballots.
Listen carefully to the underlying agenda of transformative candidates: reconstitution is not necessarily constructive or progressive.
Red Queen in LA
Red Queen in LA is concerned with Education Politics from the perspective of an LAUSD parent.
IN DEFENSE OF THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION’S BOO BOO, I WILL CONFESS THAT I TEND TO CONFUSE W.E.B. DU BOIS, A WORLD-RENOWNED BLACK SCHOLAR WHO WROTE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE, THROUGH THEIR FOLK CULTURE AND MUSIC, WITH THE WHITE SOUTHERN WRITER OF THE NOVEL “PORGY.” HIS WIFE, WHO WAS ALSO A WRITER, MODIFIED IT TO PRODUCE “PORGY AND BESS,” A SPECTACULARLY BEAUTIFUL OPERA. GO TO THE LIBRARY AND CHECK OUT A RECORDING OF THE MUSIC, LISTEN TO IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH, AND SEE IF YOU STILL FEEL SUPERIOR TO ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR. IF YOU HAVE AN EAR FOR MUSIC AND A GENTLE SOUL, YOU WON’T. WHAT I LOVE ABOUT MUSIC IS THAT IT CONVINCES THE HEART, WHEREAS THE WRITTEN WORD MAINLY CONVINCES THE MIND, AND NOT ALWAYS TOWARD GREATER LOGIC, EITHER. FOR A BIOGRAPHY ON HEYWARD, GO TO:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuBose_Heyward.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dept-of-education-misspells-iconic-educators-name-in-tweet/?ftag=CNM-00-10aad7b
Dept of Education misspells iconic educator's name in tweet
By DAVID HANCOCK CBS NEWS
February 12, 2017, 12:59 PM
Accidents certainly happen in this day of instant information and social media innundation. But one has to believe that there were stern words spoken to the social media team for the Dept. of Education after the name of a prominent author and activist W.E.B. Du Bois was misspelled in a tweet Sunday.
Du Bois (1868-1963) was a prominent American sociologist, historian, civil rights activist, Pan-Africanist, author, and editor. He was the first African American to earn a doctorate at Harvard University in 1895. And he later became a professor of history, sociology and economics at Atlanta University.
The NAACP notes Du Bois’s most lasting contribution is his writing. As poet, playwright, novelist, essayist, sociologist, historian, and journalist, he wrote 21 books, edited 15 more, and published over 100 essays and articles.
The social flub began at 9:45 a.m. ET with this tweet:
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
US Dept of Education ✔ @usedgov
Education must not simply teach work - it must teach life. – W.E.B. DeBois
8:45 AM - 12 Feb 2017
1,666 1,666 Retweets 2,220 2,220 likes
The goof was noticed at 12:14 p.m. ET:
Post updated - our deepest apologizes for the earlier typo.
— US Dept of Education (@usedgov) February 12, 2017
And corrected at 12:15 p.m. ET:
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
US Dept of Education ✔ @usedgov
"Education must not simply teach work - it must teach life." – W.E.B. Du Bois
12:15 PM - 12 Feb 2017
198 198 Retweets 316 316 likes
“Education must not simply teach work - it must teach life” -- who could disagree? But it’s too delicious not to add that education must also teach spelling.
But in fairness, it is a tricky name with those three initials and the French spelling ...
© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
David Hancock is a home page editor for CBSNews.com.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._E._B._Du_Bois
W. E. B. Du Bois
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the black scholar. For other people with a similar name, see William DuBois.
William Edward Burghardt "W. E. B." Du Bois (pronounced /duːˈbɔɪz/ doo-boyz; February 23, 1868 – August 27, 1963) was an American sociologist, historian, civil rights activist, Pan-Africanist, author, and editor. Born in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, Du Bois grew up in a relatively tolerant and integrated community. After completing graduate work at the University of Berlin and Harvard, where he was the first African American to earn a doctorate, he became a professor of history, sociology and economics at Atlanta University. Du Bois was one of the co-founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909.
Du Bois rose to national prominence as the leader of the Niagara Movement, a group of African-American activists who wanted equal rights for blacks. Du Bois and his supporters opposed the Atlanta compromise, an agreement crafted by Booker T. Washington which provided that Southern blacks would work and submit to white political rule, while Southern whites guaranteed that blacks would receive basic educational and economic opportunities. Instead, Du Bois insisted on full civil rights and increased political representation, which he believed would be brought about by the African-American intellectual elite. He referred to this group as the Talented Tenth and believed that African Americans needed the chances for advanced education to develop its leadership.
Racism was the main target of Du Bois's polemics, and he strongly protested against lynching, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination in education and employment. His cause included people of color everywhere, particularly Africans and Asians in colonies. He was a proponent of Pan-Africanism and helped organize several Pan-African Congresses to fight for independence of African colonies from European powers. Du Bois made several trips to Europe, Africa and Asia. After World War I, he surveyed the experiences of American black soldiers in France and documented widespread bigotry in the United States military.
Du Bois was a prolific author. His collection of essays, The Souls of Black Folk, was a seminal work in African-American literature; and his 1935 magnum opus Black Reconstruction in America challenged the prevailing orthodoxy that blacks were responsible for the failures of the Reconstruction Era. He wrote one of the first scientific treatises in the field of American sociology, and he published three autobiographies, each of which contains insightful essays on sociology, politics and history. In his role as editor of the NAACP's journal The Crisis, he published many influential pieces. Du Bois believed that capitalism was a primary cause of racism, and he was generally sympathetic to socialist causes throughout his life. He was an ardent peace activist and advocated nuclear disarmament. The United States' Civil Rights Act, embodying many of the reforms for which Du Bois had campaigned his entire life, was enacted a year after his death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Souls_of_Black_Folk
The Souls of Black Folk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Souls of Black Folk is a classic work of American literature by W. E. B. Du Bois. It is a seminal work in the history of sociology, and a cornerstone of African-American literary history.
The book, published in 1903, contains several essays on race, some of which the magazine Atlantic Monthly had previously published. To develop this work, Du Bois drew from his own experiences as an African American in the American society. Outside of its notable relevance in African-American history, The Souls of Black Folk also holds an important place in social science as one of the early works in the field of sociology.
No comments:
Post a Comment