May 30, 2017


News and Views


IF THIS COMMENT BY MERKEL MEANS WHAT IT SEEMS TO, THE US IS MOVING TOWARD A BRINK THAT EVEN DONALD TRUMP WILL FEAR, JUST AS SOON AS HE SEES THE GROUND RISING UP TO MEET HIM. HE DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE THINGS THAT KEEP THIS AMERICAN/EUROPEAN SOCIETY AFLOAT, SINCE HE KEEPS INSULTING THE LEADERS OF THOSE NATIONS OF LIKE MIND. THEY HAD OUR BACK AND HELPED US DEFEAT THE HORROR OF NAZI ARMIES MARCHING DOWN THE STREETS OF PREVIOUSLY PROUD AND FREE NATIONS, WHO FORMED THEMSELVES FROM THE FEUDAL BEGINNINGS OF A THOUSAND YEARS AGO. HE MAY BE IN LOVE WITH PUTIN, BUT MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT. MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE ARE NOT HIS FINANCIAL PARTNERS, AS THE TRUMP FAMILY AND CABINET ARE. MEANWHILE, I WATCH THE NEWS EVERY DAY TO SEE WHAT ELSE OF A CATASTROPHIC NATURE HAS HAPPENED.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/europes-time-for-relying-on-others-is-over-merkel-says-after-g-7-meeting-that-included-trump-may/
CBS/AP May 28, 2017, 12:32 PM
Europeans must take "destiny into our own hands," Merkel says after G-7 summit

Photograph -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel stands next to US President Donald Trump during the "family portrait" at the G7 summit in Taormina in Sicily, Italy, 26 May 2017. The heads of the G7 states meet in Sicily from 26 May until 27 May 2017 to negotiate and talk about global topics. Photo by: Michael Kappeler/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images MICHAEL KAPPELER

BERLIN -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday urged European Union nations to stick together in the face of emerging policy divisions with the U.S., Britain's decision to leave the bloc and other challenges.

Speaking at a campaign event held in a Bavarian beer tent, Merkel suggested that the Group of Seven (G-7) summit in Italy that ended Saturday had served as something of a wakeup call. G-7 leaders were unable to reach unanimous agreement on climate change after President Trump said he needed more time to decide whether to back a key climate accord.

"The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days," Merkel told the crowd of some 2,500 that gathered to hear her and Bavarian governor Horst Seehofer.

"And so all I can say is that we Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands," she said, according to the dpa* news agency. [IN THIS CONTEXT DPA SEEMS TO MEAN “DEUTCHE PRESSE-AGENTUR.” FROM THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM]

Mr. Trump -- whose views on climate change are "evolving," according to his top economic adviser Gary Cohn -- has said he will make a decision next week on whether the U.S. will stay in the 2015 Paris agreement. Mr. Trump's delay forced G-7 leaders to declare the U.S. is "not in a position to join the consensus" around the agreement.

Even some members of Mr. Trump's own Republican Party disagree with him on the delay. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, on CNN's State of the Union this weekend, urged the president to stay in the deal.

But Mr. Trump has campaign promises to consider. He pledged to back out of the agreement on the campaign trail.

G7 leaders lean on Trump to keep Paris climate accord
Play VIDEO
G7 leaders lean on Trump to keep Paris climate accord

Mr. Trump's administration has argued that U.S. emissions standards are tougher than those set by China, India and others, and therefore have put American businesses at a disadvantage.

After the summit, Merkel called the climate talks "very difficult, if not to say, very unsatisfactory."

Merkel on Sunday emphasized the need for continued friendly relations with the U.S. and Britain and also stressed the importance of being good neighbors "wherever that is possible, including with Russia, but also with others."

"But we need to know we must fight for our own future, as Europeans, for our destiny," she said.

Despite the Trump administration's talk of an "America first" policy and ongoing criticism of Germany for its massive trade surplus, the G-7 leaders in Sicily did vow to fight protectionism, reiterating "a commitment to keep our markets open."

They also agreed to step up pressure on North Korea, to forge closer cooperation in the fight against terrorism, on the possibility of imposing more sanctions on Russia over role in the conflict in Ukraine.

The president's first trip abroad was seen as a test of his ability to manage foreign relationships, something Merkel's comments drew attention to as Mr. Trump returned to Washington for Memorial Day weekend.



HOW RACISM, EXTREME VIEWS ON PATRIOTISM, AS WELL AS ON THE WHITE RIGHT’S RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES (HAILED AS “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,”), ARE BECOMING MORE APPARENT DAILY; AND I BELIEVE, ARE ACTUALLY MORE PREVALENT, AND DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BLATANTLY ALT-RIGHT GROUPS WHO ARE FOLLOWERS OF DONALD TRUMP. MY COMMENT HERE ISN’T SIMPLY “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS” ON MY PART, BUT COMES FROM MY MOST BASIC BELIEFS. SUCH HOSTILE AND XENOPHOBIC VIEWS, AS ARE BEING VOICED BY THIS WHITE MAN IN THE ARTICLE BELOW, ARE SEVERELY DAMAGING TO THE WHOLE US CULTURE AND, INDEED, OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, INTELLECTUAL CAPABILITY, DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNMENT THAT PROTECTS FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION AS WELL.

THE PRESENT ULTRARIGHTIST SORT OF IDEOLOGY IS PURELY “HATE SPEECH” AND INTIMIDATION, AND IS NOT CONDONED IN THE WORDS OF THE US CONSTITUTION; AND YET PEOPLE LIKE THIS ARE NOT BEING DETAINED ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY BY HOMELAND SECURITY OR THE FBI, AS THEY SHOULD BE, BOTH BY LAW AND BY LOGIC. THAT’S BECAUSE THE LAW THAT DEFINES HATE SPEECH IS VERY NARROW, AND IN MY OPINION, MUCH THAT IS OUTRIGHTLY EVIL IS ALLOWED TO SQUEEZE ITSELF IN. THAT BROADNESS IN THE ARTICLE MAY HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE FOUNDERS, AND LATER IN AMENDMENTS, PURPOSELY. THAT’S A VERY IDEALISTIC IDEA, INDEED, BUT IT IS NOT HEALTHY FOR THE WHOLE SOCIETY, AS EVIDENCED BY THE MULTIPLE GROUPS OF PEOPLE WE HAVE NOW POPULATING “THE MAIN STREAM,” WHOM I DO CONSIDER TO BE “HOODLUMS,” AND NOT PATRIOTS. PATRIOTS DO NOT PHYSICALLY ASSAULT THOSE WHO HAVE COME TO VOICE AN OPPOSING VIEW.

LUCKILY 18 STATES HAVE CONSTRUCTED SPECIFIC LAWS PROHIBITING, FOR INSTANCE, THE KKK’S INTIMIDATION TACTICS AND COWARDLY WEARING OF HOODS TO PROTECT THEIR IDENTITY AS THEY BREAK THE LAW, EVEN TO THE POINT OF MURDER. VIOLENCE FOR POLITICAL REASONS IS ILLEGAL, BUT IF THEY CAN’T BE IDENTIFIED, THEY CAN REMAIN CONCEALED, MAKING THEM LEGALLY “ALLOWED” TO INTIMIDATE AND EVEN DO VIOLENCE TO THE MOST PROTECTED MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY.

THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN THIS FAR. THERE ARE VERY FEW TOTALLY UNLIMITED “RIGHTS” IN OUR CONSTITUTION. SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES ON EFFORTS TO LEGALLY DETAIN THESE TOTALLY IMMORAL AND OFTEN INSANE PEOPLE. ALL SUCH VIOLENT KILLERS, INCLUDING THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE ALT-RIGHT, ARE CLEARLY DANGEROUS. DO WE NEED MORE REASONS THAN THE REPORTS IN THE NEWS TO IMPRISON AND MANDATE PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT FOR THEM? THIS IS FRIGHTENING AND VERY SAD AND, HEAVEN HELP US, IT IS BECOMING COMMONPLACE.

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FOLLOWERS OF SEVERAL RADICAL RIGHTIST VIEWS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THEIR MOLE HOLES NOW, SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE FROM THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER ON PRESENT STATE LAW VS SUPREME COURT RULINGS THAT THE KKK IS NO LONGER ALLOWED TO WEAR THEIR MASKS, OR “UNMASKING LAWS.” ALSO LOOK AT THE “DEMOCRACY.NOW” ARTICLE ON A NOW ALMOST FORGOTTEN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACT OF 1871, ALSO CALLED THE KKK ACT. MEMBERS OF THE ALT-RIGHT ARE TRYING TO DISMANTLE SUCH LAWS BY MEANS OF FILING LAWSUITS TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN STANDING LEGALLY THROUGH SUPREME COURT RULINGS.

READ THE SPLC AND DEMOCRACY NOW ARTICLES BELOW THIS CBS/AP ARTICLE ON TODAY’S HORRIFIC KILLING, WHICH HAPPENED YESTERDAY, APPARENTLY, OVER THE WEARING OF A HIJAB, AND THE TWO COURAGEOUS AMERICAN MEN WHO DEFENDED THEM.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-train-stabbing-witness-recalls-victims-last-words/
By CRIMESIDER STAFF CBS/AP May 29, 2017, 10:54 AM
Portland train stabbing: Witness recalls victim's last words

PORTLAND, Ore. -- A woman who tried to help one of the Portland train stabbing victims in his final moments is speaking out about his last words.

Jeremy Joseph Christian, 35, is accused of stabbing three men who intervened when he allegedly yelled racial slurs at two young women, one of whom was wearing a hijab, on a Portland light-rail train Friday night.

Ricky John Best, 53, and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, 23, were killed in the incident. Micah David-Cole Fletcher, 21, of Portland, was also stabbed in the attack and is in serious condition at a Portland hospital, police said. His injuries are not believed to be life-threatening, police said.

All are being hailed as heroes.

"To have people step in and do that, that's courage," Portland's police chief Mike Marshman told "CBS This Morning."

Witness Rachel Macy told CBS affiliate KOIN she had been with Meche in his final moments on the train. Macy and Meche did not know each other before the stabbing.

"I just didn't want him to be alone," Macy said. "I took my shirt off and put it on him. We held it together, I just prayed, all I could do was pray."

"I told him, 'You're a beautiful man. I'm so sorry the world is so cruel,'" Macy said.

"He said, 'Tell them, I want everybody to know, I want everybody on the train to know, I love them,'" she said. "He was a beautiful man, that's what I want people to know."

ricky-and-taliesin.jpg
Ricky John Best, 53, and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, 23, victims of a train stabbing attack in Portland KOIN

Macy attended a vigil Saturday because she wanted to share the words with Meche's family, who gathered along with thousands of community members to remember their son as a man with a heart "as big as the world," KOIN reported.

Macy said police collected most of the items she carried with her as evidence, but she still had a heart-shaped rock painted purple she happened to be carrying in her pocket during the attack. She told KOIN she gave it to Meche's family as a memento.

"Love is what it's about," said Meche's mother, Asha Deliverance, at the vigil. "We taught him to love everyone and that's what we should be doing and that's what we all should be doing and that's why we are all here, so give it up for love."

Macy told KOIN she isn't angry about the attack.

"I wanted to wake up and be mad and blame something or someone," Macy said. "And I can't. It's not what [Meche] would have wanted."

Christian has been charged with aggravated murder, attempted murder, intimidation and being a felon in possession of a weapon. He is scheduled to make his first court appearance Tuesday.

Police said they'll examine what appears to be Christian's extremist ideology. Christian's social media postings indicate an affinity for Nazis and political violence.

Two men stabbed to death in Portland on train
Play VIDEO
Two men stabbed to death in Portland on train

Police Sgt. Pete Simpson told CBS News that Christian attended a free speech march in April with a baseball bat to confront protesters but the bat was quickly confiscated by officers.

The Portland Mercury, one of the city's alternative weeklies, posted an article with video clips of a man wearing a metal chain around his neck and draped in an American flag. "He ranted how he was a nihilist. He'd soon yelled racial slurs ... and gave the Nazi salute throughout the day," the Portland Mercury reported.

On what appears to be Christian's Facebook page, he showed sympathy for Nazis and Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Portland spent the holiday weekend memorializing the victims.

Christian had previously gone on a racist tirade on a train one night before the deadly attack, police confirmed to CBS affiliate KOIN, which obtained video of the incident.

One of the girls who was targeted in the tirade Friday, Destinee Mangum, 16, said that she and her 17-year-old friend were riding the train when Christian approached them yelling what is described as hate speech. She said her friend is Muslim, but she's not.

"He told us to go back to Saudi Arabia, and he told us we shouldn't be here, to get out of his country," Mangum said. "He was just telling us that we basically weren't anything and that we should kill ourselves."

The girls were scared and moved to the back of the train while a stranger jumped in to help.

"Then they just all started arguing," Mangum told KOIN. "He just started stabbing people, and it was just blood everywhere, and we just started running for our lives."

micah-david-cole-fletcher.jpg
Micah David-Cole Fletcher, 21, of Portland, seen in undated photo provided by his family FLETCHER FAMILY

Mangum thanked the men that came to her aid.

"They lost their lives because of me and my friend, and the way we looked," Mangum said.

Meche earned a bachelor's degree in economics in 2016 from Reed College in Portland and landed a job with the Cadmus Group, a consulting firm in the area. He had hoped to start family, KOIN reports.

Best, a father of four, was an army veteran and City of Portland employee. His family said standing up for strangers was in his character, CBS News' Mireya Villarreal reports.

Best lived in Happy Valley and had three teenage sons and a 12-year-old daughter, according to David Austin, a spokesperson for City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly.

Best worked for the Bureau of Development Services as a technician and ran for a position on the Clackamas County Commission in 2014 after retiring from the U.S. Army in 2012. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan in his 23 years of service.

The third stabbing victim, Fletcher, is a student at Portland State University and was taking the train from classes to his job at a pizza shop when the attack occurred.

In a tweet Monday morning, President Donald Trump denounced the stabbings.

"The violent attacks in Portland on Friday are unacceptable," Mr. Trump tweeted. "The victims were standing up to hate and intolerance. Our prayers are w/ them."

Follow
President Trump ✔ @POTUS
The violent attacks in Portland on Friday are unacceptable. The victims were standing up to hate and intolerance. Our prayers are w/ them.
10:51 AM - 29 May 2017
3,096 3,096 Retweets 11,556 11,556 likes



“INTERSECTIONALITY” IS ONE OF THOSE NEW WORDS THAT I HAVE ONLY BEGUN TO SEE IN THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS. IT REPRESENTS WHAT I TEND TO THINK OF AS “LAZY THINKING,” OR “HALF THINKING.” IT MAY BE RELATED TO THE MANDATE AMONG MANY OF A CERTAIN TURN OF MIND – NAMELY, THOSE WHO VALUE BLIND LOYALTY ABOVE LOGIC -- TO FOLLOW THE CROWD WITHOUT THINKING VERY MUCH AT ALL; OR IT MAY BE CAUSED BY THE QUICK AND DIRTY TYPE OF EDUCATION ON THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL WHICH DOES NOT ENCOURAGE ANALYTICAL OR EVEN CREATIVE THOUGHT, OR EVEN GIVE THE STUDENTS ENOUGH BASIC INFORMATION ON WHICH TO FORM THEIR OWN OPINIONS. ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS VOICED ABOUT THE “COMMON CORE” ACADEMIC STANDARDS IS THAT THEY ENCOURAGE THE ACCEPTANCE OF PEERS WHO ARE DIFFERENT, SUCH AS THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY, AND THAT THEY EVEN ENCOURAGE DISSENT. HEAVEN FORBID!

IT IS A VERY INTERESTING CONCEPT, AND HELPFUL TO ME IN EXAMINING MY OWN CONCLUSIONS. IT ALSO EXPLAINS THE RAPIDITY WITH WHICH A “NEW” ASSUMPTION SWEEPS ACROSS THE PUBLIC MIND TO PRODUCE A CONSENSUS THAT MAY BE REALLY IRRATIONAL AND DANGEROUS. I DO AGREE WITH THIS WRITER THAT THE TRUMP PHENOMENON IS ONE SUCH SCOURGE. HOWEVER, I ALSO AGREE WITH HIM THAT OUR UNIVERSITIES – OH YES, AND THE LEGISLATURE – SHOULD BE KEPT OPEN TO THOUGHT RATHER THAN MERELY OPERATING ON POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.

THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM MAY HAVE SERVED A PURPOSE IN THE PAST, BUT I BELIEVE IT IS NOW STIFLING NEW IDEAS AND REASONING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A THIRD AND POSSIBLY EVEN A FOURTH PARTY, AS THEY HAVE IN MOST EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS. THE INDEPENDENTS WHOM I SEE ON THE NEWS TODAY COVER A WIDE RANGE OF VIEWPOINTS, AND IN THE HUGE, MILLING CROWDS ON BOTH OF OUR POLITICAL POLES NOW, THEY ARE SIMPLY LOST. THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER OF PROGRESSIVES NOW, BUT THEY ARE SIMPLY SHOUTED DOWN IN THE CONGRESS. MORE MEMBERS OF THE NEW GROUPS WOULD MAKE THAT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT FOR THE MAJORITY (OR, MORE COMMONLY, THOSE WHOSE MEMBERS ARE MORE WEALTHY AND THEREFORE MORE ABLE TO RUN TV ATTACK ADS) TO RAILROAD THEM INTO A SUBMISSION NOT BASED ON REASON OR ETHICAL THOUGHT.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/is-intersectionality-a-religion.html
March 10, 2017 8:32 am
Is Intersectionality a Religion?
By Andrew Sullivan

Image -- Middlebury College students turn their backs to Charles Murray during his lecture on March 2, 2017. Photo: Lisa Rathke/AP

Here’s the latest in the assault on liberal democracy. It happened more than a week ago, but I cannot get it out of my consciousness. A group of conservative students at Middlebury College in Vermont invited the highly controversial author Charles Murray to speak on campus about his latest book, Coming Apart. His talk was shut down by organized chanting in its original venue, and disrupted when it was shifted to a nearby room and livestreamed. When Murray and his faculty interlocutor, Allison Stanger, then left to go to their car, they were surrounded by a mob, which tried to stop them leaving the campus. Someone in the melee grabbed Stanger by the hair and twisted her neck so badly she had to go to the emergency room (she is still suffering from a concussion). After they escaped, their dinner at a local restaurant was crashed by the same mob, and they had to go out of town to eat.

None of this is very surprising, given the current atmosphere on most American campuses. And protests against Murray are completely legitimate. The book he co-authored with Harvard professor Richard Herrnstein more than 20 years ago, The Bell Curve, included a chapter on empirical data showing variations in the largely overlapping bell curves of IQ scores between racial groups. Their provocation was to assign these differences to both the environment and genetics. The genetic aspect could be and was exploited by racists and bigots.

I don’t think that chapter was necessary for the book’s arguments, but I do believe in the right of good-faith scholars to publish data — as well as the right of others to object, critique, and debunk. If the protesters at Middlebury had protested and disrupted the event for a period of time, and then let it continue, I’d be highly sympathetic, even though race and IQ were not the subject of Murray’s talk. If they’d challenged the data or the arguments of the book, I’d be delighted. But this, alas, is not what they did. (I should add up-front that I am friends with both Murray and Stanger — having edited a symposium on The Bell Curve in The New Republic over two decades ago, and having known Allison since we were both grad students in government at Harvard.)

But what grabbed me was the deeply disturbing 40-minute video of the event, posted on YouTube. It brings the incident to life in a way words cannot. At around the 19-minute mark, the students explained why they shut down the talk, and it helped clarify for me what exactly the meaning of “intersectionality” is.

“Intersectionality” is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. On the surface, it’s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power. At least, that’s my best attempt to define it briefly. But watching that video helps show how an otherwise challenging social theory can often operate in practice.

It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a “smelly little orthodoxy,” and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.

Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse. It enforces manners. It has an idea of virtue — and is obsessed with upholding it. The saints are the most oppressed who nonetheless resist. The sinners are categorized in various ascending categories of demographic damnation, like something out of Dante. The only thing this religion lacks, of course, is salvation. Life is simply an interlocking drama of oppression and power and resistance, ending only in death. It’s Marx without the final total liberation.

It operates as a religion in one other critical dimension: If you happen to see the world in a different way, if you’re a liberal or libertarian or even, gasp, a conservative, if you believe that a university is a place where any idea, however loathsome, can be debated and refuted, you are not just wrong, you are immoral. If you think that arguments and ideas can have a life independent of “white supremacy,” you are complicit in evil. And you are not just complicit, your heresy is a direct threat to others, and therefore needs to be extinguished. You can’t reason with heresy. You have to ban it. It will contaminate others’ souls, and wound them irreparably.

And what I saw on the video struck me most as a form of religious ritual — a secular exorcism, if you will — that reaches a frenzied, disturbing catharsis. When Murray starts to speak, the students stand and ritually turn their backs on him in silence. The heretic must not be looked at, let alone engaged. Then they recite a common liturgy in unison from sheets of paper. Here’s how they begin: “This is not respectful discourse, or a debate about free speech. These are not ideas that can be fairly debated, it is not ‘representative’ of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous ideologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas.” They never specify which of Murray’s ideas they are referring to. Nor do they explain why a lecture on a recent book about social inequality cannot be a “respectful discourse.” The speaker is open to questions and there is a faculty member onstage to engage him afterward. She came prepared with tough questions forwarded from specialists in the field. And yet: “We … cannot engage fully with Charles Murray, while he is known for readily quoting himself. Because of that, we see this talk as hate speech.” They know this before a single word of the speech has been spoken.

Then this: “Science has always been used to legitimize racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, ableism, and homophobia, all veiled as rational and fact, and supported by the government and state. In this world today, there is little that is true ‘fact.’” This, it seems to me, gets to the heart of the question — not that the students shut down a speech, but why they did. I do not doubt their good intentions. But, in a strange echo of the Trumpian right, they are insisting on the superiority of their orthodoxy to “facts.” They are hostile, like all fundamentalists, to science, because it might counter doctrine. And they shut down the event because intersectionality rejects the entire idea of free debate, science, or truth independent of white male power. At the end of this part of the ceremony, an individual therefore shouts: “Who is the enemy?” And the congregation responds: “White supremacy!”

They then expel the heretic in a unified chant: “Hey hey, ho ho! Charles Murray has got to go.” Then: “Racist, Sexist, Anti-gay. Charles Murray, Go away!” Murray’s old work on IQ demonstrates no meaningful difference between men and women, and Murray has long supported marriage equality. He passionately opposes eugenics. He’s a libertarian. But none of that matters. Intersectionality, remember? If you’re deemed a sinner on one count, you are a sinner on them all. If you think that race may be both a social construction and related to genetics, your claim to science is just another form of oppression. It is indeed hate speech. At a later moment, the students start clapping in unison, and you can feel the hysteria rising, as the chants grow louder. “Your message is hatred. We will not tolerate it!” The final climactic chant is “Shut it down! Shut it down!” It feels like something out of The Crucible. Most of the students have never read a word of Murray’s — and many professors who supported the shutdown admitted as much. But the intersectional zeal is so great he must be banished — even to the point of physical violence.

This matters, it seems to me, because reason and empirical debate are essential to the functioning of a liberal democracy. We need a common discourse to deliberate. We need facts independent of anyone’s ideology or political side, if we are to survive as a free and democratic society. Trump has surely shown us this. And if a university cannot allow these facts and arguments to be freely engaged, then nowhere is safe. Universities are the sanctuary cities of reason. If reason must be subordinate to ideology even there, our experiment in self-government is over.

Liberal democracy is suffering from a concussion as surely as Allison is.

Meanwhile, of course, President Trump continues his assault on the very same independent truth — in this case, significantly more frightening given his position as the most powerful individual on the planet. He too has a contempt for any facts that do not fit his own ideology or self-image. That’s why the lies he repeats are not just moments of self-interested dishonesty. They are designed to erode the very notion of an empirical reality, independent of his own ideology and power. They are an attack on reason itself. A fact-driven media has to be discredited as “fake news” if it challenges Trump’s agenda. Equally, a bureaucracy designed impartially to implement legislation has to be delegitimized, if its fact-based neutrality challenges Trump’s worldview. And so the “administrative state,” in Steve Bannon’s words, has to be “deconstructed.”

Likewise, a health-care bill must be passed through committee before an independent CBO can empirically score it. The overwhelming conclusion of climate scientists — that carbon is warming the Earth irreversibly — is simply denied by the new head of the EPA. The judiciary can have no legitimate, independent stance if it too counters the president’s interests. A judge who opposes Trump is a “so-called” judge. Equally, intelligence-gathering can have no validity if it undermines Trump’s interests. It suddenly becomes “intelligence.” It can be ignored. Worse, the intelligence agencies are maligned as inherently political, rather than empirical. Last week, Trump went even further, claiming, with no evidence, that the Justice Department colluded in a criminal wiretap with the previous president to target Trump’s candidacy in the last election. Maybe this was designed merely as a distraction from the accumulating lies of his campaign surrogates about their contacts with Russian officials. Maybe it was another temper tantrum from a man with no ability to constrain his emotions by reason. But I tend to think Peter Beinart’s take is closer to the mark. Trump was delegitimizing the Justice Department so that he can reject the conclusion of any investigation of his campaign’s ties to Russia as politically rigged:

No one lives on Mount Olympus. Government lawyers, judges and journalists are all fallible. They are all vulnerable to bias and self-interest. But prior presidents have generally given them the benefit of the doubt. Prior presidents have assumed, absent contrary evidence, that they are motivated by professional standards, not rank partisanship. Trump does not. He has questioned the integrity of Judge Gonzalo Curiel and of vast swaths of the press. And now he is preparing to question the integrity of the career officials investigating his Russia ties.

They are all corrupt. They are all agents of the opposition, part of the massive conspiracy to deny Trump his rightful triumph. And thus, the independent standards by which they judge his actions are a sham. There are no independent standards. There is only the truth that comes from Trump himself.

This is the vortex we are being led into by the most reckless, feckless, and malevolent president in this country’s history. It is a vortex where reality itself must subordinate itself to one political side; where facts are always instruments of power and nothing else; where our entire Constitution, designed to balance power against power to give truth and reason a chance, is being deliberately corroded from within. It’s been seven weeks. And the damage done to our way of life is already deep, and deepening.



https://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/1/democrats_sue_trump_gop_under_1871

The Democratic Party has filed lawsuits in four battleground states—Ohio, Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania—alleging Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party are "conspiring to threaten, intimidate, and thereby prevent minority voters in urban neighborhoods from voting." The lawsuits cite the Voting Rights Act and the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. In its filing, the Ohio Democratic Party write, "Trump has sought to advance his campaign’s goal of 'voter suppression' by using the loudest microphone in the nation to implore his supporters to engage in unlawful intimidation." The suits also names Trump adviser Roger Stone and his super PAC, Stop the Steal. Trump has repeatedly urged his supporters to monitor polling booths on Election Day. The North Carolina NAACP has also filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking an immediate injunction to stop the state and various county boards of elections from illegally canceling the registrations of thousands of voters. The NAACP says African-American voters are being targeted in a coordinated effort to suppress the black vote in the state. For more, we speak with Carol Anderson, professor of African American studies at Emory University. She is author of the new book, "White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide."

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: The Democratic Party has filed lawsuits in four battleground states—Ohio, Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania—alleging Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party are, quote, "conspiring to threaten, intimidate, and thereby prevent minority voters in urban neighborhoods from voting," unquote. The lawsuits cite the Voting Rights Act and the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. In its filing, the Ohio Democratic Party writes, quote, "Trump has sought to advance his campaign’s goal of 'voter suppression' by using the loudest microphone in the nation to implore his supporters to engage in unlawful intimidation," unquote. The suits also name Trump adviser Roger Stone and his super PAC Stop the Steal. Trump has repeatedly urged his supporters to monitor polling booths on Election Day.

DONALD TRUMP: You’ve got to go out. You’ve got to go out, and you’ve got to get your friends, and you’ve got to get everybody you know, and you’ve got to watch your polling booths, because I hear too many stories about Pennsylvania, certain areas. I hear too many bad stories. And we can’t lose an election because of you know what I’m talking about. So go and vote and then go check out areas, because a lot of bad things happen. And we don’t want to lose for that reason. We don’t want to lose, but we especially—we don’t want to lose for that reason. So go over and watch, and watch carefully.

AMY GOODMAN: In related news, the North Carolina NAACP filed a federal lawsuit Monday seeking an immediate injunction to stop the state and various county boards of elections from illegally canceling the registrations of thousands of voters. The NAACP says African-American voters are being targeted in a coordinated effort to suppress the black vote in North Carolina.

Meanwhile, a prominent white nationalist is sponsoring robocalls in the state of Utah to urge voters to back Trump over the third-party candidate Evan McMullin. Some polls show McMullin, who is Mormon, could beat Trump in Utah. They ads feature William Johnson, the leader of the white nationalist American Freedom Party.

WILLIAM JOHNSON: My name is William Johnson. I am a farmer and a white nationalist. I make this call against Evan McMullin and in support of Donald Trump. Evan McMullin is an open borders amnesty supporter. Evan has two mommies: His mother is a lesbian married to another woman. Evan is OK with that. Indeed, Evan supports the Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage. Evan is over 40 years old and is not married and doesn’t even have a girlfriend. I believe Evan is a closet homosexual. Don’t vote for Evan McMullin. Vote for Donald Trump.

AMY GOODMAN: The election just a week away, we’re joined now by Carol Anderson, professor of African American studies at Emory University. She’s author of a new book; it’s called White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.

Well, there’s a lot to talk about in this election—

CAROL ANDERSON: Yes, there is.

AMY GOODMAN: —Professor Anderson. Let’s begin with this suit that’s being brought by the state Democratic parties in key states, saying that the Trump organization—that the Trump campaign is violating the Klan Act. Explain.

CAROL ANDERSON: Yes, and it’s really, in a horrible way, very simple. As I laid out in White Rage, part of what happened is that when African Americans advance, when they gain access to their citizenship rights, you see a wave of policies emanate out of Congress, out of the White House, to knock back those gains, those advancements. We saw that after the Civil War with Reconstruction.

Now, move this forward. Part of what we’re seeing now is the backlash to Obama’s election. And so, we saw a wave of voter suppression laws come up. And when you look at these key battleground states and the things that they’re doing, they’re vintage. They go back to the era of Jim Crow, they go back to the era after the Civil War, when the point was: How do we intimidate these newly freed people who now have their citizenship rights? How do we strip them of their citizenship rights? One was massive voter intimidation, being at the polls with rifles. It is then a series of laws coming on, from literacy tests and grandfather clauses and poll taxes—all of those things for disfranchisement. We move to the Voting Rights Act of ’65, and then we get to Shelby County v. Holder*, where this Supreme Court gutted it. And this is what we see as the result.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, I want to go back to the Civil War and after. You mentioned Reconstruction. So, slaves are freed, and what happens?

CAROL ANDERSON: What happens is, is that they don’t get free. They get—they’re immediately hit with a thing called the Black Codes. And the Black Codes required the newly freed people to sign labor contracts with plantation owners and mine owners and lumber mill owners. And they refuse to sign the labor contract, then they could be arrested and then have their labor sold. They’d be put on the auction block, and their labor then sold to the highest bidder. And they wouldn’t be able to leave until that fine was paid off. It also said that they couldn’t carry weapons to be able to hunt, or they couldn’t fish, so they couldn’t even feed themselves. They had to work. And they could not leave that mine owner or that plantation owner for a year. If they left for better wages, better working conditions, they could be arrested, charged with vagrancy, and their labor auctioned off.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about voting?

CAROL ANDERSON: Oh, and voting was just verboten. They could not vote. I mean, and this is why you have to have then the 15th Amendment coming in in about 1870, providing the right to vote, because that thing of moving from property to citizen was so abhorrent, so repulsive to white Southerners, that they went, "Absolutely not," and did everything in their power to strip African Americans of their citizenship rights.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

SHELBY COUNTY V HOLDER*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder
Shelby County v. Holder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 2 (2013), is a landmark[1] United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.[2][3]



NEXT DEMOCRACYNOW. ORG INTERVIEW WITH PROFESSOR ANDERSON –

Professor Carol Anderson on Police Killings, Trump, the Clintons & Her New Book "White Rage"
STORY NOVEMBER 01, 2016

Jury selection has begun in two high-profile murder trials of white police officers who killed unarmed black men. In Ohio, former University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing shot and killed 43-year-old Sam DuBose last year after stopping him for not having a front license plate. In North Charleston, South Carolina, officer Michael Slager faces a murder charge after a bystander filmed Slager shooting 50-year-old Walter Scott in the back as he ran away. For more, we speak with Carol Anderson, professor of African American studies at Emory University. She is the author, most recently, of "White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide."

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Your book is called White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.

CAROL ANDERSON: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the white rage that you’re witnessing today.

CAROL ANDERSON: That rage covers itself. So, when I talk about white rage, I don’t actually mean the Klan and the cross burning, because that’s simple. In this society, we know how to identify that. This is the much more subtle, the much more destructive type of racial violence. And it emanates out of Congress, out of the Supreme Court, out of state legislatures. And it’s designed to, in fact, undercut black achievement, black aspirations and black advancement.

So we see that, for instance, with—when Trump, at the presidential debate, and they said, "Well, how would you handle issues of racial healing and the racial divide?" and he said, "I’ve got words that somebody refuses to say, and that’s 'law and order,' and that’s 'stop and frisk.'" That is a dog whistle. That is—those are policies that, in fact, undermined the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of ’65, has led to mass disfranchisement, so that you've got almost 8 percent of the black population unable to vote.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Donald Trump in North Carolina instructing security guards to remove a black man from the crowd, describing him as a thug.

DONALD TRUMP: You know the great thing about that—we have a protester. By the way, were you paid $1,500 to be a thug? Where is the protester? Where is he? Was he paid? You can get him out. Get him out. Out.

AMY GOODMAN: While Donald Trump described the man as a protester, it turned out he was actually a Trump supporter. Sixty-three-year-old C.J. Carey said he went to the rally to give Trump a letter. Professor Anderson?

CAROL ANDERSON: Yes, and it begins to tell you that—so, for all of Trump’s outreach to the black community, there was no outreach. The point was, is that his racism was so palpable that it was turning off white educated voters, and so he tried to smooth that edge. But, in fact, the racism that is undermining—undermining, but undergirding, his campaign is there, so a supporter is immediately a thug. So, a black man is immediately criminalized as thug. And this is a businessman who is a Trump supporter. And that gives you some sense of the kind of perspective, the policy perspective, that Trump will enact if he becomes president.

AMY GOODMAN: What were you most surprised by as you researched White Rage?

CAROL ANDERSON: I was surprised by how consistent and supple white rage was, how it consistently used the language of democracy, the language of freedom, the language of protecting the integrity of the ballot box, as a means to undermine and undercut. So, we get not only the Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, but we also get, for instance, in the Brown decision, where the Supreme Court has said "separate but equal" cannot be the law of the land, and watching these people who say that they are inherently about democracy, in fact, undermining that democracy by violating court orders consistently, over and over again, kind of like what we’re seeing right now as the Fourth Circuit, for instance, has told North Carolina, you know, "Your voter suppression laws can’t stand," and they keep doing it.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about other developments this week. Jury selection began on Monday in two high-profile murder trials: white police officers who killed unarmed black man. In Ohio, the former University of Cincinnati police officer Ray Tensing shot and killed 43-year-old Sam DuBose last year after stopping him for not having a front license plate. And then there’s the case in North Charleston, South Carolina, officer Michael Slager facing a murder charge after a bystander filmed Slager shooting 50-year-old Walter Scott in the back as he ran away. In that case, Walter Scott was stopped by the police officer as he was driving into the AutoZone shop right nearby for, I think it was, a broken taillight. He was stopped for the taillight, and he ends up being shot by the police officer.

CAROL ANDERSON: Yes, yes, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: The trials come as a Justice Department investigation into the choking death of unarmed African American Eric Garner by New York police officer Daniel Pantaleo is in disarray. The New York Times reported last week that the New York-based FBI agents and federal prosecutors are no longer assigned to the investigation. They did not feel Pantaleo should be charged. The shake-up leaves prosecutors with the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in charge, making it far more likely officers will face criminal charges.

CAROL ANDERSON: And part of what we’re seeing right here is the policy of stop and frisk, which came after the advances of the civil rights movement. And so, stop and frisk is based on the broken windows theory of policing. And it says, what we have to do—if we stop these little minor crimes, then we can really stop the big ones form happening. But that’s not what really goes on. In fact, you get the criminalization of blackness. In New York City, for instance, although blacks and Latinos made up 50 percent of the population, they accounted for 84 percent of those stopped, although twice as many weapons were found on the handful of whites that were stopped as opposed to blacks and Latinos. And so, if this was really about law enforcement, you would see greater policing of the white population. This is about something else. And so, what we’re seeing in the case of the broken taillight, in terms of the expired tag, that’s that hyperpolicing that’s going on because of stop and frisk, and it leads to the death of black people.

AMY GOODMAN: You have linked the problem with policing today to education.

CAROL ANDERSON: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: You say we wouldn’t face anything like this today, if what?

CAROL ANDERSON: If Brown had really been implemented. Because part of what we know is that what a solid, quality education does, in terms of employment, in terms of health, in terms of voting rights—all of those things are really linked to education. But Brown—after Brown, the states fought back so intensely, even to the point where they shut down a public school system for five years. And so, it’s like you were in school at the fifth grade, and your school doesn’t open again until you’re in the 10th? And the states fought back so hard that we’re ending up with large numbers of African Americans who do not have the quality education that they have a constitutional right to. And so, now we’re asking the police force to then deal with those issues emanating out of poverty, emanating out of the lack of quality education.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you see—how do you assess President Bill Clinton’s administration when it comes to issues of white rage, black disempowerment, black empowerment, and then Hillary Clinton?

CAROL ANDERSON: So, for Bill Clinton, part of what I see is that he went the route of the Southern strategy, which was to play to the blacks as criminals. And this is where you see—and blacks as welfare cheats. And so, this is where you see his workforce legislation. This is where you see the kind of hyperpolicing with superpredators and all of that. And this led—again, it fed into the mass incarceration of the black population. Now, what Bill Clinton would do is he would try to play culturally black—so that was, you know, the saxophone on Arsenio or all that—but the way that his policies worked were in fact very anti-black. Now, with Hillary, what I see is that she was there with him in the ’90s.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s go back to that moment in 1996 when she was first lady, when she described some African-American youth as superpredators.

CAROL ANDERSON: Yes.

HILLARY CLINTON: They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators—no conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.

AMY GOODMAN: At CNN’s Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan, earlier this year, Clinton was asked about her comments again.

DON LEMON: Secretary Clinton, in 1996, you used the term "superpredators" to describe some young kids. Some feel like it was racial code. Was it? And were you wrong to use that term?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I was speaking about drug cartels and criminal activity that was very concerning to folks across the country. I think it was a poor choice of words—I never used it before, I haven’t used it since, I would not use it again.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Hillary Clinton. That was during the primaries, when she was debating Bernie Sanders. Your comments, Professor Anderson?

CAROL ANDERSON: My comments are that when I see that, it’s like Hillary was, in that moment in 1996, right along with Bill, and now that she realizes that the demographics in the Democratic Party have changed, that that coding doesn’t work as well, it doesn’t play as well, and so you see her stepping back. And I think part of what I’m also seeing, frankly, has been the pushing on that from the Black Lives Matter activists, who are helping her—and the Bernie folks, who are helping her begin to see what structural racism actually does in this society. So, in fact, when she mentioned—I think it was in the—one of the presidential debates, that we have to deal with structural racism, that was a major leap forward. But that requires then consistent pressure consistently be put on her to deal with what that really means policywise, so it can’t just be a slogan that gets dropped during the presidential campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Carol Anderson, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Carol Anderson is professor of African American studies at Emory University. Her new book is called White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide. When we come back from break, we go to Iceland to speak with the poet and activist Birgitta Jónsdóttir. She is co-founder of the Pirate Party, that made major gains in Iceland. That’s the anarchist party of Iceland. Stay with us.



ANONYMOUS VS TOTAL ANONYMITY

http://anonhq.com/anon-reveals-kkk-identities-opkkk/
Anonymous Revealing Ku Klux Klan’s Identities – Operation #OpKKK
By AnonWatcher - November 17, 2014

Anonymous has revealed a list of KKK members in light of the Ferguson protests as part of #OpKKK and a cyberwar against the organization. The ‘de-hooding’ of Ku Klux Klan members has spurred threats and attacks against Anonymous over social media, with @KuKluxKlanUSA stating “You messed with us, now it’s our turn to mess with you.”

The threat comes in response to the campaign Anonymous began online, to name KKK members in the Ferguson and St. Louis area after it was discovered that the KKK members have been distributing fliers. The fliers warn Ferguson protesters of the consequences of a continuation of their fight, stating they have “awakened a sleeping giant,” and that they [KKK] will use “lethal force” against protestors if they continue. The fliers handed out justify the lethal force as a form of “self-defense.”

Anonymous won’t tolerate racism in any form, or the suppression of the right to protest. Many of the names listed are also accompanied by photos of the members without their hoods. One member is a known police officer, while another works in education. An image posted, displays a KKK member standing quietly amongst the Ferguson protestors.anon wear t-shirt

Anonymous will continue to monitor the KKK servers and disrupt their websites. [1]

The list, accompanied by images, can be found here.

The listed KKK names include:

John Michael

Heather Michell Michael

Terry Aaron

Daniel E. Zimmerman

Eric Bohanan

Justin T. King (Police Member)

Gary Burnette (Military Veteran)

Dawn Goddard (Education Co-Ordinator)

Chad Burris

Dale Newton

Stephen Joseph Henson

Justin Daniel

Keith Biskup

Ryan Biskup

Mike Stag

Dennis Korn

Tasha George

Frank Acona

Malissa Acona

Michelle Acona

Richard Akia Nichols

David Borst (Former Deputy Police Chief)

George Hunnewell (Former Deputy Police Chief)


Anonymous #OpKKK:

OpKKK

We are Anonymous.

We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Ku Klux Klan you should Expect Us.

Update: Anonymous Hacks Ku Klux Klan’s Twitter Account

Link: Protect your PC and mobile devices from hackers & governments and surf anonymously

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] (16 November 2014) “Ferguson: Anonymous Reveals KKK Members’ Identities” http://www.inquisitr.com/1612812/ferguson-anonymous-reveals-kkk-members-identities/ (Retrieved 16 November 2014)


THE SPLC ON THE WHITE SUPREMACY MOVEMENTS AND THE WEARING OF MASKS IN PUBLIC:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1999/unmasking-klan
UNMASKING THE KLAN
1999 Summer Issue
September 15, 1999

Is the practice of 'anti-masking' laws exposing violent haters or denying their constitutional rights?

Do Ku Klux Klansmen have the right to march down the street while shielding their identity, or does the public have the right to know who's behind the masks?

That's the question that two courts in the 1990s faced and answered in opposite ways. A definitive answer may have to wait for a United States Supreme Court decision.

At least 18 states have "anti-masking" laws that make it a crime to wear a mask in public. Most of the laws were passed between the 1920s and the 1950s, in reaction to waves of violence perpetrated by the Klan.

Public officials argued that the laws were needed to protect the public from Klan intimidation and violence and that banning masks would aid law enforcement in identifying criminals.

But there are countervailing First Amendment issues at stake. In a series of cases, the Supreme Court has made it clear that citizens have the right to communicate and associate anonymously, without fear of harassment or reprisals by others who oppose their views.

There is no doubt, for example, that the government cannot require the Klan — or any other group — to reveal its members' names and addresses, unless public officials have a compelling need for the information and no alternative means of obtaining it. See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

As the Supreme Court pointed out in a 1995 case that struck down an ordinance prohibiting the anonymous distribution of political leaflets: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society." McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995).

That was the argument made by Jeff Berry, the imperial wizard of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, in a lawsuit filed in federal court last year against the city of Goshen, Ind.

Earlier in 1998, Goshen had enacted an ordinance making it illegal for a person to wear a mask or hood in public in order to conceal his or her identity. Exceptions were made for masks worn for religious, safety or medical reasons.

The law was an effort to stop the violence and, supposedly, intimidation caused by the wearing of Klan regalia and to help law enforcement apprehend criminals.

The Klan challenged the ordinance on First Amendment grounds, claiming that many of its members wear masks because they want to remain anonymous to reduce the likelihood that they will be harassed, lose their jobs or suffer other kinds of retaliation because of their unpopular ideas.

U.S. District Judge Robert Miller struck down the ordinance, holding that by "directly chilling speech," the law violated the Klan's right to associate anonymously. The court pointed out that governmental officials did not show any connection between the wearing of masks and violent activity by the particular Klan group challenging the ordinance.

Even if a connection had existed, the court found that there were other ways that public officials could prevent violence without violating Klan members' right to remain anonymous.

The judge also rejected the city's argument that the anti-mask law helps the police apprehend criminals, saying that there was no evidence that Klan members wear masks to hide criminal activity.

Judge Miller pointed out the "undeniable irony" in his decision: "More than a century ago, the Ku Klux Klan wore masks to terrorize persons they wanted to drive from their communities. Today, the Klan's descendant organization uses its masks to conceal the identities of those who hold ideas the community wishes to drive off." American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Case No. 3:98-CV- 403RM (N.D. Ind. May 4, 1999).

Georgia's highest court ruled the opposite way in a 1990 decision upholding that state's anti-masking law, In that case, Klan member Shade Miller challenged his conviction for publicly wearing a Klan hood.

The Georgia Supreme Court found that the purposes of the law were the same as those of the Goshen, Ind., ordinance: to protect the public from intimidation and violence and to aid law enforcement officials in apprehending criminals. But, unlike the federal judge in Indiana, the Georgia court found that these purposes far outweighed the Klan's right to associate anonymously.

Looking at the history of the Klan in general, rather than at the activities of the particular group whose member had filed the case, the court emphasized that masked Klansmen had a long record of "harassment, intimidation and violence against racial and religious minorities."

Unlike laws struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Georgia court reasoned, the anti-masking laws do not require the Klan to reveal the names and addresses of its members, nor do they stop Klan members from meeting secretly or wearing their hoods on private property.

The anti-masking law "only prevents masked appearance in public under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension of intimidation, threats or impending violence." See State v. Miller, 260 Ga. 669 (1990).

Many people gave their lives in the civil rights struggle, battling against forces like the Ku Klux Klan, to establish the principle that the Constitution applies equally to all of us. The question today is: does the Constitution apply equally to the Ku Klux Klan?

However convenient law enforcement officials may find anti-masking laws to be, few would be convinced by the Georgia court's assessment. While it's true that Klan marches are sometimes accompanied by threats and violence, the shouts and rocks are usually being hurled at the Klansmen, not by them.

The difficult task for police at many Klan marches has not been controlling those in white sheets. Rather, it has been protecting the handful who show up in robes from the throng of angry protesters who confront them.



ON THE STATUS OF MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT TODAY, GO TO SPECIAL SUBJECT BLOG. THANK GOODNESS, MINDS ARE CHANGING, EVEN AMONG THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS. SEE THE REST OF THE SERIES THERE, AS WELL.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-first-responders-mental-health-uncharted-state-of-mind-episode-4/
By ALEXANDER ROMANO CBS NEWS May 24, 2017, 9:50 AM
State of Mind Episode 4: Training to deal with mental illness

"CBS Evening News Uncharted: State of Mind" is a new five-part digital series airing in May with new episodes released every Wednesday. The series will examine the state of mental health care in America in conjunction with Mental Health Awareness Month. More than 43 million Americans suffer from mental illness.

State of Mind Episode 1: Where we are as a nation

State of Mind Episode 2: Hidden battles

State of Mind Episode 3: To suffer in silence

More than half of all prison and jail inmates in the U.S. have mental health issues, according to a study by the Justice Department. Police departments and hospitals throughout the country are working to change the way they interact with mentally ill individuals to keep them out of the criminal justice system.

"It's very important that police are trained on how to handle that situation, so instead of it ramping up to be a problem, it calms down to be something that is not going to end up as a crime committed," said U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), who is a practicing psychologist.

wrenn-thumb.jpg
Dr. Glenda Wrenn CBS NEWS

To properly deal with someone who is mentally ill, Dr. Glenda Wren of the Kennedy Center for Mental Health said that "we need to have police officers that are trained to properly recognize mental health presentations and then have a place to refer people to [for treatment]."

A 2015 Washington Post study found that as many as one in four people killed in officer-involved shootings were mentally ill. Many police departments across the country have implemented Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) to prepare officers' encounters with mentally ill individuals.

uncharted-episode-4-cbsn-version-full2.jpg
Susan Herman, the NYPD deputy commissioner for collaborative policing CBS NEWS

In 2016 alone, the NYPD received approximately 157,000 calls involving someone in a mental health crisis.

"The whole idea was how do we keep people out of the criminal justice system, who don't need to be in there, to resolve whatever issue they have," said Susan Herman, the NYPD deputy commissioner for collaborative policing.

The New York City program was created out of Mayor Bill de Blasio's 2014 Task Force on Behavioral Health and the Criminal Justice System. Currently, the NYPD has trained over 5,000 out of their 35,000 uniformed officers in CIT.

uncharted-episode-4-cbsn-version-full3.jpg
Police officers and an actor in the NYPD's Crisis Intervention Training CBS NEWS

A panel of community members who struggle with mental illnesses helps advise the NYPD and participate in the department's CIT training. CBS News attended a recent session.

Leonard, one of the panel's members, told the officers "we depend on you to protect us, even if we don't know we want you to protect us or we're not prepared for you to protect us."

web-series-episode-4-training-052417en-split-copy-01.jpg
Panelists at the NYPD training session CBS NEWS

Ron, another panelist, added that officers should reach out to someone who is emotionally disturbed and work on "making that connection, even if it's just 'hey do you need a bottle of water?' 'Hi how are you feeling today?'"

"Making those little connections add up. They will recognize on some level that you were the person who helped them out and that will account for a lot as they progress," he said.

Hospitals and their employees are also on the front lines of dealing with people who have behavioral health issues. In New York, the jail system is the second biggest provider of mental health services, according to Kristy Loewenstein, director of nurse education for Zucker Hillside Hospital, an inpatient psychiatric facility in Queens, New York.

uncharted-episode-4-cbsn-version-full.jpg
Kristy Loewenstein CBS NEWS

Many hospitals are now regularly training to handle patients that have behavioral health issues. First and foremost hospital staff wants to avoid using physical force to de-escalate a situation.

"Our words are the best tools that we have. If we can become really proficient at verbally de-escalating patients, we don't have to worry about physically intervening," Lowenstein said.

The NYPD says they aim to have thousands more officers trained in the CIT program within the next three years.

If your community is interested in creating a crisis intervention team, contact the National Alliance on Mental Illness at 800-950-NAMI, or click here.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mental-health-where-are-we-uncharted-state-of-mind-episode-1/
By ANGELICA FUSCO, STEVEN ROSENBAUM
CBS NEWS May 3, 2017, 10:55 AM
State of Mind Episode 1: Where we are as a nation

"CBS Evening News Uncharted: State of Mind" is a new five-part digital series airing in May with new episodes released every Wednesday. The series will examine the state of mental health care in America in conjunction with Mental Health Awareness Month. More than 43 million Americans suffer from mental illness.

State of Mind Episode 2: Hidden battles
State of Mind Episode 3: To suffer in silence

Rocky Schwartz is not going to stay silent anymore.

Her two sons, ages 23 and 24, have severe mental illnesses and substance abuse problems.

"One has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance abuse," she said. "My other son has OCD, social anxiety, depressive disorder, addiction and ADHD."

The two young men, whose identities CBS News has agreed to keep private, started to show signs of mental illness in their teens.

sons.jpg
Rocky's sons. CBS News agreed to keep their identities private. SCHWARTZ FAMILY

"Our lives have changed dramatically as a result," Rocky said.

In the beginning, it was difficult for Rocky's family to accept the diagnoses. Rocky says she stopped walking the dog in her neighborhood and changed grocery stores so she wouldn't have to see people she knew and explain what her sons were going through.

"I didn't know what to say. And I was ashamed," she said.

Her sons' conditions became increasingly worse. Rocky's older son's first suicide attempt landed him in a hospital psychiatric ward.

rocky.jpg
Rocky Schwartz CBS NEWS

"After about seven days in the psychiatric ward, my husband and I met with a doctor and the rest of the clinical staff, and they are aware that the insurance quits paying early on and they said, 'Don't worry your son needs to stay longer,'" she said.

"We gave them our Visa card and said, 'Please, don't discharge him until you feel that he is safe and we will deal with the insurance company afterwards.' And the insurance refused to pay after that day. Doctors kept him for another week."

Fighting with insurance

Battles with insurance companies became constant for Rocky and her husband. Both sons have had numerous rounds of outpatient and inpatient psychiatric and addiction care over the last six years, and Rocky's out-of-pocket expenses have exceeded $300,000.

The family has also lost seven insurance appeals -- the latest in March of this year. CBS News reached out to Rocky's insurance providers, but they wouldn't comment on her cases because of privacy laws.

"And in case you're wondering where the heck we got that, you know the first rehab, we used a home equity loan, and then we had college savings accounts and we depleted those, and we've been tapping into our retirement," Rocky said.

"And the last go around, I swore I would never do it again, but my son was close to death and he had already lived on the street for three months and at some point I made the decision that I'd rather spend this money to try to save his life than pay for a funeral. And it's just money, I don't care. I mean I care ... I don't care," she said.

web-series-screener-for-cbsn-frame-11267.jpg
Rocky kept records of her insurance appeals. CBS NEWS

After all her family has been through, Rocky finally decided that it was time she spoke out.

"When you're trying to care for somebody that you love and trying to keep them safe and trying to maintain your sanity, having to keep fighting and dealing with bureaucracy, at times it's easier to say, 'I'm not doing this anymore,'" she said.

Mental Health Parity Act

Rocky's situation is not unique. Many families across the nation are fighting for their loved ones to get equal treatment and coverage from insurance companies.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act into law. That act requires insurance companies to cover mental and substance abuse equally, as they would physical illnesses. But not all states adequately enforce it, according to advocates.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that 60 percent of Americans suffering from mental illness don't receive the care they need.

Rocky is a member of the New Jersey Parity Coalition, a group of lobbyist, advocates, social workers and families fighting to get equal treatment for people living with mental illness in their state.

CBS News' mental health experts were clear that the issues of parity and insurance coverage are key to making health care more accessible.

kennedy-thumb.jpg
Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy CBS NEWS

"The fight for those who suffer from mental illness and addiction really is a fight to integrate them into the larger health care community, which they've really been prohibited from because of the nature of this separate and unequal treatment of mental illness and addiction," said former Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, who is now an advocate for mental health.

"We have to get the insurance companies to comply with the federal Mental Health and Addiction Parity Act," he said.

Another law on the books that is meant to help Americans living with mental illness is the 21st Century Cures Act, which was signed by President Obama in 2016.

murphy-thumb-copy.jpg
Rep. Tim Murphy CBS NEWS

Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, who also holds a Ph.D. in psychology, introduced the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act to help those struggling with mental health, which was rolled into the 21st Century Cures Act.

"When someone has hit the absolute lowest spot in their life, when they're considering suicide or just given up, we want access to be instantaneous. Not a waiting period of a day or two days or even hours," Murphy said.

Breaking the stigma

Our experts agree that the stigma surrounding mental illness contributes to the lack of political action to address the issue.

wrenn-thumb.jpg
Dr. Glenda Wrenn CBS NEWS

"Who wants to be the champion of mental illness issues? You know you don't necessarily see elected officials championing those issues, said Dr. Glenda Wrenn, a psychiatrist and the director of behavioral health for the Satcher Health Leadership Institute.

"The only answer for why we have no resources to put against such an enormous problem is because of the stigma that is really a derivation of the perception that people who suffer from a brain illness really can get it together on their own, that somehow this is some character flaw," Rep. Kennedy said.

Rocky wrestled with the same stigma when her sons began to struggle with mental illness. But says she's speaking out now because there is nothing to be ashamed about.

"These are brain diseases and I think the only way we stop it is to talk about it," she said. "And so I'm not going to be silent anymore and I'm going to keep fighting."