March 29, 2018


News and Views


ABOUT THE DANGER TO SOCIETY, THE SEVERITY OF THE SITUATION IS OBVIOUS FROM WATCHING THE NEWS. THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION SAYS IT ALL: “AN EXAMINATION OF 28 ATTACKS, WHICH CLAIMED NEARLY 150 LIVES AND WOUNDED HUNDREDS OF OTHERS ....” THE NUMBER OF CASUALTIES FROM ONLY 28 ATTACKS IS SHOCKING.

“MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS” IS THE AREA IN WHICH WE FAIL PEOPLE MOST WHO HAVE TROUBLE IN DAILY LIFE. WHAT DO WE TOO OFTEN DO? MAKE FUN OF THEM, PUNISH THEM, DEMEAN THEM, FAIL TO GIVE THEM AN HONORABLE PLACE IN THE FAMILY CIRCLE, BULLY THEM, FAIL TO BE A HELPER TO THEM, FAIL TO LISTEN TO THEM, FAIL TO RESPECT THEM, FAIL TO REALLY CARE ABOUT THEM AND LET THEM KNOW THAT WE DO.

THEN THEY GO OUT INTO THE WORLD WITH A HEAVY LOAD OF GRIEF AND LOW SELF-ESTEEM, AND THEY FAIL MENTALLY. THEY MAY NOT BE “PSYCHOTIC,” “INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED,” OR EVEN “MENTALLY ILL,” (THE DEFINITION OF THOSE CHANGES CONSTANTLY AS NEW SCHOLARLY ARTICLES ARE WRITTEN), BUT THEY ARE STILL CAPABLE OF BREAKING DOWN MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY. IN MY YOUNGER YEARS, THE COMMON TERM WAS “NERVOUS BREAKDOWN.” IF IT’S A WOMAN WHO IS “DEPRESSED,” SHE IS LIKELY TO CUT HERSELF OR EVEN ATTEMPT SUICIDE, BUT IF IT’S A MAN, HE IS NOTICEABLY MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO KILL SOMEONE ELSE -- OR DOZENS OF OTHERS -- AND THEN, AFTER THAT, HIMSELF. AT LEAST THAT’S THE WAY THE NEWS REPORTS SEEM TO TREND. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A REPORT OF A WOMAN TAKING AN AR-15 AND SHOOTING FIFTY OR A HUNDRED PEOPLE. I THINK WOMEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO KILL OUT OF A DEEP AND LONG-HELD AGGRIEVEMENT AGAINST SOMEONE WHO IS WELL-KNOWN TO THEM; IN OTHER WORDS, IT’S PERSONAL.

A FRIEND OF MINE IN WASHINGTON, DC TOLD ME THAT SHE HAD A BROTHER WHO WAS THE BRUNT OF EVERYONE’S “HUMOR” IN THE FAMILY, BECAUSE HE SEEMED INCOMPETENT TO THEM, AND UNDOUBTEDLY ALSO BECAUSE THE PARENTS ALLOWED THEM TO DO IT. AS HE GOT INTO HIS TEENAGED YEARS, THEY TOOK HIM TO A PSYCHOLOGIST FOR EXAMINATION. THEY ASKED THE DOCTOR WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE BOY, AND HE SAID: “THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH HIM. HE’S JUST A PERFECTLY NICE PERSON IN A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE FAMILY.”

SOMETIMES LOVE IS HARD TO ACHIEVE, BUT DECENCY SHOULD BE POSSIBLE. OF COURSE, IF A FAMILY MEMBER, FRIEND, NEIGHBOR REALLY IS SERIOUSLY DISTURBED, THOSE CLOSE TO HIM DO NEED TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO INTERVENE, WITH CARING AND KINDNESS, AND BY CALLING AN AMBULANCE IF NECESSARY. DON’T TRY TO “HANDLE IT YOURSELF.”

FROM MY READING OF SO MANY NEWS ARTICLES, IT IS BETTER NOT TO CALL THE POLICE. THEY WILL COME WITH GUNS DRAWN AND IF THEY “FEAR FOR THEIR LIVES,” THEY WILL SHOOT TO KILL. THANK GOD, POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN SOME CITIES HAVE TAKEN THIS ISSUE SERIOUSLY, AND NOW BRING ANOTHER OFFICER WITH SPECIFIC TRAINING TO DETECT AND DEAL WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, “TALK THE PERSON DOWN.” THEY WILL THEN TAKE HIM TO A HOSPITAL. SOCIETY REALLY IS IMPROVING. IT JUST TAKES AWHILE.

IN THOSE CASES WHEN THE PERSON DOES BECOME DANGEROUS, A HANDFUL OF PILLS AND A PSYCHOLOGICAL APPOINTMENT EVERY TWO WEEKS PROBABLY WON’T BE ENOUGH. MANY HOSPITALS THESE DAYS DON’T KEEP A PATIENT IN THEIR FACILITY FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAYS OR SO (OFTEN THAT’S WHEN THE INSURANCE RUNS OUT), AND THEY PROBABLY WON’T BE “WELL” IN THAT TIME PERIOD. IT ISN’T JUST FAMILY AND COMMUNITY WHO FAIL, BUT THE TREATMENT SYSTEM, ALSO. AS A LOGICAL SOCIETY, WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF MENTAL ILLNESS, OF COURSE, BUT ALSO REINFORCE OUR MANDATORY GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT PREVENT HOSPITALIZED OR DEPRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS FROM GETTING A WEAPON. THOSE THINGS ARE OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE.

PRESIDENT TRUMP RECENTLY SAID THE OLD APHORISM THAT IT ISN’T THE GUN THAT IS THE PROBLEM, BUT THE MENTAL ILLNESS. I AGREE WITH HIM, SO I THINK EVERYONE WHO IS AT LEAST 21 YEARS OLD, AND WHO HAS NOT HAD A MENTAL ILLNESS OR A JAIL OR PRISON TERM SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ONE PISTOL TO DEFEND HIMSELF, AND ONE LONG GUN TO SHOOT BUNNY RABBITS AND BAMBI IF THEY WILL EAT THE MEAT. JUST KILLING THEM BECAUSE THEY RUN FAST AND MAKE AN EXCITING TARGET IS INHUMANE. PUTTING THEIR HEAD UP ON THE WALL IS DISGUSTING.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/29/secret-service-mental-illness-stalks-many-suspects-mass-attacks/466251002/?csp=chromepush
64% of assailants in mass attacks suffered from symptoms of mental illness, Secret Service report finds
Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY Published 8:00 a.m. ET March 29, 2018 | Updated 8:57 a.m. ET March 29, 2018

Photograph -- Neurologist Dr. Jay Lombard and a group of high school students discuss the importance of mental health awareness in schools and methods for coping with stress. USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — A striking number of suspects linked to violent attacks in schools and other public places last year were stalked by symptoms of mental illness and nearly half were motivated by real or perceived personal grievances, a new Secret Service report has found.

An examination of 28 attacks, which claimed nearly 150 lives and wounded hundreds of others — from Orlando to Las Vegas — also found that more than three-quarters of the assailants engaged in suspicious communications or conduct that raised concerns from others in advance of the assaults, according to the report due for release Thursday.

The analysis, prepared by the Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center, had been underway months before the Feb. 14 massacre at a Parkland, Fla., high school, but its findings are likely to further fuel concerns about the untreated mentally ill and their access to high-powered firearms.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., greets Capitol Police special agent Crystal Griner as special agent David Bailey looks on during a Medal of Honor ceremony on Capitol Hill on Nov. 9, 2017. (Photo: Susan Walsh, AP)

In the Parkland case, which has reinvigorated a national debate on gun safety, social workers, mental health counselors, school administrators and law enforcement were all warned about Nikolas Cruz's deteriorating mental state and risk of violence before he allegedly launched the attack that left 17 dead.

The new Secret Service review builds on a lengthy, prior examination issued by the agency in 2015, which found that more than half of suspects involved in 43 attacks targeting government facilities or federal officials between 2001 and 2013 suffered symptoms of mental illness, including paranoia, delusions and suicidal thoughts.

In the new report, authorities found that 64% of suspects suffered from symptoms of mental illness. And in 25% of the cases, attackers had been "hospitalized or prescribed psychiatric medications" prior to the assaults.


Among the most glaring of those cases involved Devin Kelley, whose stunning November attack on a Texas church left 26 dead and 20 others wounded.

In the years leading up to the assault, Kelley battered his young stepson, menaced his former wife, was accused of sexual assault, had a history of stalking former girlfriends and in 2012 escaped from a mental health facility.

According to a police report related to Kelley's escape, the gunman — then a member of the U.S. Air Force — was hospitalized after he was charged by military authorities with fracturing the skull of his 1-year-old stepson.

The Air Force later acknowledged that it failed to flag Kelley as banned from buying the weapons he used in the attack because of his record of domestic violence. Using the same weapons, Kelley killed himself following the November church shooting.

The Sutherland Springs’ First Baptist Church massacre was one of two church shootings examined in the Secret Service report. Four school attacks also analyzed, along with 13 assaults involving places of business.

"These acts violated the safety of the places where we work, learn, shop, relax and otherwise conduct our day-to-day lives," the report stated. "The resulting loss of 147 lives and injury to nearly 700 others had a devastating impact on our nation as a whole."

One the incidents sent a shiver through the nation's capital last June when an Illinois man opened fire on Republican lawmakers with a modified assault rifle and handgun at northern Virginia baseball field.

Shortly after the attack, which left House Majority Whip Steve Scalise critically wounded and four others injured, the FBI described gunman James Hodgkinson as adrift and struggling to cope with an array of personal problems.

Plagued by financial difficulties, 66-year-old man who ultimately died in a shootout with police, had anger management problems and abruptly left a strained marriage in Belleville, Ill., more than month before the shooting to take up residence in a van on the outskirts of the nation's capital — along with his weapons.

He was prone to rage against the politics of President Trump and was carrying the names of six lawmakers in his pocket at the time he was fatally wounded.

"He was struggling in all kinds of different ways,'' FBI Assistant Director Tim Slater said a week after the attack.



THIS IS AN ARTICLE ON THE LOCK STEP BELIEF SYSTEM OF SO MANY REPUBLICANS, ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO TRUMP. READ THE ARTICLE. SEVERAL OF THE COMMENTS ARE VERY FUNNY. SADLY THOSE WHO SEEM MOST INTELLIGENT TO ME, SUCH AS JEFF FLAKE OR JOHN KASICH HAVE A NUMBER OF TIMES BEEN HARASSED BY MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN PARTY AND POSSIBLE BLACKBALLED, SO THAT THEY LEAVE PUBLIC SERVICE; MOST REPUBLICANS CAN BE HEARD SPEAKING THE PARTY LINE ALMOST WORD FOR WORD. THIS VOW TO DIE FOR HIM IS EXTREME, HOWEVER.

“.... The central rationale of his campaign is that the incumbent, Dan Donovan, has not backed up the president enough on health care, taxes, “sanctuary cities” and the border wall. Grimm even said during an appearance on Fox in January that he’s “willing to die” for Trump.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/03/29/daily-202-loyalty-to-trump-emerges-as-a-top-issue-in-republican-primary-campaign-commercials/5abc494530fb042a378a2f32/?tid=pm_politics_pop
PowerPost Analysis
The Daily 202: Loyalty to Trump emerges as a top issue in Republican primary campaign commercials
By James Hohmann
March 29, 2018 at 7:57 AM
With Breanne Deppisch and Joanie Greve.

THE BIG IDEA:

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette is running two commercials right now. One highlights the endorsement he’s received from President Trump in the race for governor. The other attacks his Republican primary opponent, Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, for calling on Trump to drop out after the “Access Hollywood” tape emerged in October 2016.

“With the White House and the Supreme Court hanging on the line, Brian Calley deserted Donald Trump — helping Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” a narrator says.

In the 2005 tape, Trump boasted in lewd terms about being able to get away with groping and kissing women. He also discussed an effort to seduce a married woman by taking her furniture shopping. “When you’re a star, they let you do it,” the future president said on a hot mic. “You can do anything.”

At the time, Calley said he’d write in Mike Pence’s name on his ballot if Trump didn’t step aside. “This is not a decision I take lightly because I still believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency represents a disastrous alternative,” he said then. Schuette also condemned Trump but didn’t withdraw his endorsement.

Naturally, none of that nuance comes through in the 30-second commercial. Calley has the strong endorsement of outgoing Gov. Rick Snyder (R), who also declined to vote for Trump in 2016, ahead of the Aug. 7 primary.

The escalation in Michigan’s air war mirrors what’s happening in other gubernatorial, House and Senate primaries across the country. Fealty to Trump has become more of a litmus test than ever for Republicans. Emboldened by private polling and focus groups that show the president is incredibly popular with the base, GOP candidates are stepping up attacks on their rivals over any daylight they’ve shown with Trump, even if it stemmed from his personal conduct toward women or apostasy on traditional conservative orthodoxy. It’s another illustration of the degree to which Trumpism has come to define the Republican Party. This is no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. It’s the party of Donald J. Trump.

Support for Trump has also become one of the biggest flash points in the Ohio Republican primary for governor. Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor has intensified her attacks on Attorney General Mike DeWine, the heavy favorite in the May 8 contest to succeed outgoing Gov. John Kasich.

The pro-Taylor super PAC, Onward Ohio, has spent heavily over the past week to run a commercial contrasting DeWine with Trump. “If you like President Trump, then you won’t like Mike DeWine,” a narrator says. “In the Senate, DeWine voted with Hillary Clinton to let illegal immigrants receive Social Security. And in Ohio, DeWine allowed illegal immigrants to receive drivers’ licenses. … DeWine backs unfair trade with China and received an F from the NRA. President Trump is right on immigration, guns, and China. Mike DeWine wrong on all three.”

OH-Gov: Onward Ohio (Pro-Mary Taylor group) is up on TV today with this spot attacking Mike DeWine. We've tracked nearly $700K in spending behind it pic.twitter.com/BWVictcBTt

— Medium Buying (@MediumBuying) March 20, 2018
The pro-DeWine super PAC, Ohio Conservatives for a Change, has been sending mailers highlighting Taylor’s endorsement of Kasich during the 2016 Republican primaries. (Never mind that DeWine and Taylor endorsed Kasich together in September 2015!) “Ohio Can’t Afford a 3rd Kasich Term,” the mailer says.

.@MaryTaylorOH supported John Kasich’s bid for president and touted her experience working “hand in hand” with him. Taylor wanted Kasich in the White House, not President Trump. #OHGov pic.twitter.com/gJIrh2NbSn

— Ohio Conservatives (@ConservativesOH) March 26, 2018
Taylor has distanced herself from Kasich, who she’s served under over the past eight years, as he continues to flirt with a potential run against the president in 2020. The outgoing governor will hold a “fireside chat” in New Hampshire at New England College on April 3. A poll published last week by Baldwin Wallace University showed Trump crushing Kasich in Ohio, 62 percent to 27 percent, in a hypothetical 2020 head-to-head matchup.

One reason Republican candidates are leaning so hard into the Trump loyalty issue is that it proved quite potent last year in Virginia. Corey Stewart, despite having no real establishment support and being dramatically outraised, came within about a point of toppling former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie in the June 2017 primary for governor. Stewart chaired Trump’s 2016 campaign in Virginia and referred to Gillespie as “anti-Trump” in his ads.

In Tennessee, where there’s a four-way race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, Rep. Diane Black has been on the air this month with a spot built around footage of Trump praising her at the signing ceremony for the tax cut bill in December. “Diane? Come on up. Diane Black, thank you,” Trump said in the Rose Garden. “Helping write the president’s tax cut was one of my proudest moments,” the congresswoman says.

In South Carolina, Republican Gov. Henry McMaster — who got the job when Nikki Haley resigned to become ambassador to the United Nations — just launched a web video touting Trump’s endorsement in the face of a primary challenge. It features a clip of Trump saying, “He’s going to be, for many years, a great governor.” Then McMaster says to camera, “We finally have a president in the White House who believes in the people of our country. … We must do the same in South Carolina.”

Challenger Catherine Templeton has downplayed McMaster’s sway with Trump backers. “Like Trump, (Templeton) is an outsider willing to shake up the do-nothing establishment career politicians,” her spokeswoman said when the governor recently touted his ties to the White House.

In Pennsylvania, the two GOP candidates for governor are trying to outdo each other in who can praise Trump more. State Sen. Scott Wagner, a wealthy businessman, paid for 20,000 Trump lawn signs during the summer of 2016. “While many political leaders refused to support Donald Trump, Scott Wagner was leading the charge,” says a Wagner mailer that’s been going to Republican households.

Businessman Paul Mango, who spent his career at McKinsey and hasn’t run for office before, says “there’s a lot of similarity between the president’s agenda and my agenda.”

“I absolutely love the president and what he's doing,” he said in a radio interview last fall. “I just have to give the guy all the credit in the world for fighting these Democrats.”

The Trump loyalty test is also taking center stage in Senate GOP primaries.

Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita released a web video on Tuesday attacking his opponent, Rep. Luke Messer, as a “Never Trump lobbyist.” The narrator describes Rokita as “a pro-Trump conservative.” They are vying to take on Sen. Joe Donnelly (D) in a state Trump carried by 19 points.

Arizona Rep. Martha McSally, the establishment favorite for the Republican nomination to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R), has been under fire for months from two primary challengers for refusing to say whether she voted for Trump. “Not your business,” she snapped at a Los Angeles Times reporter who asked at a Republican banquet in Phoenix. “I made a couple of, a very small number of, statements about particular statements that were made, and on the spectrum of things, it was very measured compared with a lot of other Republicans.”

In fact, this is what she said after the “Access Hollywood” tape:

Trump's comments are disgusting. Joking about sexual assault is unacceptable. I'm appalled.

— Martha McSally (@MarthaMcSally) October 8, 2016

But McSally has gone out of her way on the stump recently to link herself with Trump and talk up the face time she’s had with him. “Like our president, I'm tired of PC politicians and their BS excuses,” she says in a web video. Joe Arpaio, the former county sheriff who was pardoned by Trump, and Kelli Ward, a former state senator, have both called her pro-Trump comments disingenuous.

Nevada Sen. Dean Heller (R) declined to say who he voted for in 2016 until after he drew a primary challenge from Danny Tarkanian last summer. Then, within a week, he disclosed that he had backed Trump. The White House cleared the field for him two weeks ago by having Trump endorse Tarkanian for House and Heller for Senate. (The Nevada Democratic Party prepared a memo on the ways Heller embraced Trump to shore up base support before locking down the nomination.)

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (R) launched an attack ad early this month against primary challenger Chris McDaniel over Facebook posts he wrote back in 2016, when he initially endorsed Ted Cruz for the nomination. The commercial claimed that McDaniel called Trump supporters delusional based on this quote: “Donald Trump is a strong candidate who will do well in Mississippi. But the inclination of some of his supporters to promote wild-eyed conspiracy theories and flat out lies is incredibly disturbing.” A week after the spot went up, McDaniel switched from running against Wicker to running for the seat that opened with the resignation of Sen. Thad Cochran (R) for health reasons.

In House primaries, Republicans are also using TV ads to emphasize their devotion to Trump.

The North Carolina rematch between Rep. Robert Pittenger and Mark Harris has become one of the most acrimonious in the country. Both men are accusing the other of exaggerating their support for Trump. Harris lost by just 134 votes in 2016, so he decided to run again. Last month, Pittenger ran a commercial that said, “Mark Harris worked to stop a Trump presidency.” The citation was an interview he gave supporting Cruz before the convention in Cleveland. This week, Harris released a response ad decrying it as “more lies” from “just another Washington politician.” The response notes that Pittenger falsely claimed Trump had endorsed him on Twitter when he had not.

In the New Jersey Republican primary to succeed the retiring GOP Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, assemblyman Jay Webber has gone after first-time candidate Tony Ghee for declining to say who he voted for in 2016. Ghee has also been attacked for retweeting criticism last year of Trump’s response to the white supremacist rally, and ensuing violence, in Charlottesville.

Katie Arrington, a state representative, is challenging Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) on the grounds he’s been too critical of Trump. “Too many Washington politicians only want to attack our president,” she said in her debut commercial last month, referring to Sanford. “I am running for Congress to help pass President Trump’s bold, conservative agenda.” Arrington's campaign consultant, Michael Mule, said the spot’s goal was to depict Sanford as “an anti-Trumper.” “You'll see it on Fox News quite a bit,” he told the Charleston Post & Courier.

On Staten Island, felon and former congressman Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) — who served time in prison for tax evasion — is trying to win back his old seat by waging a primary challenge against his successor. The central rationale of his campaign is that the incumbent, Dan Donovan, has not backed up the president enough on health care, taxes, “sanctuary cities” and the border wall. Grimm even said during an appearance on Fox in January that he’s “willing to die” for Trump.



LAURA INGRAHAM WENT ON THE ATTACK YESTERDAY, BUT FOLLOWED IT UP TODAY WITH AN APOLOGY. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE SPIRIT OF AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL HAS BEEN AROUSED BY MANY OF THE TRUMP FOLLOWERS’ BEHAVIOR. THOSE OF US WHO ARE OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER, WANT TO KEEP WHAT WE HAD IN THIS COUNTRY.

“WE DO NOT … CONDONE THE INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS MADE BY THIS BROADCASTER,” TRIPADVISOR SAID IN A STATEMENT. “IN OUR VIEW, THESE STATEMENTS FOCUSED ON A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, CROSS THE LINE OF DECENCY.”

I DO BELIEVE THAT IN THIS AGE OF MONEY, MONEY, AND MORE MONEY, THE POWER OF THE BOYCOTT IS STRONGER THAN THAT OF STREET MARCHES, EXCEPT WHEN THE RULING CLASS KNOWS VERY WELL THAT THE MARCH IS A MERCIFUL SUBSTITUTE FOR BLOODY RIOTING. IN THE CASE OF THESE STUDENTS, IT’S A LITTLE OF BOTH. I WISH THEM WELL. P.S. THANK YOU ALL FOR STANDING UP TO LAURA INGRAHAM, BECAUSE SHE’S AN A#1 AH. (SORRY, LAURA. THAT WAS UNKIND.)

THE FOLLOWING IS HER DISGUSTING REFERENCE TO CHRISTIANITY IN THIS CONTEXT: “... IN THE SPIRIT OF HOLY WEEK, I APOLOGIZE...” SOMEBODY SHOULD EXPLAIN TO HER THAT SUCH A STATEMENT IS SACRILEGE. SHE REMINDS ME OF JOAN RIVERS -- SOMETIMES FUNNY, BUT ALWAYS UNKIND. WE DON’T NEED THAT IN THIS COUNTRY. THAT ISN’T WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS FOR.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/29/laura-ingraham-savaged-for-taunting-parkland-activist-over-college-rejections/
Morning Mix
Facing boycott, Laura Ingraham apologizes for taunting Parkland teen over college rejections
By Amy B Wang and Allyson Chiu
March 29, 2018 at 3:45 PM


Fox News host Laura Ingraham has apologized a day after taunting Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg over his college rejections.

On Wednesday morning, the “Ingraham Angle” host had tweeted a story from a conservative news site that described Hogg as a “Gun Rights Provocateur” who had not gained acceptance to four University of California schools.

“David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it,” Ingraham tweeted. “(Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA…totally predictable given acceptance rates.)”

Ingraham appeared to take back her comments Thursday afternoon, hours after Hogg sent a tweet calling for advertisers to boycott her Fox News show. Hogg’s widely shared tweet resulted in at least three brands promising to sever their relationships with Ingraham before she apologized.

“On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland,” Ingraham tweeted. She also tried to curtail the damage by noting Hogg had appeared on her show after the shooting.

Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA —incl. @DavidHogg111. On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland. For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David...(1/2)

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 29, 2018
... immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how "poised" he was given the tragedy. As always, he’s welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion. WATCH: https://t.co/5wcd00wWpd (2/2)

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 29, 2018
Hogg said he felt the apology was merely an effort to save her advertisers.

“I will only accept your apology only if you denounce the way your network has treated my friends and I in this fight,” Hogg tweeted Thursday. “It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.”

Ingraham had faced immediate backlash over her original tweet from those shocked she would attack a 17-year-old student who had survived the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Among the outraged were people who reminded Ingraham, simply, that she was a mother, and Hogg’s 14-year-old sister, who accused the Fox News host of stooping to a “real low” to boost her ratings.

How low are your ratings @IngrahamAngle that you have to start attacking my brother’s grades to get attention? If you ask me, he is more articulate than you and has far better character. Man, that’s real low even for you. Coming from a 14 year old, please grow up. #NeverAgain https://t.co/CgUVeGRfxP

— Lauren Hogg (@lauren_hoggs) March 28, 2018

The shooting in Florida — already one of several to take place at a school in 2018 — left 17 students and staff members dead, and galvanized a new generation of activists, including many teenagers from Parkland.

Hogg has been one of the most vocal, speaking at the March for Our Lives rally against gun violence in Washington, D.C. Since the shooting, the teen has frequently appeared on television and rallied his growing number of Twitter followers to become civically engaged if they are frustrated with the status quo.

On Wednesday, however, Hogg remained silent — at first.

Hours later, though, he emerged with a tweet directed at the “Ingraham Angle” host. Who were her biggest advertisers? He wondered rhetorically.

Soooo @IngrahamAngle what are your biggest advertisers ... Asking for a friend. #BoycottIngramAdverts

— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) March 29, 2018

Shortly afterward, he tweeted to his nearly 600,000 followers a list of 12 companies that were reportedly the top advertisers on “The Ingraham Angle.”

Pick a number at random, Hogg suggested, and contact the company next to it.

Pick a number 1-12 contact the company next to that #

Top Laura Ingraham Advertisers
1. @sleepnumber
2. @ATT
3. Nutrish
4. @Allstate & @esurance
5. @Bayer
6. @RocketMortgage Mortgage
7. @LibertyMutual
8. @Arbys
9. @TripAdvisor
10. @Nestle
11. @hulu
12. @Wayfair

— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) March 29, 2018

Before long, the tweet was flooded with replies from Hogg’s supporters, some of whom pasted images of their messages to the companies in question, as well as those who accused Hogg of “bullying” Ingraham.

At this writing, several companies had responded to Hogg’s boycott call.

“We are in the process of removing our ads from Laura Ingraham’s program,” Nutrish tweeted Thursday morning.

TripAdvisor pointed to one of its company values — “We are better together” — in its decision to stop advertising with Ingraham’s show.

“We do not … condone the inappropriate comments made by this broadcaster,” TripAdvisor said in a statement. “In our view, these statements focused on a high school student, cross the line of decency.”

Online home goods retailer Wayfair told the Hill that Ingraham’s personal criticism of Hogg was “not consistent with our values.”

Nestle told ThinkProgress it had no plans to buy future ads on the show.

It was unclear if any of the brands would change their minds following Ingraham’s apology Thursday afternoon.

[ The extraordinary number of kids who have endured school shootings since Columbine ]

Since the 2016 election, calls to boycott retailers have become frequent: The #GrabYourWallet campaign began as a way to protest President Trump and identified companies that carried merchandise bearing the Trump name. Those calls have been met with some equally passionate responses by Trump’s supporters on the right, who say they are determined to support the president and his family with their buying power.

On Thursday, #GrabYourWallet co-founder Shannon Coulter said she hadn’t spoken to Hogg directly but had seen his boycott call go viral the night before. To her, the campaign wasn’t a matter of politics so much as it was a response to “really egregious violations of basic human decency,” Coulter said, referring to Ingraham’s tweet about Hogg’s college rejections.

“Corporate America has a really positive role to play in preventing that kind of targeted harassment,” Coulter told The Washington Post. “It’s not just that one tweet. It’s that [Ingraham’s] signaling to her large audience that it’s okay to do that. Particularly when minors are concerned I think there’s a line that corporations can draw that apparently Laura Ingraham’s parents didn’t draw.”

Hogg was not immediately available for comment Thursday morning. Despite the backlash, Ingraham’s original tweet about Hogg’s college rejections has remained online.

In an interview with TMZ on Tuesday, Hogg had spoken about receiving rejection letters from California colleges and in doing so sparked derision from conservatives — including Ingraham.

David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.) https://t.co/wflA4hWHXY

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 28, 2018
Hogg, who has a 4.2 GPA and a SAT score of 1270, was accepted to Florida Atlantic University, California Polytechnic State University and California State University San Marcos, TMZ reported.

During the TMZ interview he expressed disappointment about the rejections but said it has been difficult to focus on college lately.

“We’re changing the world,” he said.

Since the tweet was posted, Ingraham has received backlash on social media. Ingraham was previously criticized for telling professional basketball players to “shut up and dribble.”

Many have viewed her recent actions — the latest in a slew of right-wing attacks against the Parkland survivors — as particularly appalling, given that she is a parent.

You’re a mother.

— Bess Kalb (@bessbell) March 28, 2018
Journalist David Corn described Ingraham’s tweet as “deplorable.”

Laura, you're a parent. This is pretty deplorable. https://t.co/nLXrgmZhm0

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) March 28, 2018
Others were shocked that she was “picking on” a student who survived a school shooting.

Are you really picking on a teenager who just watched his classmates die in pools of their own blood less than two months ago?

— Brooke Binkowski (@brooklynmarie) March 28, 2018
While Ingraham has been the most recent target of criticism, she is not the only adult who has faced backlash for attacking the high school students.

Just days ago, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and his campaign team came under fire for posting a meme on Facebook about Emma González, another Parkland student and activist, The Washington Post’s Samantha Schmidt reported. The meme was criticized as attacking González’s Cuban heritage.

The Parkland survivors have been fiercely targeted since they first spoke out after the shooting, and the attacks have only continued, as The Post’s Abby Ohlheiser reported.

On Twitter, civil rights attorney Lisa Bloom said Ingraham’s tweet may be a sign that Hogg has “really gotten under Fox News’ skin.”

More from Morning Mix:

This high school rejected NRA ‘blood money’ for rifle team. Locals donated instead.

The horns were so loud they wrecked the violist’s hearing — and his career

Rick Santorum: ‘I did misspeak’ in telling kids to learn CPR instead of marching for gun control

Walmart pulls Cosmopolitan from checkout aisles after pressure from anti-porn group

Amy B Wang is a general assignment reporter covering national and breaking news for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2016 after seven years with the Arizona Republic. Follow @amybwang

FOR FUN, LOOK AT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS: https://www.google.com/search?q=Gun+Rights+Provocateur&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=fsmNCvfgiRGMMM%253A%252CDTyi9uC4XqcQ1M%252C_&usg=__592JcDZv2QWHM1o3BYiwA_TNKk8%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIs6zMw5LaAhUEv1MKHezLCUkQ9QEIWzAK#imgdii=SgfnNvNdBYxa4M:&imgrc=fsmNCvfgiRGMMM:


A NEW TRUMP SCANDAL

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-cabinet-trouble-trump-epa-chief-lived-condo/story?id=54095310
EXCLUSIVE: More Cabinet trouble for Trump? EPA chief lived in condo tied to lobbyist 'power couple'
By JOHN SANTUCCI, MATTHEW MOSK STEPHANIE EBBS
Mar 29, 2018, 4:22 PM ET

COMING UP -- Scott Pruitt: Everything you need to know

For much of his first year in Washington, President Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt occupied prime real estate in a townhouse near the U.S. Capitol that is co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist, property records from 2017 show.

Interested in Trump Administration?
Add Trump Administration as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Trump Administration news, video, and analysis from ABC News.
Trump Administration Add Interest

Neither the EPA nor the lobbyist, J. Steven Hart, would say how much Pruitt paid to live at the prime Capitol Hill address, though Hart said he believed it to be the market rate. The price tag on Pruitt’s rental arrangement is one key question when determining if it constitutes an improper gift, ethics experts told ABC News.

PHOTO: A townhouse near the U.S. Capitol where EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt is said to have stayed. The building is co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist, property records from 2017 show. ABC News
A townhouse near the U.S. Capitol where EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt is said to have stayed. The building is co-owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist, property records from 2017 show. more +

“I think it certainly creates a perception problem, especially if Mr. Hart is seeking to influence the agency,” said Bryson Morgan, the former investigative counsel at the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics. “That’s why there is a gift rule.”

Hart confirmed to ABC News in a brief interview that Pruitt had lived in the flat, which is owned by a limited liability company that links to an address listed to Hart and his wife Vicki Hart, a lobbyist with expertise in the healthcare arena. Steven Hart said Vicki Hart co-owns the condo. He said his wife was not the majority owner, but would not identify her partners.

“I have no ownership interest,” he said. “Obviously, I know the owners.”

Vicki Hart does no lobbying involving the EPA, her husband said. Her website says she previously worked as a senior health policy advisor for two Senate Majority Leaders before establishing her firm in 2002.

Steven Hart served in the Reagan Justice Department and became, according to his website, is one of the nation’s top fundraisers, donating more than $110,000 to Republican political candidates and committees last election cycle, records show.

In 2010, the newspaper Roll Call referred to the Harts as a “lobbyist power couple.”

PHOTO: From left, Rep. John Dingell, Steve Hart, Debbie Dingell, and Vicki Hart at an event at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., April 16, 2013.Tony Powell/Washington Life Magazine, FILE

From left, Rep. John Dingell, Steve Hart, Debbie Dingell, and Vicki Hart at an event at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., April 16, 2013.more

Mr. Hart is the chairman and CEO of Williams and Jensen, a firm that reported more than $16 million in federal lobbying income in 2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Among his many clients are the NRA, for whom he serves as outside legal counsel.

Just last year, Cheniere Energy Inc. reported paying Hart’s firm $80,000.

Hart’s firm specifically lobbied on “issues related to the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG), approval of LNG exports and export facilities.” The firm also lists on its website that it lobbies on other EPA policies like the Clean Air Act.

EPA spent almost $118,000 on Scott Pruitt's flights, many of them first class
Environmental groups launch ads on Fox & Friends to 'boot Pruitt'
EPA chief Scott Pruitt defends Italy trip after increased scrutiny of travel costs
Cheniere Energy Inc. owned the only active Liquid Natural Gas export plant in the United States at the time. Liquid natural gas exports was on the agenda for discussion during Pruitt’s December 2017 trip to Morocco, according to an agency press release.

On the trip, Pruitt pitched “the potential benefit of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports on Morocco’s economy,” the release said.

PHOTO: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, right, meets with Moroccan Minister of Energy, Mines and Sustainable Development, Aziz Rabbah during a trip to Morocco in December of 2017.Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, right, meets with Moroccan Minister of Energy, Mines and Sustainable Development, Aziz Rabbah during a trip to Morocco in December of 2017.more +

The revelations about Pruitt’s living situation come as more questions are being raised by members of Congress about his travel habits. The Morocco trip was one of Pruitt’s most expensive. ABC News has learned that Pruitt, his head of security, and an additional member of his staff, Samantha Dravis, all flew first class on the trip.

The EPA inspector general expanded an audit of Pruitt's travel to include the Morocco trip in response to a request from Sen. Tom Carper, the ranking Democrat on a committee with oversight of EPA. Carper specifically asked the agency watchdog to look into whether Pruitt's activities on the trip were “in line with EPA's mission 'to protect human health and the environment.”

Both environmental groups and members of Congress pointed out that the jurisdiction over natural gas exports typically falls to the Department of Energy - not the EPA.

PHOTO: A photo obtained by ABC News shows EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt deplaning a military-owned plane in June 2017 at New Yorks John F. Kennedy International Airport.Obtained by ABC News

A photo obtained by ABC News shows EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt deplaning a military-owned plane in June 2017 at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

Cheniere Energy spokeswoman Rachel Carmichel told ABC News the company ended its relationship with Hart’s firm in December 2017. The spokeswoman went on to say Cheniere was unaware of the relationship and had not used Hart’s firm to have conversations with the EPA.

Another lobbying client of Hart’s, the railroad Norfolk Southern, spent $160,000 last year on lobbying Congress on “issues affecting coal usage, oil production, and transportation, including EPA regulation.”

Norfolk Southern also declined to comment when reached by ABC News.

Morgan, an ethics expert in private practice in Washington, D.C., said the lobbying connection only further muddies the living arrangement. He said the rental agreement could create ethics problems for Pruitt even if he did reimburse his landlord for rent.

“What are the terms of the rental agreement?” Morgan asked. “It’s not just a question if he is paying market rent. Was he given the ability to end it immediately? Would someone come after him if he were not to pay rent?”

Morgan said the most recent guidance from the Office of Government Ethics “emphasized that executive branch officials should decline even a permissible gift if it could cause the public to question their integrity or impartiality.”

EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox declined to answer questions about the arrangement.

Vicki Hart reached on her cell phone, said she would call back to discuss the matter but never did.

Steven Hart declined to address details of the rental agreement, saying it was a private matter and up to Pruitt to decide whether they should be made public.

The White House has not responded to a request for comment from ABC News.

ABC News' Katherine Faulders and Ali Dukakis contributed to this report


“THERE IS SO MUCH MUELLER KNOWS THAT WE SIMPLY DON'T; THIS COULD BE THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG OR AN EXTRANEOUS FACT. BUT THOSE SIX WORDS DO SEEM AT LEAST A LITTLE CONSPICUOUS.” THIS WOULD BE THE PERFECT ENDING TO A CHAPTER IN A SPY OR MURDER MYSTERY, WOULDN’T IT?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/28/mueller-just-drew-the-most-direct-line-to-date-between-the-trump-campaign-and-russia/
Mueller just drew his most direct line to date between the Trump campaign and Russia
By Aaron Blake March 28, 2018

Photograph -- Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III departs after a meeting on Capitol Hill on June 21. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation just drew what appears to be its most direct line to date between President Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia.

That line is drawn in a new court filing related to the upcoming sentencing of London attorney Alex van der Zwaan. Van der Zwaan has pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with deputy Trump campaign manager Rick Gates and a person identified in the document only as "Person A." Person A appears to be a former Ukraine-based aide to Gates and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort named Konstantin Kilimnik.

Here's the paragraph:

Fourth, the lies and withholding of documents were material to the Special Counsel’s Office’s investigation. That Gates and Person A were directly communicating in September and October 2016 was pertinent to the investigation. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agents assisting the Special Counsel’s Office assess that Person A has ties to Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016. During his first interview with the Special Counsel’s Office, van der Zwaan admitted that he knew of that connection, stating that Gates told him Person A was a former Russian Intelligence Officer with GRU.

That Person A has had ties to Russian intelligence is not terribly surprising. Kilimnik's personal history has been examined extensively by the media, including The Washington Post. He has denied being involved in Russian intelligence, but he served in the Russian military and attended a Russian military foreign language university that is seen as a breeding ground for intelligence agents.

What's particularly significant in the Mueller filing, though, are six words: “and had such ties in 2016.” Prosecutors have said previously that a longtime Manafort and Gates associate had ties to Russian intelligence, but they have never said those ties remained during the 2016 campaign. In December, they said this associate was “a longtime Russian colleague . . . who is currently based in Russia and assessed to have ties to a Russian intelligence service.” Why those six words were added in this filing when they didn't appear in the previous filing is the $64,000 question.

As Philip Bump details here, this is hardly the first public indication of a link between the Trump campaign and Russia, but it is the closest connection Mueller has made in a filing to this point. Mueller hasn't weighed in on the alleged Kremlin ties of the Russian lawyer Donald Trump Jr. met with, for instance, nor has he filed anything involving Roger Stone's contacts with hackers who have been linked to Russia.

The other new piece here is that Mueller's team says Gates described Person A (again, apparently Kilimnik) as “a former Russian Intelligence Officer with GRU.” (GRU is Russia's military intelligence organization.) So according to van der Zwaan, Gates talked openly about Person A's ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik told The Post in June that he has “no relation to the Russian or any other intelligence service.” Mueller is now apparently directly disputing that using Gates's own words, via van der Zwaan.

Ever since his guilty plea last month, van der Zwaan's relation to the case has been unclear. We know he is the son-in-law of a prominent Russian Ukrainian banker, but as with other figures in this case, we have no idea why he lied to investigators. Was it an honest mistake, or was he covering something up?

The new van der Zwaan filing doesn't shed a whole bunch of new light on that, but it does suggest that Mueller views Kilimnik as a possible link between the Trump campaign and Russia, and that he believes Kilimnik hasn't been forthcoming about his ties to Russian intelligence. We also know that Manafort had been in contact with Kilimnik during the 2016 campaign, meeting him at least twice and asking him to provide private briefings about the 2016 election to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is closely tied to Vladimir Putin.

Whether that's pertinent to the broader collusion investigation is something we'll have to wait to find out. There is so much Mueller knows that we simply don't; this could be the tip of an iceberg or an extraneous fact. But those six words do seem at least a little conspicuous.



I’M NOT BIG ON PURE ECONOMICS, BUT IT OFTEN DOES HIGHLIGHT SOCIAL ISSUES AS WELL AS MONEY MATTERS. THIS IS A GREAT STORY FROM THAT ANGLE. IT IS A DISCUSSION ON THE RISE OF SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRATS, WHICH ALONG WITH THE AMAZING PERFORMANCE OF BERNIE SANDERS AND HIS PLANS FOR THE USA, ARE SHOWING A DRIFT TOWARD THE LIGHT AND AWAY FROM THE DARKNESS OF MONEY OVER PEOPLE, IN MY VIEW, OR AT LEAST I HOPE SO.

IT’S HAPPENING PARTLY BECAUSE VOTERS HAVE BEEN GETTING POORER AND POORER LATELY, AND THERE IS A DANGEROUS TREND TOWARD AN INCREASING LOSS OF TRACTION BY THOSE WHO’S FAMILY INCOME IS LESS THAN $50,000 A YEAR. LOSING OUR HOUSES DUE TO A MEDICAL BILL IS MORE AND MORE LIKELY NOW. LIKEWISE, TRUMP’S ATTEMPT TO BAN MANY NEWCOMERS TO THE USA WHO MAY BE OF ISLAMIC BACKGROUND -- AND SIMILAR STRIKES AGAINST AN OPEN AND FREE AMERICA -- ARE TRULY DISTURBING TO MANY AMERICANS.

PLACES LIKE WASHINGTON DC ARE DISTRESSING TO SOME BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF CRIME THAN IN A SMALL CITY OF 20,000, BUT THERE IS ALSO A MUCH WIDER RANGE OF THINGS TO DO WHEN WE AREN’T AT WORK, MORE PEOPLE OF BEAUTIFUL DIFFERENCES SUCH AS SARIS IN GORGEOUS COLORS, VENDORS ON THE STREET WHERE YOU CAN BUY FOOD OR SMALL ITEMS FOR CHRISTMAS GIFTS, ETC. I LOVE JACKSONVILLE, BUT I MISS WASHINGTON AND CHAPEL HILL VERY MUCH.

IN OTHER WORDS, LOVING WAR AND ALL-WHITE SOCIETY IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO BE PATRIOTIC. WHAT WE’RE SEEING, I THINK, IS A BACKLASH AGAINST THE FAR RIGHT. THEIR VIEW OF LIFE IS OPPRESSIVE TO OTHERS WHO DO NOT SHARE IT, AND THERE ARE OPEN AND OUTSPOKEN LIBERALS ALSO FOR COMPANIONSHIP. ADD IN THOSE SPOOKY-LOOKING TINFOIL HATS, WHICH STRIKE SOME OF US AS BEING DANGEROUSLY BORDERLINE PSYCHOTIC, AND THE FAR RIGHT ARE LOSING GROUND LITTLE BY LITTLE IN THE ESTEEM OF A LARGER AND LARGER PROPORTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I WILL POINT ALSO POLITICAL POLLS SINCE THE ELECTION. BEFORE TRUMP WAS ELECTED, HIS NUMBERS WERE RISING, BUT NOW THAT HE’S BEEN IN FOR A YEAR, THEY ARE GOING DOWN. ALL IN ALL, THAT ISN’T SURPRISING TO ME.

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/316785/in-slow-shift-walmart-tilting-democrat.html
In Slow Shift, Walmart Tilting Democrat
by Sarah Mahoney @mahoney_sarah, Yesterday
March 29, 2018

In an era when consumers are increasingly scrutinizing brands for their political leanings, Walmart has always been a sure bet as a red state stalwart. Just as Starbucks is cast as the beverage of choice for those lefty, latte-sipping elitists, Walmart has seemed the safest haven for gun-totin’ ’mericans.

Not so fast. New data from the YouGov BrandIndex shows that Walmart has been steadily creeping into the hearts of Democrats. More say they would consider purchasing something at Walmart, moving from negative five years ago to positive, and surpassing the purchase consideration of Independents. And perhaps most remarkably, it seems to have pulled off this feat without losing favor among Republican shoppers. YouGov CEO Ted Marzilli tells Marketing Daily what the new data means.

Q. So this is a big change. In early 2013, 43% of Democrats said they’d consider buying something from Walmart they time they went shopping, and now it’s 52%. And they’ve closed the gap from a 22 percentage point difference with Republicans five years ago to just 3 percentage points now. What’s happening?

A. Over the last five years, Walmart seems to have made inroads with consumers who identify as Democrats. In April 2015, for instance, it sided with companies like Apple in protesting religious freedom laws, which might have opened the doors to LGBT discrimination. It’s raised the minimum wage for workers, a cause Democrats identify with most. And last month, it increased the minimum age for gun buyers to 21 years old. And it hasn’t given up much to Republican consumers. It seems like it’s been able to walk that fine line, appealing to Democratic consumers without alienating their conservative consumers.

Q. Walmart seems to be good at taking these steps in quiet ways, so that conservatives either don’t notice or object. It did protest religious freedom laws, for example, but it didn’t take the bold step Target did of creating gender-neutral bathrooms. And as you say, it did raise the age for gun purchases from 18 to 21, but not until Dick’s Sporting Goods did so, and hence drew the most social media a fire. Do you think this kind of tip-toeing is part of the Walmart strategy?

A. I think you’re onto something. We find, with brands in crises, it’s often better to be going through the crisis second or third—those brands tend to get less attention. Is it intentional, or serendipitous? I don’t know. If it is their strategy, the data suggest it is a good one.

Q. An announcement made by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation said the magazine contributes to the hyper-sexualization of women. Many people might have expected it to make such a decision based on a Christian family-values group. Can that alter perception?

A. That just happened, so we don’t have data on it. That Walmart is sympathetic to what would seem to be a more left-leaning group is interesting. But in general, the magnitude and breadth of the #MeToo movement in recent months have made it less of a political issue—Republicans and Democrats are saying, “There’s a problem here.”

Q. Can brands be apolitical these days?

A. To a degree. Take Amazon. I expected it to skew more Democratic, in part because of Jeff Bezos’ political activity. There is a difference in how consumers who identify as Democrats versus Republicans see it, but it’s small. I wouldn’t call it a polarized brand. Starbucks is a different story. Starbucks has become part of the lexicon. It’s political-speak for the right to deride the liberals who drink high-priced coffees, like Starbucks. That does show up in the data. Chick-fil-A is another polarized brand.

Q. How do class differences affect this research? Once, Walmart was seen as a brand targeting low-income shoppers. Now, it’s changing its profile with acquisitions and e-commerce. And now Amazon is actively courting low-income shoppers, offering special Prime deals for people on public assistance, for example.

A. I don’t know if that would hurt Amazon with Republicans, but it could help them with Democrats. In different income groups, people who earn household incomes of $100,000 or more consider Amazon for purchase more than Walmart. And at the low end, with household incomes of $20,000 or less, they are neck and neck.


TODAY’S NEWS IS JUST FULL OF INTERESTING STUFF, AND THIS IS NOT THE LEAST OF THEM. THIS ONE BRINGS ME JOY.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-a-suspicious-facebook-message-from-liberia-sparked-an-unlikely-partnership/
By STEVE HARTMAN CBS NEWS March 29, 2018, 6:56 PM
How a suspicious Facebook message from Liberia sparked an unlikely partnership

MONROVIA, LIBERIA -- No one likes internet scammers, but in Ogden, Utah, we found a guy with a most profound distaste. Just wait until you hear how 33-year-old Ben Taylor responded to one random Facebook message: "My name is Joel from Liberia, West Africa. I need some assistance from you. Business or financial assistance dat (sic) will help empower me."

Ben insincerely responded, "How can I help?"

message.png
Ben Taylor decided to respond to a suspicious message he got online CBS NEWS

"I just wanted to go down this rabbit hole and see what were the tricks that they use to get people," Ben said.

But there's no way he would have guessed what happened next. The journey began when Joel, in Africa, proposed a business partnership. He asked Ben to mail used electronics to an address in New Jersey.

"I looked it up on Google Earth," Ben said. "There were broken down cars all over the place."

Ben wasn't falling for that. Instead, he proposed a different partnership. He lied to Joel, and told him he owned a photography business and could use some pretty pictures.

"So how about a sunset? How about a nice Liberian sunset?" Ben asked.

We asked Ben if he planned on paying for any photos once he got them.

"I said, 'Yeah, if it's good. If I like it, sure,'" Ben replied. "I figured the more time of theirs that I can waste, the less time that they'd have to spend ripping me or other people off."

Eventually, Joel sent two sunset photos -- we think. Turns out scenic photography wasn't exactly Joel's strong suit, not that it mattered.

ben-taylor.png
Ben Taylor CBS NEWS

"I told him, 'Hey, this was great," Ben said. "I told him, 'This is a good job, but I think you need a little bit better of a camera.'"

So Ben actually spent $60 to buy and mail him a shiny red one.

"Yeah, so I'm investing my money," Ben said. "My family thinks I'm crazy because I'm interacting with this guy in Liberia."

But Joel didn't think it was crazy at all. He wrote, "I've decided 2 really commit n devote myself 2 dis business, what other pictures you want me 2 take?" Ben replied, "We've gotta work on your photography."

Eventually, Joel did get better, which posed a big problem.

"When he put in the work I thought, 'Oh no, now I've got to figure out a way to compensate Joel for these pictures or I'm going to be the scammer,'" Ben said.

So Ben took to YouTube to sell a booklet he made using the pictures. He called it "By D Grace of God," a phrase borrowed from Joel's messages. The plan was to sell a few dozen copies to friends and family, until sales exploded.

"People from around the world and places that I've never even heard of were buying Joel's book," Ben said.

Soon they raised $1,000. Ben told Joel he could have half, and the rest, well, Joel would get that too, but with a catch. Ben told him he had to donate that $500 to charity.

With that intention in mind, Ben wired the money. At this point you need to know that $500 is close to a year's salary in Liberia. So really, it's kind of ridiculous to expect an unemployed, impoverished hustler to just give all that money away. Fact is, Ben never thought he would. Until another batch of pictures arrived.

There were book bags and notebooks. He cleaned out a market, rented a cab to hall the loot and blessed five schools with abundance. Joel lived up to be more savior than scammer.

"He came through," Ben said. "He showed me that there was a different side to him. So here we are."

Here we are, at the beginning of an unlikely partnership. Forged from doubt and distrust, but destined to change the world, and bring it a whole lot closer together.

Watch the rest of this story Friday, March 30th on the "CBS Evening News" 6:30-7:00 PM, ET.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



MADDOW TIME
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 3/28/18
Trump shops for new hires from TV and small, familiar circle
Rachel Maddow looks at how Donald Trump's recent hires have come from people he is immediately familiar with or has seen on Fox News, which is not a good strategy for putting together a legal team as Robert Mueller's investigation appears to be heating up. Duration: 17:10