March 7 and 8, 2018


News and Views


I’M SHOWING THE TITLE OF THIS NEWEST EXPOSE ON TRUMP, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE LIKE ME, YOU MAY WELL WANT TO READ IT “WHEN YOU FIND THE TIME.” IT LOOKS FASCINATING. MOSCOW, LAS VEGAS, TRUMP TOWER, HERE WE GO.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-russians-new-book-describes-began-las-vegas-nightclub-140006326.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=bad81b5f-db87-38f1-ad4e-b7e8e737f190&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Trump and the Russians: A new book describes how it all began — at a Las Vegas nightclub
Jerry Adler, Yahoo News • March 8, 2018


MORE ETHICS WAIVERS FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? I WISH THAT WERE SURPRISING.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/swamp-lobbyists-ethics-waivers-work-trump-53600028
What swamp? Lobbyists get ethics waivers to work for Trump
By MICHAEL BIESECKER, JULIET LINDERMAN AND RICHARD LARDNER, ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — Mar 8, 2018, 11:03 AM ET

Photographs -- FILE - In this Feb. 22, 2018, file photo, White House counsel Don McGahn gestures while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), at National Harbor, Md. As a candidate, Donald Trump pledged to drain the swamp in Washington. But as president, records show he and his appointees have stocked federal agencies with ex-lobbyists and corporate lawyers who now help regulate they very industries rom which they collected paychecks. Records reviewed by The Associated Press show McGahn, has issued at least 24 ethics waivers to key administration officials at the White House and executive branch agencies. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

President Donald Trump and his appointees have stocked federal agencies with ex-lobbyists and corporate lawyers who now help regulate the very industries from which they previously collected paychecks, despite promising as a candidate to drain the swamp in Washington.

A week after his January 2017 inauguration, Trump signed an executive order that bars former lobbyists, lawyers and others from participating in any matter they lobbied or otherwise worked on for private clients within two years before going to work for the government.

But records reviewed by The Associated Press show Trump's top lawyer, White House counsel Don McGahn, has issued at least 24 ethics waivers to key administration officials at the White House and executive branch agencies.

Though the waivers were typically signed by McGahn months ago, the Office of Government Ethics disclosed several more on Wednesday.

One allows FBI Director Chris Wray "to participate in matters involving a confidential former client." The three-sentence waiver gives no indication about what Wray's conflict of interest might be or how it may violate Trump's ethics order.

Before returning to the Justice Department last year, Wray represented clients that included big banks and other corporations as a partner at a white-glove law firm that paid him $9.2 million a year, according to his financial disclosure statement.

Asked about the waivers, Lindsay Walters, a White House spokeswoman, said, "In the interests of full transparency and good governance, the posted waivers set forth the policy reasons for granting an exception to the pledge."

Trump's executive order on ethics supplanted a more stringent set of rules put in place by President Barack Obama in 2009 to avoid conflicts of interests. Nearly 70 waivers were issued to executive branch officials during Obama's eight years, though those were generally more narrowly focused and offered a fuller legal explanation for why the waiver was granted.

Craig Holman, who lobbies in Washington for stricter government ethics and lobbying rules on behalf of the advocacy group Public Citizen, said just five of the waivers under Obama went to former lobbyists, most whom had worked for nonprofit groups.

He was initially optimistic when Trump issued his executive order.

"I was very surprised and at the same time very hopeful that he was going to take his pledge to 'drain the swamp' seriously," Holman said Wednesday. "It is now quite evident that the pledge was little more than campaign rhetoric. Not only are key provisions simply ignored and not enforced, when in cases where obvious conflicts of interest are brought into the limelight, the administration readily issues waivers from the ethics rules."

An analysis by the AP shows that nearly half of the political appointees hired at the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump have strong industry ties. Of 59 EPA hires tracked by the AP over the last year, about a third worked as registered lobbyists or lawyers for chemical manufacturers, fossil fuel producers and other corporate clients that raise the very type of revolving-door conflicts of interests that Trump promised voters he would eliminate.

Most of those officials have signed ethics agreements saying they would not participate in actions involving their former clients while working at the EPA. At least three have gotten waivers allowing them to do just that.

Erik Baptist, a top EPA lawyer, worked until 2016, as senior lawyer and registered federal lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, the national trade group for the oil and gas industry. According to disclosure reports, he lobbied Congress to pass legislation repealing the Renewable Fuel Standard, a program created more than a decade ago to set minimum production quotas for biofuels to be blended into gasoline, heating oil and jet fuel.

Baptist signed an ethics agreement pledging to recuse himself from any issues involving his former employer, including several lawsuits filed against the agency where he now works. But in August, McGahn granted him approval to advise EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on issues surrounding the renewable fuel law.

McGahn wrote that he was exempting Baptist from the ethics pledge because "his deep understanding of the RFS program and the regulated industry, make him the ideal person to assist the administrator and his senior leadership team to make EPA and its renewable fuel programs more efficient and effective."

Pruitt, a Republican who was closely aligned with the oil and gas industry as an elected official in his home state of Oklahoma, proposed modest cuts last summer to production quotas for biofuels that include ethanol, despite promises from Trump to leave the Renewable Fuel Standard alone.

That triggered bipartisan outrage among members of Congress from major corn-growing states, who threatened last fall to block Senate votes on the administration's environmental nominees unless Pruitt backed down.

"Scott Pruitt has called on yet another fossil-fuel industry lobbyist ... to help him tear down important protections for the American people," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Senate Environment Committee. "And the White House plays along, granting the lobbyist an ethics waiver."

Jeffrey M. Sands previously worked as a top lobbyist for Syngenta, a major pesticide manufacturer. Following a request from the EPA, McGahn determined it was "in the public interest" to allow Sands to work as Pruitt's senior adviser for agriculture.

Dennis "Lee" Forsgren, the deputy assistant administrator helping oversee the EPA's enforcement clean water regulations, was allowed to work on the EPA's hurricane response efforts involving the Miccosukee, a Native American tribe in Florida for whom he was a registered lobbyist up until 2016.

"All EPA employees get ethics briefings when they start and continually work with our ethics office regarding any potential conflicts they may encounter while employed here," EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said when asked whether the ethics waivers violate the spirt of Trump's executive order.

The Treasury Department asked McGahn for three waivers. Anthony Sayegh, appointed as the assistant secretary for public affairs, previously worked as a Fox News contributor. His waiver allows him to "participate in matters involving his former client."

Brian Callahan, the department's top lawyer at Treasury, was granted a waiver concerning issues involving his former position as general counsel at Cooper and Kirk PLLC. The law firm represents Fairholme Funds, which recently filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department and the Fair Housing Finance Agency.

McGahn's waiver allows Callahan to participate in discussions about policy decisions pertaining to housing finance reform, even though "some of these discussions could at some point touch upon issues that might impact the litigation."

The State Department got five waivers. The former law firm of Edward T. McMullen, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland, represented Boeing. The Swiss government recently announced its intent to purchase military equipment and accept bids from American companies.

Another waiver allows communications director Heather Nauert to work with employees of Fox News even though she used to work as a broadcast journalist for the network. Nauert is identified in the waiver, which was heavily redacted before release, by her legal name, Heather Norby.

At the Pentagon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Randall G. Schriver got a waiver allowing him to "participate in any particular matter involving specific parties," including his former client: the Japanese government.

Health and Human Services asked for waivers for senior counselor to the secretary Keagan Lenihan, a registered lobbyist who recently worked for a pharmaceutical and health services company and for chief of staff Lance Leggitt, who recently lobbied on behalf of his law firm's health law practice group.

Agriculture Department policy adviser Kailee Tzacz is allowed to "participate personally and substantially in matters regarding the Dietary Guidelines for Americans," a guide that offers nutritional information and recommendations.

McGahn's waiver didn't offer much detail into the potential conflict Tzacz's appointment would pose. But other records show she most recently served as food policy director for the Corn Refiners Association, a trade organization representing producers of corn starch, corn oil and high fructose corn syrup.

Before that, she lobbied on behalf of SNAC International, a trade association for snack food manufacturers.

———

Follow Biesecker at http://twitter.com/mbieseck , Linderman at http://twitter.com/JulietLinderman , and Lardner at http://twitter.com/rplardner



THIS KIND OF THING SHOWS WHY THESE PEOPLE MAKE ME SO NERVOUS – IT’S NOT ONLY A STRIKE AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, IT’S A BACK-HANDED SLAP AT THE REMAINING LOGIC IN THIS COUNTRY. ALL THIS ANTI-VAX STUFF IS ONE OF MY PET PEEVES. FOR GOODNESS, SAKE, WE HAVE GOOD MEDICAL SCIENCE HERE. USE IT.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hallelujah-cure-trump-campaign-adviser-says-pray-away-flu-150052335.html
The hallelujah cure: Trump campaign adviser says pray away the flu
Jerry Adler, Yahoo News • February 12, 2018

Photograph -- Yahoo News photo illustration; photos: AP, Kenneth Copeland Ministries via Facebook

Brethren, our topic for this week’s column is the flu, because I have it.

I followed the advice of the Centers for Disease Control and got a vaccination, which may or may not have lessened my symptoms. But then I discovered I had neglected the most important prophylaxis of all: prayer.

This advice came from the evangelist Gloria Copeland, who with her husband, Kenneth, runs a religious empire based largely on faith healing. Copeland posted a video last week that argued, passionately if incoherently, either that the flu doesn’t actually exist (“We got a duck season, a deer season, but we don’t have a flu season”) or that faith can protect you from it (“inoculate yourself with the word of God”).

At a time when the CDC was warning that this year’s flu outbreak appears to be the worst in almost a decade, Copeland’s remarks went, uhh, viral. They also attracted unwanted attention to her connection to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, on whose “evangelical advisory board” she and her husband served, alongside prominent Christian and Republican figures including Jerry Falwell Jr., Michele Bachmann and James Dobson. Apparently in response, a clarification went up on the Copeland Ministries website, insisting that “Gloria did not say or imply that you shouldn’t get a flu shot or see a doctor. Gloria and Kenneth Copeland Ministries value medicine and doctors and would never counsel someone not to seek medical care.”

That disclaimer would be more convincing if there weren’t copious evidence that Copeland actually does not value medicine, at least in comparison with the kind of healing that goes on in her church and at revivals. Her statement on the website was followed by pages of testimonials like this one, from “Terri”: “Tests showed I had a growth on my gallbladder and the doctor recommended surgery. We prayed and received healing by faith. Hands were laid on me and I never had another symptom.” As Copeland once preached: “We know what’s wrong with you. You’ve got cancer. The bad news is we don’t know what to do about it — except give you some poison that will make you sicker. Now, which do you want to do? Do you want to do that, or do you want to sit in here on a Saturday morning, hear the word of God and let faith come into your heart and be healed?”

At least since the time of Jesus, Christians have prayed for health. But Kurt Andersen, in his indispensable guide to American irrationality, Fantasyland, traces contemporary faith healing to the advent of the charismatic, ecstatic form of Christian worship known as Pentecostalism. After its heyday in the early decades of the 20th century, it was banished to the fringes of society for decades, only to reemerge in recent years under the guise of “prosperity gospel.” As preached by the Copelands, Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen and many others, one can think of prosperity gospel as a form of “applied religion,” by analogy to, say, “applied science,” that involves trying to obtain concrete rewards in the here and now, including financial success, personal happiness and overcoming adversity.

Such as the flu.

Andersen notes that this is not a practice confined to right-wing Christians. Seeking to cure cancer by praying is not more or less implausible than using crystals for the purpose. Oprah, that great font of national gullibility, was an early exponent of “The Secret,” a best-selling book by Rhonda Byrnes that repackaged prosperity gospel in secular form as “the law of attraction,” the idea that “the universe” would provide whatever you sought if you just thought about it long and hard enough.

Morally, this is deplorable. Byrne’s book never so much as raised the possibility that the awesome power she had discovered could be used for the benefit of anyone else — a hungry child, say — rather than grabbing jewelry, toys, lovers or a good parking spot. It’s also common knowledge that the “prosperity” in prosperity gospel mostly accrues to the people who preach it.

Metaphysically, it’s a muddle. Prayer doesn’t work all the time, obviously, so why does God heal some people and not others? How does he do it? The Bible verses that Copeland cites in support of her practice were written at a time when the human body was a black box, and there was no inherent reason to doubt that Jesus could raise someone from the dead. By 1987, though, when Oral Roberts made the same claim for himself, it was understood that restoring a corpse to life requires reversing a whole cascade of cellular processes for which there is no known, or even conceivable, mechanism. Does God go through each of the trillions of cells in a human body and jump-start the mitochondria?

Still, between coughing fits last week, I wondered: Could Copeland be on to something? I had relied on medical science to ward off the flu, and I got sick anyway. (Full disclosure: this is a self-diagnosis, based on my feeling the way Trump reportedly described the nations of Africa). What does science have to say about prayer as a form of medical prophylaxis?

It is part of the greatness of the scientific method that this question can be asked, and, within the limits of our present-day knowledge, answered. The first statistical study of so-called intercessory prayer was published in 1872 by the eminent Victorian scientist Sir Francis Galton, who noted that, notwithstanding the millions of prayers regularly offered in European countries for the health of their respective royal families, on average royals actually died younger — 64 years — than clergymen, lawyers, military officers, or members of all other genteel professions, excluding deaths by accident or violence.

I rest my case.

No, actually, I don’t, because scientists have continued to study the question — not by calculating the lifespan of kings, but with controlled experiments enlisting hundreds of subjects and modern statistical analysis. You can read an analysis by David R. Hodge of Arizona State University here, and another here. What seemed to Galton like a straightforward question of statistics turns out to pose all kinds of research conundrums. What kinds of prayer should be studied, and by whom? For what kinds of disease? Should the people prayed for be told in advance, and is their informed consent required? What measures should be used to determine if the prayers worked?

Each researcher answered those questions differently. A few studies, less than half, indicated a beneficial effect of intercessory prayer, but the effects were small. Often the outcomes involved obscure markers of recovery such as the incidence of certain specific surgical complications. God works in mysterious ways, but that’s a long way from being raised from the dead.

At least one researcher treated the whole question as a joke, and did an experiment to show that praying for patients years after they were sick — and in some cases, after they were already dead — was correlated with shorter hospital stays. (The paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal — the data was real, if nonsensical — and it has been cited by other researchers, leading to some professional angst about the ethics of scientific satire.)

The bottom line is that while we can’t prove that prayer works or doesn’t work, if it were a drug up for approval by the FDA, it likely wouldn’t qualify. Hodge says it would be classified as an “experimental” intervention.

Still, there’s no harm in it, is there? When people are sick, their families and friends want to feel they’re doing something, and praying for them, if nothing else, keeps them in mind. Last month White House press secretary Sarah Sanders asked people to pray for 9-year-old Sophia Marie Campa-Peters, who was about to undergo life-saving brain surgery. Those who responded undoubtedly felt good about themselves, Sophia and her parents took courage from the response, and Trump himself, at the National Prayer Breakfast last week, cited her recovery after “millions of people lifted Sophia up in their prayers.” Who could be against that — given, of course, that the prayers were viewed, properly, as supplemental to the surgery, rather than a substitute for it?

But that’s the catch: Some people do substitute faith for medical treatment. The Copelands’ own church was at the center of a measles outbreak in 2013, spread by children whose parents had failed to vaccinate them. The church denied that it discourages vaccination, but as one former member explained, “To get a vaccine would have been viewed by me and my friends and my peers as an act of fear — that you doubted God would keep you safe. … We simply didn’t do it.”

As public health officials have said repeatedly, an unvaccinated child isn’t just a risk to herself, but even to those who did receive a shot; the operative concept is “community [aka ‘herd’] immunity.” More broadly, the belief that we can turn our problems over to Jesus — or the “law of attraction” — can distract us from other urgent problems that require human solutions. And environmental problems in particular require those human solutions. This is a mindset that is compounded by the fact that many of the same people who turn to God to keep them from getting the flu also believe in the imminence of the End Times, which would render the melting of the polar ice caps an irrelevant inconvenience.

James Inhofe, the chair of the Senate Environmental Committee, has been especially forceful in this regard. His view is to let God handle global warming, since it’s out of humanity’s hands anyway. “God’s still up there,” he has said. “The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

All I can say about that is, for Inhofe’s sake I hope he doesn’t take the same attitude toward his own health as he does toward the health of the Earth.

And as for me, I need a nap.



I HADN’T BEEN TOO CONVINCED THAT YAHOO.COM NEWS WAS A REALLY GOOD NEWS SOURCE, BUT THE MORE I SEE, THE MORE I LIKE THEM. THIS ONE, ESPECIALLY, BY MATT BAI, IS EXPLANATORY AND INSIGHTFUL. SEE WHAT YOU THINK.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nationalist-autocrats-march-trump-yawns-100038611.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=69f70237-124f-3ea9-acd0-fc922af945e2&.tsrc=notification-brknews
Nationalist autocrats are on the march. Trump yawns.
Matt Bai,Yahoo News • March 8, 2018

Photographs -- Yahoo News photo illustration; photos: AP, Getty

At this time seven years ago, what came to be known as the Arab Spring was blossoming across the Middle East, spreading the ideal of reform. It was possible to think then that what the conservative theorist Francis Fukuyama had predicted at the end of the Cold War, in a book called “The End of History and the Last Man,” was actually coming to pass — that eons of autocracy were ending, and a global age of democratic self-determinism had dawned.

As it turns out, though: not really. And not just because Egypt is back to military rule, while Syria and Yemen and Libya are each engaged in all-out civil war.

What you might have missed over the last week or so — with all this mesmerizing spectacle about coming tariffs and an exodus of White House aides and a guy who briefly worked for the campaign publicly melting down on a string of cable shows — is a rush back toward the repression and militarism of the 20th century in some of the world’s most powerful nations.

In China, Xi Jinping just woke up one morning and made himself president for life. In Russia, Vladimir Putin, on the verge of achieving the same status, threatened last week to unleash a new generation of nukes on Florida. In North Korea, the strongman Kim Jong Un has managed to reopen talks with the South by menacing the region with missiles.

It really is stupefying, as others have pointed out, that the American government, currently administered by the party of Ronald Reagan, offers zero response to any of this. (You would think President Trump would at least rise to defend the territorial integrity of Mar-a-Lago, considering what nuclear annihilation might mean for property values.)

But there’s a deeper, more vexing question here about where this president fits into the moment. Is Trump’s presidency causing this sharp turn in the historical current, or is he merely a product of it?

If you’re not quite old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall or Boris Yeltsin standing on the tank (or, for that matter, Boris Yeltsin), then let’s very roughly revisit the sweep of recent history. The end of the Cold War between East and West, after nearly 50 years of proxy wars and client states around the world, unleashed a series of forces that are only now coming into focus.

First came the sudden release of nationalist and religious tensions that had been bottled up during the long conflict between capitalism and communism. This led to wars, persecution and waves of immigration. And all of that was exacerbated by the revolution in digital technology, which displaced whole industries and created the tools for both spreading ideologies and organizing movements.

At the same time, though, as all of these modern forces were destabilizing communities and causing people everywhere to seek solidarity in national or religious identity, elites in the industrialized nations were talking about something completely different: integration, open borders, global markets. They were exhorting citizens to abandon old identities, rather than cling to them.

“Part of the internationalization effort was to say that cultures aren’t different, that we are all the same,” the Yale professor John Lewis Gaddis told me this week. “That, I think, was a mistake.”

I called Gaddis because he’s one of the nation’s preeminent scholars of the Cold War period, and I wondered if he thought we were now headed back to something more like the period he had studied.

But Gaddis told me that he now looks at the Cold War as a kind of brief intermission in the longer drama of world events, which is driven less by heady ideology than by nationalist identity and absolutism.

What we’re actually moving toward, in other words, is a continuation of exactly where we had been heading for centuries before the advent of nuclear weapons forced the world to temporarily divide between ideological spheres of influence. We’re going back to the time of czars and kings ensconced behind walls of ethnic pride.

“What’s happening now,” Gaddis said, “is a pretty widespread, fast-moving backlash against internationalism.”

So, to get back to my initial question, what’s Trump’s role in all of this re-entrenchment and creeping authoritarianism — cause or effect?

The answer, I think, is some of both.

You could make an argument, certainly, that Trumpism is a close cousin of the nationalist movements in Europe and Russia, which preceded it. The backlash against internationalism that Gaddis talks about, the simmering outrage at cultural and economic integration, is exactly why a lot of white, working-class Americans so resented Barack Obama by the end of his presidency, more than simple racism or political ideology.

In his rhetoric and policies, and even more so in his personal journey, Obama symbolized the blurring of lines, the mashing together of cultures and countries and economic fortunes into one big pile of haves and have-nots.

But if Obama personified internationalism, then Trump came to personify the inevitable response — “America First.” Trump didn’t create the anti-internationalist wave. He was enveloped and carried along by it, no less than Putin or the far-right nationalist parties in Europe.

But that doesn’t mean Trump isn’t also helping to embolden repressive nationalist rulers to tighten their grips — or that he’s helpless to stop it. Trump leaves the impression that his administration isn’t interested in checking the brazen power of dictators, mainly because it’s true.

By now, Putin, Xi and all the rest of them have seen enough to know that Trump isn’t like other American presidents — that he doesn’t really aspire to safeguard the world or champion ideals of liberty. Not only can you seize and abuse power with impunity, but you can even threaten to obliterate Guam or Florida without much fear of conflict, as long as you’re only really upsetting the media commentators who worry about that kind of thing.

The real danger here isn’t that Trump will decide that he too wants to suspend free speech or become president for life, as he joked last week. The flashing neon danger sign is that at some point — bank on it — one of these nuclear-armed strongmen is going to overshoot and do something we can’t actually afford to ignore. Someone is going to mistake our temporary self-absorption for indifference to our own national interest.

And in a world of tweets and bots, the kind of confrontation that used to move in slow motion — in the form of naval embargoes or Security Council resolutions — might get out of control very quickly.

“No one has time to back off and reflect now,” Gaddis told me. “It seems to me the potential for misinterpretation or misunderstanding is greater than it was in the past.”

Which is why the sooner Trump starts standing up to nationalist dictators and letting them know where the line is, the safer we’ll all be. As Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy or George W. Bush could testify, presidents don’t get to decide when it’s time to confront aggression.

History does, and it hasn’t ended yet.



WHAT I CAN’T FIGURE OUT IS WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS TERMINALLY INEPT OR SIMPLY COMPLICIT. EITHER WAY, IT’S VERY DISTURBING. READ THIS STATEMENT BY ADM. ROGERS.

“IT WAS JUST LAST WEEK WHEN ADM. MICHAEL ROGERS, THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, CONCEDED TO LAWMAKERS THAT U.S. OFFICIALS ARE “PROBABLY NOT DOING ENOUGH” ON THIS ISSUE, ADDING THAT THE PRESIDENT STILL HASN’T AUTHORIZED HIS OFFICE TO DISRUPT RUSSIAN CYBERATTACKS.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Trump wants 'credit' for non-existent efforts to shield elections
By Steve Benen 03/07/18 12:45PM

Photograph -- epa06573242 US President Donald J. Trump attends a meeting with leaders from the steel and aluminum manufacturing industries in the cabinet Room of the White... JIM LO SCALZO

At yesterday’s White House press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, a reporter asked Donald Trump about Russian efforts to influence American elections. His response rambled a bit and mainly focused on his belief that Republicans will do well in the 2018 midterms. Trump acted as if he didn’t understand the question.

And so, the reporter again asked whether the American president is “worried about Russia trying to meddle” in this year’s elections. Trump replied:

“No, because we’ll counteract whatever they do. We’ll counteract it very strongly. And we are having strong backup systems. And we’ve been working, actually – we haven’t been given credit for this, but we’ve actually been working very hard on the ‘18 election and the ‘20 election coming up.”

Note, in Trump’s mind, it’s important to always stress that he and his team be given “credit” for their efforts – because in this White House, effective public service is not its own reward.

But even putting that aside, the problem, whether the president understands this or not, is that he and his team haven’t been “working very hard” on this at all. In fact, by all appearances, the exact opposite is true.

It was just last week when Adm. Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, conceded to lawmakers that U.S. officials are “probably not doing enough” on this issue, adding that the president still hasn’t authorized his office to disrupt Russian cyberattacks

Making matters worse, we learned soon after that the Trump administration’s Global Engagement Center has been allocated $120 million to counter foreign efforts to meddle in elections – and it hasn’t yet spent a dime.

The Washington Post also reported, “During his first year as president, Trump held no Cabinet or high-level National Security Council meetings about combating Russian interference. He and his administration have sought to roll back or simply have not enforced measures to hold Moscow accountable, such as sanctions passed overwhelmingly by Congress.”

It’s not exactly a mystery how Russian officials are likely to respond to these circumstances. They attacked the United States in 2016, successfully ended up with the results Putin’s government wanted, have faced limited repercussions, and will face limited resistance if they launch another intelligence operation against us this year.

U.S. intelligence agencies are currently ringing the alarm, making clear they expect an escalation in efforts from Moscow. The NSA’s Rogers told Congress last week that Putin “has clearly come to the conclusion that ‘there’s little price to pay here and therefore I can continue this activity.’”

It’s against this backdrop that Trump is not only doing very little, he also expects “credit” for his passivity against a foreign threat.



MORE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT IS ON THE SINGLE SUBJECT ENTRY CALLED “UNAPOLOGETIC.” IT’S SICK, BUT IF YOU ARE AS INTERESTED AS I AM IN PATHOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY, YOU MAY WANT TO GO TO IT. WHAT I WONDER IS WHY PEOPLE FILL THEIR MINDS WITH SUCH MATERIAL. DOES IT MAKE THEM PERSONALLY ANY SMARTER OR WHITER? THAT’S WHERE THE FALLACY LIES. WE NEED TO SEE PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS RATHER THAN GROUP MEMBERS AND APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCES, RATHER THAN HATING THEM. IF WE WOULD DO THAT WE WOULD INEVITABLY BECOME MORE “INTELLIGENT,” AND A GREAT DEAL NICER.

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/03/05/florida-teacher-racist-podcast/394706002/
Florida teacher, accused of hosting racist podcast, removed from classroom
USA TODAY NETWORKSamantha Mitchell, WTSP-TV, Tampa-St. Petersburg Published 11:16 a.m. ET March 5, 2018 | Updated 12:00 p.m. ET March 5, 2018

TAMPA — A Florida teacher whom the Huffington Post identified as secretly hosting a podcast that espouses racist views, has been removed from the classroom, the school district said Sunday.

According to the Huffington Post, Dayanna Volitich, 25, taught social studies at Crystal River Middle School in Crystal River, Fla. The website said Volitich hosts the Unapologetic* podcast under the pseudonym "Tiana Dalichov."

In a podcast from Feb. 26, Volitich agreed with a guest who criticized the idea that “a kid from Nigeria and a kid who came from Sweden are supposed to learn exactly the same” and have the “same IQ.” She also argued that "science" has proved some races are smarter than others.

More: Ex-middle school teacher accused of sex with student, 14

The Citrus County (Fla.) School District made the announcement of Volitich's removal Sunday in a statement from Sandra Himmel, the superintendent of the school district.

In the statement posted on Facebook, the school district said: "The Human Resources department was notified and an investigation was initiated immediately. The teacher has been removed from the classroom and the investigation is ongoing."

Citrus County School District
on Sunday
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Citrus County School District
Superintendent of Schools, Sandra “Sam” Himmel

On Friday, March 2, 2018 the Citrus County School District was made aware of a concerning podcast by a Huffington Post reporter. The reporter indicated they believed one of the persons participating in the podcast was a teacher at Crystal River Middle School. The Human Resources department was notified and an investigation was initiated immediately. The teacher has been removed from the classroom and the investigation is ongoing. Pursuant to Florida Statute an open investigation and materials related to it are exempt from public record and cannot be discussed until the investigation is complete.

A photo on the Dalichov Twitter account (now deleted) matches Volitich's staff photo on the school's website, down to the earrings being worn, the Huffington Post noted. It also noted the names "Dayanna Volitich" and "Tiana Dalichov" are almost anagrams.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Samantha Mitchell
@sammitchh101
Citrus Co. School District removes teacher over alleged racist podcast http://on.wtsp.com/2CYBYwS

10:30 PM - Mar 4, 2018 · Gandy, FL
5
See Samantha Mitchell's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy

When the Huffington Post contacted the school district, Scott Hebert, executive director of educational services, told the site it could not confirm that "Dalichov" was Volitich but said the district "will be looking into the statements she made, checking the validity to see if they violate our code of ethics and policy."

More: Georgia teacher who fired gun in classroom had previous, bizarre run-ins with police

Volitich also bragged in the podcast about being a teacher, and said she lied to a principal after parents complained she had introduced her political views into her classroom, the website said. She also said more white nationalists need to become teachers.

The Post said it had tried to contact Volitich and "Dalichov" for comment but got no response. Social media accounts under both names had been deleted.

Crystal River is 66 miles north of Tampa. Citrus County, where the school is located, is 88.5% white and 3.1% black, according to U.S. Census estimates from July 2016.

Follow Samantha Mitchell on Twitter: @sammitchh101
Unapologetic



WHAT SNOPES SAYS

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/03/06/florida-teacher-dayanna-volitich/
Teacher Accused of Espousing White Nationalist Views Says It Was ‘Satire’
By David Emery 6 March 2018

Suspended Florida middle school teacher Dayanna Volitich insists that the racially charged messages she posted under the pseudonym "Tiana Dalichov" were just a "hobby."

A Florida teacher who was removed from her post pending an investigation into allegations that she espoused racist sentiments online has released a statement denying that she is a white nationalist and defending her controversial remarks as “political satire.”

Dayanna Volitich, a 25-year-old social studies teacher at Crystal River Middle School in northern Florida hosted a podcast called “Unapologetic” and regularly tweeted under the pseudonym “Tiana Dalichov,” according to a 3 March 2018 Huffington Post report. In since-deleted tweets, “Tiana” expressed views such as that it will be necessary to “eradicate [Muslims] from the face of the earth” to end terrorism and “It isn’t supremacist or hateful to prefer your own people over others,” among other examples. She argued in a recent podcast that science has proven that some racial groups are less intelligent than others.

In response to the article, Citrus County School District released this statement from Superintendent of Schools Sandra Himmel:

On Friday, March 2, 2018 the Citrus County School District was made aware of a concerning podcast by a Huffington Post reporter. The reporter indicated they believed one of the persons participating in the podcast was a teacher at Crystal River Middle School. The Human Resources department was notified and an investigation was initiated immediately. The teacher has been removed from the classroom and the investigation is ongoing.

We have not been able to reach Volitich for comment, but in a statement to NBC News, she denied being a white supremacist and characterized the activities of her alter ego as a “hobby”:

None of the statements released about my being a white nationalist or white supremacist have any truth to them, nor are my political beliefs injected into my teaching of social studies curriculum. While operating under the Russian pseudonym “Tiana Dalichov” on social media and the “Unapologetic Podcast,” I employed political satire and exaggeration, mainly to the end of attracting listeners and followers, and generating conversation about the content discussed between myself and my guests.

As an adult, my decisions are my own, and my family has nothing whatsoever to do with my social media accounts or my podcast. From them, I humbly ask for forgiveness, as it was never my intention to cause them grief while engaging in a hobby on my personal time.

As it’s usually defined, “political satire” refers to the use of humor and irony to lampoon politicians and particular political points of view (the writings of conservative/libertarian humorist P.J. O’Rourke and Stephen Colbert’s long-running television show The Colbert Report are contemporary examples of the genre). If Volitich intended her more controversial remarks to be taken as facetious or ironic, there’s no obvious indication of that in the statements themselves, however. Nor did Volitich identify herself as a satirist in her podcast, during a recent episode of which she defended the view that race determines IQ as “scientific.”

As of 6 March, Volitich had erased virtually all traces of her former online presence. According to the Citrus County Chronicle, an examination of her personnel file found no record of suspensions or other disciplinary actions since she began working at the middle school in 2016. Though Volitich has not been accused of breaking any laws, the Citrus County School District upholds professional standards requiring teachers to “support the beliefs, shared vision, and mission adopted by the district” and “adhere to professional responsibility and ethical conduct.”



THIS STUDENT’S STORY IS SAD. I HOPE HE DOES GET WELL. HE TOOK FIVE BULLETS WHILE HOLDING A DOOR OPEN TO LET MORE STUDENTS INTO THE CLASSROOM. THE SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY IS SHOWN VISITING HIM IN THE HOSPITAL.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/91743/anthony-borges-15-hailed-as-hero-of-florida-school-shooting
Anthony Borges, 15, hailed as hero of Florida school shooting
Feb 19, 2018

A teenage survivor of the Florida school shooting put himself in the line of fire to save fellow students, according to a classmate.


SEE RELATED
Florida school shooting leaves 17 dead
Florida shooting: Nikolas Cruz confesses to school massacre
Anthony Borges, 15, was shot five times during the Valentine’s Day rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

Fellow student Carlos Rodriguez told ABC that he and more than a dozen other students owed their lives to Borges’ heroism.

Borges was among about 20 students who sought refuge in a classroom as the gunman stalked the corridors of the school, shooting randomly at fleeing students with an automatic rifle.

As he hurried to lock the door, the gunman opened fire, Rodriguez said. Despite being wounded, the boy held his ground and continued to lock the door.

“None of us knew what to do. So, he took the initiative to just save his other classmates,” Rodriguez said.

Borges was shot four more times, his body shielding other students, who escaped unharmed.

The 15-year-old was later rushed to hospital with bullet wounds to his back and legs. He was the last of the hospitalised survivors to be listed as “critical”, but his condition has now been upgraded to stable, the New York Daily News reports.

A Facebook post by the local sheriff’s department showing Sheriff Scott Israel shaking the injured boy’s hand as he lies in a hospital bed has been shared nearly 10,000 times.

Israel said he was “honoured” to visit Borges, whom he described as having “a long road ahead”.

Ex-student Nikolas Cruz has reportedly confessed to carrying out the attack, which left 17 people dead and more than a dozen wounded.


I DO HOPE SCOTT SIGNS THIS. HOWEVER IT’S WRITTEN, IT’S PROBABLY BETTER THAN NOTHING, AND THE LIST OF ITEMS INCLUDING BELOW LOOK LIKE THEY HIT A GOOD MANY BASES. IT’S BEEN 20 YEARS SINCE A GUN CONTROL BILL IN FLORIDA.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/07/florida-house-passes-first-gun-controls-20-years-gov-scott-wont-say-if-hell-sign/405452002/?csp=chromepush
Florida House passes first gun controls in 20+ years; Gov. Scott won't say if he'll sign it
James Call, Tallahassee Democrat Published 6:54 p.m. ET March 7, 2018 | Updated 7:05 p.m. ET March 7, 2018

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida House sent the state’s first gun control measures in 22 years to Gov. Rick Scott on a 67-50 vote Wednesday. The measure that also creates a school marshal program to arm classroom teachers comes three weeks after 17 were slain at a Parkland high school.

The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was Florida’s third mass shooting since June 2016. Added to the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando and the Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, 71 people have died in mass shootings.

Scott said he will read the bill and talk with family members of those killed before he decides whether to sign or veto the measure.

“I’m going to take the time to read the bill,” said Scott. “I have been clear. I don’t believe we should be arming teachers.”

Scott wants more school resource officers instead of teachers with guns. He proposed one SRO under control of the local sheriff for every 1,000 students.

It includes a three-day waiting period for most gun purchases, raises the minimum age to 21 to purchase a gun and gives police more authority to confiscate weapons.

The Legislature lined up behind a first-in-the-nation school marshal plan that would arm teachers after a teenager used a semi-automatic rifle to hunt down 17 students and teachers at a Parkland high school three weeks ago.

More: Nikolas Cruz indicted on 17 murder counts in Florida school shooting

More: Gun control momentum 'didn't happen out of the blue': Why Parkland's different

More: After Florida shooting, more than 600 copycat threats have targeted schools

Eligible to carry guns into schools would be a teacher who is a member of the U.S. Reserves or National Guard, in the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps program, or is a current or former law enforcement officer. Staff members could volunteer for the program, but classroom teachers who exclusively perform instruction would be blocked from the program.

While Parkland parents got behind the bill, educators and teachers' unions voiced opposition to the plan.

“The Leon Classroom Teachers Association does not want anyone in the schools with a weapon who is not a sworn law enforcement officer,” said Scott Mazur, LCTA President. "There's good and bad in this bill. I guess it comes down to morals."

The marshal program, which was renamed the "guardian program," was one of three objections opponents used to try to kill the bill. Another was the House’s refusal to ban assault weapons. Others wanted to reject new restrictions on access to guns. They said they saw no need to punish law-abiding citizens for the act of a madman.

Through two days of debate, the opposition refused to stand down and Wednesday some pushed for a special session to deal with school safety and guns. Democrats huddled in the morning and voted 21-9 to vote no as a caucus.

Democratic Leader Janet Cruz advised the group to vote in their constituents' best interests.

"We live in America. You are allowed to voice your opinion without political prosecution," Cruz told the nine breaking from the pack.

"No one should be bullied for their decision or their vote," said Cruz.

More: Parkland student newspaper scoops world on DeVos visit

More: Man destroys his semi-automatic rifle to support Parkland students

“This giant gun package has been cobbled together with half-baked ideas that haven’t been fully vetted and is being crammed down our throats,” said Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando. “We need more time if we want a comprehensive approach to address the epidemic of gun violence in Florida."

But supporters said they could not walk away from nearly a half-billion dollars for school security and mental health program.

“If you vote against this proposal it will be because you did not get everything you wanted,” said Rep. George Moriatis, R-Fort Lauderdale. “There is always next year, members.”

While the House debated the proposal, parents who lost children at Stoneman Douglas lobbied the governor, lawmakers and the media to get the bill approved saying, "there is enough good in the middle of this bill that everyone can agree on.”

“We have different opinions, different backgrounds,” said Ryan Petty one of the 17 Stoneman Douglas families that lost a family member and signed a letter in support of the proposal.

More: Parkland student band performs at Carnegie Hall three weeks after shooting

More: Hero student in Florida shooting rampage to sue school system

“(But) We came together and are united behind this legislation and our ask is the Florida House come together as the families have done and pass this bill,’’ said Petty whose 14-year old daughter was killed in the shooting.

The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act provides:

• $400 million for mental health and school safety programs,

• $98 million to make schools more physically secured

• $87 million to establish a Safe Schools program

• $69 million for mental health assistance

• $25 million to replace the classroom building where the massacre occurred

• $18.3 million for mobile crisis teams

• $500,000 for mental health first aid training

The measure also contains new gun regulations:

• a minimum age of 21 to purchase a gun

• a three-day waiting period for most gun purchases

• easier confiscation of firearms by law enforcement in cases of threats against individuals and public safety.

Throughout the day Republican supporters worked opponents on both sides of the aisle to not derail the proposal over Second Amendment concerns.

“It does not infringe on your constitutional rights,” said Rep. Rick Roth, R-Loxahatchee, in a rare floor speech by the first-term legislator.

“It’s better to vote yes today for something that is certain and in your hands right now,” he advised the Second Amendment advocates. “If we totally fail this year, then next year we could get something worse for you, my conservative friends, than what we have today.”

More: Oregon governor signs 'boyfriend loophole' gun bill

More: Florida students say hero teacher was really a 'coward' who left them to die

Incoming House Speaker Jose Oliva, R-Miami, said he does not think the Legislature is done with guns and violence.

“It will continue into years to come,” said Oliva Tuesday night. “This is a conversation that just started and I think you will see it spill into future sessions.”

For now, all eyes are on Scott.

Reporters pressed him after Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting while the debate raged in the House chambers on whether he will sign a bill that allows some teachers to carry a firearm into the classroom.

In a three-minute, thirty-second exchange with reporters, Scott repeated nine times: "... I am going to take the time to read the bill and talk to families."

Scott will have 10 days to sign or veto it or it becomes law without his signature.

142 Photos -- At least 17 dead in school shooting in Parkland, Fla.

A police officer helps direct traffic as Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students begin arriving for their first day of school since the shooting on Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018 in Parkland, Fla. ANDREA MELENDEZ/USA TODAY NETWORK
A police officer helps direct traffic as Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students begin arriving for their first day of school since the shooting on Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2018 in Parkland, Fla. ANDREA MELENDEZ/USA TODAY NETWORK
Follow James Call on Twitter: @CallTallahassee



THE MARINES HAVE THEIR SEXUAL SCANDAL, NOW.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/07/sexual-harassment-racism-and-secret-settlement-crossroads-marine-corps/400094002/?csp=chromepush
Sexual harassment, racism and a secret settlement at the 'Crossroads of the Marine Corps'
Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY Published 1:51 p.m. ET March 7, 2018 | Updated 1:51 p.m. ET March 7, 2018


(Photo: Mark Wilson, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A Marine colonel who investigated a sexual harassment claim at a troubled program inside the Corps’ Quantico headquarters was later counseled for harassing the wife of the unit’s chaplain, including a reference he made to her as “eye candy.”

The Marine and Family Programs Division at Quantico was the subject of a Marine inspector general’s report in 2015 for its toxic work environment. The report shows the program struggled with complaints of sexual harassment, racial bias and bad management, including a secret settlement reached with one official to get her to leave quietly from the base known as the "Crossroads of the Marine Corps." The Marines have not released the report, but a copy was recently obtained by USA TODAY.

The Marines’ handling of sexual harassment claims has gained attention after two civilian employees renewed complaints dating to 2013 about an officer who they say made overt sexual overtures to them at the base. The women, in interviews and documents, maintain the Marine Corps has not taken their complaints seriously. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., a member of the Armed Services Committee, questioned Gen. Glenn Walters, assistant commandant of the Marines, on the women’s cases, and he promised to review them.

Poisonous workplaces have plagued the Marines recently. Gen. Robert Neller, commandant of the Marine Corps, suspended Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, the Marines' chief legislative assistant, amid allegations that he had created a hostile work environment.

The 2015 investigation into the troubled Marine and Family Programs Division, which includes the Corps’ sexual assault prevention and response program, showed that Col. Ernest Ackiss was appointed in 2013 to investigate one of several allegations of sexual harassment against the Marine officer. Ackiss found the woman’s complaint about inappropriate texts from the officer failed to “meet the threshold of the definition of sexual harassment.”

Chaplain's wife is 'eye candy'
Two years later, Ackiss was himself the subject of an investigation into harassment. The division’s chaplain, a Navy lieutenant commander, told the inspector general that his wife was the subject of inappropriate comments. She worked directly for Ackiss.

“These comments were made by Col. Ackiss, Marine and Family Programs,” according to the report. “The Col. called his spouse ‘eye candy.’”

Ackiss’ superiors investigated the chaplain’s complaint and “counseled” Ackiss, the report says. Ackiss, who has retired, could not be reached for comment.

The Marine Corps stands by Ackiss’ original investigation, Maj. Garron Garn, a Marine spokesman, said in a statement.

“There is no indication the Marine Corps was aware of any allegations of sexual harassment at the time he was appointed to conduct the investigation,” Garn said. “As a procedural rule, all final reports of investigation undergo at least two reviews, including a legal review for any errors in process or mistakes in law. These internal review requirements are designed to avoid any potential bias or deficiency in the investigator's report.”

Scott Jensen, who retired in 2016 as the colonel in charge of Marine sexual assault prevention programs, said Ackiss’ behavior amounts to the fox guarding the hen house and called on the Marines to reopen the investigation into the women’s claims.

“How can someone make a sound judgment on one case and then demonstrate he doesn't have the judgment to avoid the behavior himself?” said Jensen, now CEO of Protect our Defenders, an advocacy group for military victims of sexual assault. “Justice wasn’t served. If they are truly interested in seeing justice, they would take the time to reinvestigate.”

The complaint Ackiss investigated was one of several claims made by the women, Traci Sharpe and Sherry Yetter. They maintain that the officer, Maj. David Cheek, harassed them, including showing them an erection through his clothing. Cheek has denied the allegations, and Marine Corps’ investigations did not substantiate their accusations.

"The Marine Corps does not do a good job of investigating claims," Sharpe said Wednesday. "It's an institution that covers for itself."

The inspector general’s report was launched to investigate complaints about discrimination, harassment and cronyism, among other concerns, according to the report. The investigation concluded that there was no evidence of waste, fraud, abuse or senior leader misconduct.

Who paid for confidential settlement?
However, the report does note that a “persistent chasm” existed between the military and civilian workforce, particularly in the Marine and Family Program Division’s Behavioral Health Branch. The report reveals that the Marines negotiated a confidential settlement with the civilian chief of the branch after an investigation into allegations that she had created a hostile work environment.

Citing a previous investigation of the unit, the inspector general notes that the “style of leadership” of the branch head, Ann Crittenden, allowed for an “unhealthy environment that appears to include discrimination.”

The investigation found that “multiple staff witnessed Ms. Crittenden’s actions towards staff and perceived her actions as unprofessional, offensive and racially bias (sic),” according to the report. It concludes that “Crittenden’s behavior is unprofessional and inappropriate for the civilian workplace.”

The investigation recommended “significant disciplinary action” be taken against her and noted that she had been “proposed for removal.”

That’s when Crittenden hired a lawyer and negotiated a settlement with the Marine Corps, according to the report. The settlement included her resignation on May 14, 2015, and stipulated that she not work for the Marine Corps for two years.

Less than two years later, Crittenden appears as the point of contact on the official Marine Corps website for an initiative by its warfighting laboratory. Her email indicates she works for a contractor. She did not respond to a request for comment.

Garn, the Marine spokesman, would not comment on Crittenden’s case but said the Marines cover the cost of such settlements from their own budget.

“The results of personnel actions are not releasable, to include settlement agreements," Garn said. “In general, the Marine Corps covers the cost of any settlement payments from its own budget. Settlement agreements are used to resolve disputes and claims and may include non-monetary and/or monetary provisions.”

Jensen said the settlement appears to be an attempt to conceal the problems with Crittenden and the cost of making them go away.

“Looks like the Marine Corps negotiated a settlement and paid money for something that they were either unwilling or unable to enforce,” Jensen said. “I would bet red tape or poor negotiating created a situation where an individual got paid to stay away but is still able to draw a paycheck from the Corps. Doesn’t sound like a responsible use of taxpayer money.”

Congress should prod the Marines, and other government agencies, to be more transparent about cash settlements, said Mandy Smithberger, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, a good-government watchdog group.

"Congress should be looking at all federal agencies to make disclosures about settlement amounts and and where they come from," Smithberger said. "Congress needs to make sure it does not cover up misconduct."

The report, which Smithberger reviewed, shows problems may be deeper at Quantico because several employees feared reprisal lodging complaints.

"At the very least this report seems to be skeptical of complainants, if not biased against them," Smithberger said.


TRUMP IS UNHAPPY WITH HIS CURRENT PRESS SECRETARY. TOO BAD BECAUSE I LIKE HER PRESENTATION, BUT SHE APPARENTLY IS TOO HONEST FOR HIM, ALSO.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/politics/trump-sarah-sanders-stormy-daniels/index.html
Trump upset with Sanders over Stormy Daniels response
Jim Acosta-Profile-ImageAnchor Muted Background
By Jim Acosta and Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN
Updated 9:37 AM ET, Thu March 8, 2018

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is upset with White House press secretary Sarah Sanders over her responses Wednesday regarding his alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, a source close to the White House tells CNN.

Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, filed suit against Trump this week alleging he hadn't signed a nondisclosure agreement that would have prevented her from discussing their alleged sexual affair.

On Wednesday, Sanders told reporters that the arbitration was won "in the President's favor." The statement is an admission that the nondisclosure agreement exists, and that it directly involves the President. It is the first time the White House has admitted the President was involved in any way with Daniels.

"POTUS is very unhappy," the source said. "Sarah gave the Stormy Daniels storyline steroids yesterday."

This week's developments are the latest installment in a continuing controversy for the White House involving Daniels, and a distraction from Trump's attempted rollout of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

Just weeks before the 2016 election,Trump's legal counsel Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 of his own money, which he admitted to in February. Cohen has said the President "vehemently denies" any sexual encounter between the two.

CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.



NEW SCIENTIST IS THE STRIPTEASE ARTIST OF THE INTERNET. THEY POST A FASCINATING STORY TO MY FACEBOOK PAGE AND THEN WHEN I GET TO THE GOOD PART THEY TELL ME THAT IF WANT ANYMORE, I’LL HAVE TO PAY THEM $19.00 OR SO MONTHLY (I DON’T REMEMBER HOW MUCH EXACTLY, BUT IT’S TOO MUCH.) SO NOW I JUST START SEARCHING THE NET FOR AN APPLICABLE STORY WITH THE INFORMATION IN IT, AND I CAN OFTEN FIND IT. THIS TIME, I’M NOT SURE IT’S THE SAME ONE, BUT IT IS A VERY LIKELY CHOICE. THE VIDEO ON THE NEW SCIENTIST ARTICLE DOES SHOW A HOVERCRAFT MOVING ACROSS A FROZEN RIVER, SO I BELIEVE THIS IS THE RIGHT ONE. SO GO DOWN AND READ THE TRUSTY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE BELOW ON THE USE OF RESONANCE FROM A HOVERCRAFT TO WEAKEN AND FINALLY BREAK ICE.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731680-300-a-cracking-idea-the-radical-way-to-open-up-frozen-seas/?cmpid=ILC|NSNS|2018_webpush&utm_medium=ILC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=webpush-Roost-shakingice
FEATURE 7 March 2018
A cracking idea: The radical way to open up frozen seas
By David Hambling

Arctic routes are getting busier and some ships get trapped in the ice. Rather than smash them out with brute force, there is a more elegant way to free them

Photograph -- Elliot Neep

IT WAS snowing at the edge of Lake Erie during the commissioning ceremony for the USS Little Rock in December 2017. The US Navy ship cost more than $300 million and is designed to have the speed and manoeuvrability needed for anti-submarine warfare. Towards the end of the ceremony, the ship’s chaplain prayed for its crew: “Protect them from the perils of the sea and the violence of the enemy.”

Ice probably wasn’t at the forefront of his mind, yet it is the most troublesome foe the ship has faced to date. It is trapped in port, its route to sea frozen shut.

The USS Little Rock is only the latest ship to be frozen out of action. Freight and research vessels routinely get stuck in Arctic ice, leaving crews twiddling their thumbs until an icebreaker ship arrives to smash a path out. But icebreakers make slow progress and frequently get stuck themselves. Luckily, there is an alternative approach that promises to clear ice much quicker: just give it the right sort of shake.

Despite the risks of ice, Arctic seas are getting busier. The Northern Sea Route running along the coast of Russia, for example, provides a shortcut for cargo ships between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, reducing the distance compared with the Suez Canal route by about 40 per cent. As the ice cap thins, the Arctic route is becoming increasingly viable: a record high of almost ten million tonnes of cargo travelled that way in 2017. But although the route isn’t frozen solid these days, there will still be plenty of …

To continue reading this premium article, subscribe for unlimited access.Existing subscribers, please log in with your email address to link your account access.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_method_of_ice_destruction
Resonance method of ice destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Resonance method of ice destruction means breaking sheet-ice which has formed over a body of water by causing the ice and water to oscillate up and down until the ice suffers sufficient mechanical fatigue to cause a fracture.

Resonance

If static force is applied to a sheet of ice it will flex slightly before suffering a catastrophic failure. Since the ice will bend slightly when any vehicle capable of travelling on ice-covered water, it follows that travelling at some critical speed may impose sufficient flexing of the ice sheet to cause resonance, and this may result in positive feedback effectively amplifying the oscillation within the body of water supporting the ice beneath the vehicle.

Flexural gravity waves

These are three-dimensional oscillations of forces which occur within a disturbed liquid and are usually observed as surface waves.[1]

There have been cases of destruction of ice by flexural gravity waves (FGW) produced by moving cars, trains on railway crossings, aircraft during takeoff and landing, etc. However, at present the most appropriate vehicles for implementation of the method are amphibious hovercraft, also known as air cushion vehicles (ACV).[citation needed]

The primary means to break the ice cover is the icebreaker fleet. However, large energy consumption for the destruction of the ice, the inability to perform icebreaking operations in shallow waters because of the deep draught of icebreakers, and other difficulties, have prompted a search for fundamentally new ways of destruction of ice. One of them is designed by Viktor Kozin author of the study: "Resonance method of destruction of ice cover".[2]

Overview of technique

It is known that the motion of a load over ice cover develops a system of flexural gravity waves (FGW). This is a combination of flexural vibrations of the ice plate and associated gravitational waves in the water. When the velocity of the load is close to the minimum phase velocity of the FGW, the water ceases to support the ice sheet and support is achieved only by the elastic properties of the ice. The amplitude of the FGW increase sharply and, with a sufficient load, destruction begins. The power consumption is several times lower (depending on the thickness of the ice) compared with icebreakers and ice-breaking attachments. This method of ice destruction is known as the resonance method.

Advantages

The advantages of hovercraft are: the lack of exposure of the vehicle body to the ice, the ability to cross safely over snow and ice cover, broken ice, and open water. The virtual absence of draught in hovercraft can break the ice in pools of any depth.

Using a hovercraft for destruction of ice is desirable because this type of vehicle makes possible a combination of transport and ice-breaking, and its all-terrain qualities facilitate year-round operation.

The high speed of destruction of ice by hovercraft can effectively make an early opening of individual sections of rivers and reservoirs. This may not only increase the period of navigation, but also prevent the phenomenon of mash. Working an ACV in the resonant regime is effective not only on surface ice, but also on deep ice, and this can prevent disasters occurring during freeze-up and drifting.

Research

Scientist Viktor Kozin has obtained experimental theoretical curves, which reveal all the possibilities of his method.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Kozin
Viktor Kozin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viktor Mikhailovich Kozin (Russian: Козин, Виктор Михайлович) (born February 22, 1953) is a Russian naval engineer, ship designer and inventor of a new method of icebreaking, called the resonance method of ice destruction. He received his assistant professorship in technical sciences (PhD) for his work Mechanics of deformable solids in Vladivostok in 1994. He became a full professor in 1996 and was awarded the title Honored Inventor of the Russian Federation in 2000. Since 2008 he has been a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS).