That "Rally" At Fort Bragg

Here's an interesting take from Military.com:

It was supposed to be a routine appearance, a visit from the commander in chief to rally the troops, boost morale and celebrate the Army's 250th-birthday week, which culminates with a Washington, D.C., parade slated for Saturday.

Instead, what unfolded Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, bore little resemblance to the customary visit from a president and defense secretary. There, President Donald Trump unleashed a speech laced with partisan invective, goading jeers from a crowd of soldiers positioned behind his podium -- blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics.

As Trump viciously attacked his perceived political foes, he whipped up boos from the gathered troops directed at California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom -- amid the president's controversial move to deploy the National Guard and Marines against protesters in Los Angeles -- as well as former President Joe Biden and the press. The soldiers roared with laughter and applauded Trump's diatribe in a shocking and rare public display of troops taking part in naked political partisanship.

Yea. But isn't this against the rules? Active duty personnel participating in an overtly political event?

Seems like it is. From a DOD FAQ on the subject: 

Q1. What rules and regulations govern political activities by members of the Armed
Forces?

A1. Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 1344.10 lays out the rules and policy concerning political activities by members of the Armed Forces.

Q2. What is DoD policy regarding participation in political activity by members of the
Armed Forces?

A2. It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces to carry out the obligations of citizenship such as voting. However, active duty members are specifically prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity, and all members of the Armed Forces should always avoid actions that could reasonably be perceived as implying DoD sponsorship, approval, or endorsement of partisan political activity.

And if there is any doubt, let's look go back to the article:

"We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again," he proclaimed to soldiers, adding that Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass are "incompetent" and falsely said they're aiding "insurrectionists" while goading troops into booing them.

"I bet none of those soldiers booing even know the mayor's name or could identify them in a lineup; they're nonexistent in the chain of command," an 82nd Airborne noncommissioned officer told Military.com. "So, any opinion they could possibly have can only be attributed to expressing a political view while in uniform."

And: 

Internal 82nd Airborne Division communications reviewed by Military.com reveal a tightly orchestrated effort to curate the optics of Trump's recent visit, including handpicking soldiers for the audience based on political leanings and physical appearance. The troops ultimately selected to be behind Trump and visible to the cameras were almost exclusively male.

One unit-level message bluntly said "no fat soldiers."

"If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out," another note to troops said.

They were screened for their political beliefs. And they expressed those beliefs while in uniform.

But hey, look what I found when they asked the Pentagon for a comment:

"Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media," Sean Parnell, a top Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to Military.com. "Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers." 

That's right. That's our old buddy Sean Parnell.

In that blogpost I found this at The Washington Post:

[Sean] Parnell is in a tough primary battle for the nomination for an open seat in the U.S. Senate, a race crucial to Republicans’ hopes to take back the chamber.

A few years ago, the former Army captain was ordered by law enforcement to leave his home and give up his guns. He is in the process of a divorce as he runs for the Senate, and we’ve learned that Parnell’s wife had called 911 in relation to a domestic dispute and filed two protection-from-abuse orders against him that were lifted after a few days.

That's the guy who Pete Hegseth chose to be Pentagon Spokesman.

Oh, the joys of having an old blog... 

 

 

More On Sean Parnell's Political Troubles (And The Moral Corruption of The GOP)

Let's not spend too much time on Candidate Sean Parnell's domestic issues. 

We all know the testimony, what's been alleged, and so on.

All of that is very serious, of course, and domestic abuse is never something to be swept aside.

But the only thing new in this story is that the judge has yet to make a ruling.

But there's another angle to Sean's troubles: the political fallout from the domestic abuse allegations.

We'll start with CNN:

In the last two weeks, the Parnell campaign -- already endorsed by former President Donald Trump -- has canceled two fundraising events, according to two people familiar with the events. One of those events, a virtual call last Friday pitched to donors as a forum for asking Parnell anything, was abruptly canceled that morning, just days after the first day of the custody trial.

 

In addition, some advisers and staff have said they are considering resigning from their roles with the campaign, those same two people told CNN.

And:

"I think it's safe to say the donors have all fled," one Republican donor in Pennsylvania told CNN. "These are really difficult accusations for a lot of people to look past."

Uh-oh, Sean. What are you gonna do?

Though CNBC has this:

A Parnell ally said most donors and other political supporters are waiting on a ruling in the custody case before they make any moves.

But what a hook upon which to hang one's hat. IF a judge decides in his favor - basically (though I am sure there are a great many other legal issues at play here) that his testimony is more believable than hers, then the donors from the "family values party" will return and shower Sean with that sweet sweet GOP donor cash.

Something I hadn't seen popped up on CNBC that, perhaps, those GOP guardians of conservative family values should take a look at:

But during her testimony last week, Snell gave previously unknown details about what she says prompted her to seek the orders. Snell testified that Parnell once choked her on a couch to the point that she had to bite him to break free, The Inquirer reported. She said his abusive behavior started before their marriage in 2010 and became worse in 2018, the year they separated.

According to The Inquirer, she testified that Parnell called her a "whore" and a "piece of s---" while pinning her down. She testified that in 2008, when she was pregnant with their first child, Parnell briefly forced her out of their vehicle during a trip and told her to "go get an abortion."

Setting aside the serious allegations of domestic abuse made in the testimony (allegations made under oath in a case that's yet to be decided), take focus, instead, at the dates in those two paragraphs:

• Marriage in 2010
• Pregnant with their first child in 2008
  

Imagine if this was a quarter century ago and that Sean Parnell was a Democrat. Imagine the GOP values outrage at just that. But now, if the judge rules in his favor, Sean's in the clear with the guardians of our new Trumpian social order.

This is how far the GOP has fallen.

More On Sean Parnell's Domestic Issues

Let's go see how far the story's gotten.

First, there's Politico, a DC-based political news source:

Sean Parnell’s military thriller “Man of War” contains graphic scenes of violence against female characters, raising additional questions about his attitude toward women in the wake of court testimony that he physically and verbally abused his estranged wife.

Parnell, who has emerged as the frontrunner in the Pennsylvania GOP Senate primary, portrays multiple scenes of men assaulting women in the 2018 novel, the first of four in a fiction series written by the Army combat veteran.

Those scenes are in a new light following his wife Laurie Snell’s testimony under oath Monday that her husband strangled her and assaulted their children. Those were among the explosive allegations made in a child custody hearing, an account of which was reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Then there's this from Forbes: 

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Sean Parnell’s wife accused her husband of physical abuse during a Monday court hearing, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, a claim Parnell denied — as the Trump-endorsed Republican faces a child custody battle.

And then there's this from The Independent, in the UK: 

The estranged wife of Republican senate candidate Sean Parnell has levelled serious physical and emotional abuse allegations against him.

Laurie Snell testified before a family court under oath on Monday over the custody of their three children that the Republican candidate from Pennsylvania choked her until she had to bite him to escape.

She also accused him of hitting their young children and said he used obscenities and insults against her, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

But this may be the worst news for Sean. The story's made it into People:

The estranged wife of leading Senate candidate Sean Parnell spoke under oath in Pennsylvania court on Monday about what she described as his harrowing history of violence toward her and their three young kids — which he adamantly denies.

I could snark on how this story making it into People (PEOPLE!) is really bad, but I don't think that does this situation any justice.  This is very serious. Other than the culture-wide reach of People, what's really bad (for Sean) in that piece is now much it relies on Paula Reed Ward's reporting from Monday in The Trib.

Ward supplied some coverage I hadn't seen elsewhere and it only serves to underscore the severity of the story:

Laurie Snell said that about three months into their relationship, she was talking about an ex-boyfriend when Parnell threw a chair across the kitchen.

“I’d never seen anybody get so angry,” Snell said. “It scared me to death. I left. I didn’t want anyone to hit me.”

She said she contemplated ending the relationship, but learned later that day that she was pregnant.

“It started from the beginning,” Snell said. “It just got worse and worse. It was constant.”

Snell testified that when she and Parnell were driving along Interstate 79 over Thanksgiving 2008 and she was several months’ pregnant, Parnell pulled over on the side of the highway.

“‘Get out of the car. Go get an abortion,’” she said he told her.

He drove off, but then backed up along the highway and she got back in the car.

The screaming continued for hours, Snell said.

And this was at the beginning of the relationship as it was three plus "several" months in.

Yea, nothing to snark about.

Again, for the record Parnell denied Snell's story:

In a statement released by his campaign, Sean Parnell disputed her claims and said he would “set the record straight” when he testifies next week.

“We anxiously await the opportunity to refute these hurtful, baseless allegations,” the statement said. “Let me emphatically state: I have never raised a hand in anger towards my wife or any of our three children. What happened today in court was not justice, nor did it have any basis in fact or truth. Next week, I’ll have an opportunity to present the truth to the court and I look forward to that opportunity.”

Everyone deserves his/her/their day in court. It's only fair.

Unfit. Sean Parnell Is Unfit.

This story starts here at The Philadelphia Inquirer:

The estranged wife of Republican Senate candidate Sean Parnell testified under oath Monday that he choked her until she bit him to escape, that he hit their young children, and that he lashed out at her with obscenities and insults.

In tearful testimony, Laurie Snell told a family court judge that her husband once called her a “whore” and a “piece of s—” while pinning her down. On another occasion, she said, Parnell slapped one child hard enough to leave fingerprint-shaped welts through the back of the child’s T-shirt. And she said he once got so angry he punched a closet door with such force it swung into a child’s face and left a bruise. She said Parnell told his child: “That was your fault.”

She also testified that after a Thanksgiving trip in 2008, he briefly forced her out of their vehicle alongside a highway after raging at her, telling her to “go get an abortion.”

From Parnell's campaign website: 

I am pro-life, and will always vote to protect the unborn.

 Also, Thanksgiving 2008 was 13 years ago. According to The Week:

Monday was the first of three days of custody hearings in family court. Snell is seeking primary custody of their three children, ages 8 to 12.

Um. 

For the record, there's this from The Inky:

In a statement released by his campaign, Parnell, a decorated Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and was endorsed this summer by former President Donald Trump, vigorously disputed his wife’s claims, calling a number of them “lies” and said he was looking forward to rebutting them when he presents his case next week.

”Let me emphatically state: I have never raised a hand in anger towards my wife or any of our three children,” the statement said. “What happened today in court was not justice, nor did it have any basis in fact or truth.“

The story's gotten a lot of traction making it all the way out to:

• The Washington Post
• Rolling Stone 

If Laurie Snell's story is true (I'm not doubting it - she did testify under oath, y'know - I'm just setting up an if-then argument) then Sean Parnell has no right to be within 100 yards of her or their children.

But that part's for the court to decide.

If Ms Snell's story is true, then she's a victim of domestic abuse.

And Sean Parnell is unfit to hold office.

More On Sean Parnell's Bad Relationship...With The Media. (Am I Gonna Get Sued, Too?)

Let's start with The Inky:

Republican Senate candidate Sean Parnell is trying to fight off attacks about temporary protective orders issued against him — and his opponents are using that as more fodder to go after him.

Parnell, endorsed by former President Donald Trump, has battled attempts by supporters of fellow Republican Jeff Bartos to air attack ads about the issue, threatening to sue them and TV stations, and recently sought a gag order to prevent his estranged wife from talking about the protective orders. [Name bolding in original.]

A threatened lawsuit? Did someone say something about "threatening to sue" the media outlets who aired Bartos' attack ads?

Hmm...

Anyway, on the one hand my first instinct is for radio silence on something like this.  As I wrote recently, my middle-aged memory belched up an old saying that fits here:

When your rivals are fighting amongst themselves, let them.

I don't know the provenance of the saying (or its origin or even its ultimate source) but there you have it anyway.

On the other hand, this is too delicious to keep quiet.

So, what's the story here?

The Washington Post has a good rundown:

[Sean] Parnell is in a tough primary battle for the nomination for an open seat in the U.S. Senate, a race crucial to Republicans’ hopes to take back the chamber.

A few years ago, the former Army captain was ordered by law enforcement to leave his home and give up his guns. He is in the process of a divorce as he runs for the Senate, and we’ve learned that Parnell’s wife had called 911 in relation to a domestic dispute and filed two protection-from-abuse orders against him that were lifted after a few days.

Now he’s in a custody battle over his three children — prompting one Republican operative to remark that they’ve never heard of a top Senate candidate losing custody of children midrace.

The trouble in Parnell’s personal life blew into the open days after Trump endorsed him. Another top Republican candidate, Jeff Bartos, is running ads talking about all this. Parnell has accused Bartos of lying.

Things could get worse for Parnell. He went to court to seal divorce records and to order his wife not to talk about the prior restraining orders. But a judge recently ruled that much of that information can become public and that his wife can talk about what happened.

As with all things legal, the official status of those PFA orders needs to be clarified. Here it is from The Inky: 

Neither was extended after a full hearing involving both parties, and both were later expunged. [Bolding added.]

Did you know that Sean's soon to be ex-wife is also suing her former employers (The American Warrior Initiative and the Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation - both entities with strong ties to Sean Parnell)? Take a look:

Nature of the Action

 
This is an action brought pursuant to Sex Discrimination and Religious Discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, retaliation, and creation of a hostile work environment, as well as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The Plaintiff, seeks declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief for the discriminatory conduct, the retaliation and hostile work environment she endured, and for being terminated from her position by the Defendants in this matter.

The Plaintiff is Sean's soon to be ex-wife and the Defendants are The American Warrior Initiative and the Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation.

According to the Complaint's Statements of Fact, Sean's wife worked mostly for the mortgage company (her "primary job responsibilities were under Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation" it says) rather than the veterans' charity. 

Did you know that, according to those same Statements of Fact, she made 80K a year as an event planner for these two organizations?

80K - that's a lot of event planning, amirite?

According to the Statements of Fact, Sean's wife worked directly under a woman named Louise Thaxton and from her bio we learn something very interesting about the relationship between Fairway and the AWI::

Louise is a national advocate for America’s veterans and is the Director and co-founder of the American Warrior Initiative, the non-profit of Fairway... [Emphasis added.]

Anyway, the Statements of Fact points out that that the mortgage company was "heavily faith-based" and so divorce was frowned upon.

The Statements of Fact go on:

20. When [Louise Thaxton, the Plaintiff's supervisor] learned that the Plaintiff had separated from her husband, she refused to speak to the Plaintiff for approximately six (6) months and had sided with the husband, Mr. Parnell. 

21. Plaintiff’s failure to conform to certain ideals professed for “Christian women” in the company ultimately led to her termination.      

  22. On  August  30,  2019,  the  Plaintiff  had  a  discussion  with  her  supervisor,  Louise  Thaxton, wherein she expressed concern to Thaxton that she knew there were unethical actions taking place within the nonprofit. 

23. The Plaintiff also told Thaxton that she would be talking with Human Resources regarding her concerns.  

24. Thaxton  was  immediately  hostile  towards  her  and  told  her  that  she  was  being  insubordinate and unprofessional, and within an hour the Plaintiff was terminated.

Um what?? "Unethical actions" at Sean Parnell's nonprofit? Do tell!

For the record, I have no idea what Sean's wife might be talking about. For all I know, she could've been dropping the phrase into the conversation in order to give herself some "whistle blower" cover.

But can someone please ask Sean Parnell about what his wife said about his nonprofit?

Wait. Am I going to be sued by Sean Parnell for blogging about this? For blogging about some legal documents filed nearly a year ago?

Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Another Letter (With Another Example Of A Pivot and Deflect)

I was beginning to worry.

You see, it's been a month and half since I received any sort of response from Senator Pat Toomey (or his office). I'm not sure, but it feels like the response was longer than usual. I really should take the time to analyze the data, to ascertain the average response rate, average time between my letter to him and his response to me regarding those letters and so on.

But that's for another blog post.

This letter, which arrived via email, starts thusly:

Thank you for contacting me about recent reports of sexual harassment and misconduct by government officials. I appreciate hearing from you and share your concerns about these deeply troubling reports.

There have been a number of recent allegations of misconduct and harassment against current members of Congress. In the wake of these reports, each chamber's respective, nonpartisan Committees on Ethics confirmed that they had each opened investigations into several of these matters.

Ha! See that? I was worried about nothing. He says it right there: "I appreciate hearing from you..."

Whew.

So what letter is he referring to?  I searched for the keywords "Toomey" and "sexual harassment" in that the blog and found only one letter that even gets close - this one, from two months ago.

This is what I wrote:

Senator, I'd like to take a step back from the many Trump scandals now plaguing this nation and ask you about the direction of your political party, the G.O.P.

Recently at a CPAC conference, conservative columnist Mona Charen asked "How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump?" And for that she was booed by members of the audience and security had to escort her from the hall.

That was my frame. You may need to cast your eyes up a few degrees to see how differently Toomey framed his response. To my question regarding Charen's position regarding the lack of sexual harassment credibility in the GOP as seen in the light of Donald Trump's behavior, he responds with "recent reports of sexual harassment and misconduct by government officials" who are "current members of Congress" using "taxpayer dollars to settle claims of sexual harassment."

No, senator. We're just talking about one government official (who, by the way is not a member of Congress): Donald J Trump.

Let's get back to my letter. Charen followed up with an op-ed in the NYTimes where stated, after pointing to the hypocrisy in our great nation's once great conservative party:

There is nothing more freeing than telling the truth. And it must be done, again and again, by those of us who refuse to be absorbed into this brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism, by those of us who refuse to overlook the fools, frauds, and fascists attempting to glide along in his slipstream into respectability.

And in response to that I asked him a specific question:

So here's my question: Is she right about your party? And if you believe she is, when will you start to speak out against the brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism?

To that, Toomey sent a letter basically lauding himself for supporting legislation designed to deny taxpayer funds to settle sexual harassment claims and legislation mandating sexual harassment training for the Senate and the House of Representative. After which he adds:

I voted in favor of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in the past.

(Except he also voted against reauthorizing it in the past as well.)

Don't mistake me - all those things he says are good things. They also have absolutely nothing to do with what I asked him about. It's almost as if he's looking to, oh I don't know, pivot and deflect away from the topic of my letter - which was about the "brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism" currently infecting his political party.

Toomey pivoted. Toomey deflected.

And Toomey did so to avoid confronting Charen's charge about Trumpism in the GOP.

As Charen wrote in her column:

For traditional conservatives, the past two years have felt like a Twilight Zone episode. Politicians, activists, and intellectuals have succumbed with numbing regularity, betraying every principle they once claimed to uphold.

Sad to say but if this letter is any indication, Pat Toomey is one of those who has succumbed.

Full text of Toomey's letter:

Dear David,

Thank you for contacting me about recent reports of sexual harassment and misconduct by government officials. I appreciate hearing from you and share your concerns about these deeply troubling reports.

There have been a number of recent allegations of misconduct and harassment against current members of Congress. In the wake of these reports, each chamber's respective, nonpartisan Committees on Ethics confirmed that they had each opened investigations into several of these matters.

Many Pennsylvanians have raised concerns, which I share, about the use of taxpayer dollars to settle claims of sexual harassment. The Congressional Office of Compliance (OOC) recently revealed that since 1997 it has paid out approximately $17 million in taxpayer funds to settle 264 claims of labor and employment law violations involving congressional employees. While the OOC did not break out the settlements based on the type of claim, some of them likely involved claims of sexual harassment.

The use of taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment claims is appalling and completely unacceptable. As I have said publicly, it is incumbent on Congress to prevent this from occurring, and I will vigorously support efforts that make it impossible for congressional offices to use public funds for such purposes.

On November 15, 2017, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced legislation - the Member and Employee Training and Oversight On (ME TOO) Congress Act (S. 2159) - that is intended to bring more transparency and accountability to the OOC's settlement process. Among its provisions, this bill would require a Member of Congress to repay the Treasury for any settlements paid if the Member is an alleged harasser. S. 2159 also requires the OOC to publish on its website the settlements paid by congressional offices. S. 2159 is currently pending before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, of which I am not a member. Please be assured, however, that I will continue to monitor the status of this legislation.

Recent reports of sexual misconduct and harassment have also understandably raised questions about the lack of mandatory anti-harassment training for House and Senate staff. As a result, on November 9, 2017, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution (S.Res. 330) mandating anti-harassment training for Senators, officers, employees, detailees, and interns of the Senate. On November 29, 2017, the House of Representatives passed similar legislation (H.Res. 630) mandating harassment prevention training.

Finally, as you know, sexual misconduct continues to persist in our society. During my congressional career, I have worked to prevent and redress the terrible crime of sexual violence. I voted in favor of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in the past. Also, I have led the successful fight to dramatically increase funding for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse-specifically by stopping Congress from raiding the Crime Victims Fund. The Crime Victims Fund receives no taxpayer dollars; it is funded by criminal fines and penalties collected in federal court. Under law, money in the fund is supposed to go to assisting victims of crime. But, for over a decade, Congress diverted billions to fund unrelated discretionary spending projects.

I have been pleased to see my efforts yield success. Congress increased the amount disbursed to assist victims from $745 million in 2014 to over $2.6 billion in 2016. Pennsylvania groups that assist victims saw available funding more than quadruple, rising from $17.5 million in 2014 to $80 million in 2016. I was also pleased to see that the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 244) passed on May 4, 2017 included a similar number, $2.57 billion.

Thank you again for your correspondence. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on the recent reports of sexual harassment and misconduct, and I value your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

In Case You Missed It - Oprah, Last Night

And Harper's Bazaar has a transcript:

In 1964, I was a little girl sitting on the linoleum floor of my mother's house in Milwaukee watching Anne Bancroft present the Oscar for best actor at the 36th Academy Awards. She opened the envelope and said five words that literally made history:" The winner is Sidney Poitier." Up to the stage came the most elegant man I ever remembered. His tie was white, his skin was black—and he was being celebrated. I'd never seen a black man being celebrated like that. I tried many, many times to explain what a moment like that means to a little girl, a kid watching from the cheap seats as my mom came through the door bone tired from cleaning other people's houses. But all I can do is quote and say that the explanation in Sidney's performance in Lilies of the Field: "Amen, amen, amen, amen."

In 1982, Sidney received the Cecil B. DeMille award right here at the Golden Globes and it is not lost on me that at this moment, there are some little girls watching as I become the first black woman to be given this same award. It is an honor—it is an honor and it is a privilege to share the evening with all of them and also with the incredible men and women who have inspired me, who challenged me, who sustained me and made my journey to this stage possible. Dennis Swanson who took a chance on me for A.M. Chicago. Saw me on the show and said to Steven Spielberg, she's Sophia in 'The Color Purple.' Gayle who's been a friend and Stedman who's been my rock.

I want to thank the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. We know the press is under siege these days. We also know it's the insatiable dedication to uncovering the absolute truth that keeps us from turning a blind eye to corruption and to injustice. To—to tyrants and victims, and secrets and lies. I want to say that I value the press more than ever before as we try to navigate these complicated times, which brings me to this: what I know for sure is that speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have. And I'm especially proud and inspired by all the women who have felt strong enough and empowered enough to speak up and share their personal stories. Each of us in this room are celebrated because of the stories that we tell, and this year we became the story.

But it's not just a story affecting the entertainment industry. It's one that transcends any culture, geography, race, religion, politics, or workplace. So I want tonight to express gratitude to all the women who have endured years of abuse and assault because they, like my mother, had children to feed and bills to pay and dreams to pursue. They're the women whose names we'll never know. They are domestic workers and farm workers. They are working in factories and they work in restaurants and they're in academia, engineering, medicine, and science. They're part of the world of tech and politics and business. They're our athletes in the Olympics and they're our soldiers in the military.

And there's someone else, Recy Taylor, a name I know and I think you should know, too. In 1944, Recy Taylor was a young wife and mother walking home from a church service she'd attended in Abbeville, Alabama, when she was abducted by six armed white men, raped, and left blindfolded by the side of the road coming home from church. They threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone, but her story was reported to the NAACP where a young worker by the name of Rosa Parks became the lead investigator on her case and together they sought justice. But justice wasn't an option in the era of Jim Crow. The men who tried to destroy her were never persecuted. Recy Taylor died ten days ago, just shy of her 98th birthday. She lived as we all have lived, too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dare speak the truth to the power of those men. But their time is up. Their time is up.

Their time is up. And I just hope—I just hope that Recy Taylor died knowing that her truth, like the truth of so many other women who were tormented in those years, and even now tormented, goes marching on. It was somewhere in Rosa Parks' heart almost 11 years later, when she made the decision to stay seated on that bus in Montgomery, and it's here with every woman who chooses to say, "Me too." And every man—every man who chooses to listen.

In my career, what I've always tried my best to do, whether on television or through film, is to say something about how men and women really behave. To say how we experience shame, how we love and how we rage, how we fail, how we retreat, persevere, and how we overcome. I've interviewed and portrayed people who've withstood some of the ugliest things life can throw at you, but the one quality all of them seem to share is an ability to maintain hope for a brighter morning, even during our darkest nights. So I want all the girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon! And when that new day finally dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women, many of whom are right here in this room tonight, and some pretty phenomenal men, fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say 'Me too' again.

In case you missed it.

Fact-Checking Milo Yiannopoulos

A few weeks ago, Milo Yiannopoulos gave a talk at Pitt.  It was part of his "Dangerous Faggot" tour.

Before we go any further, let me point out something very important here.  Yiannopoulos uses a few words that some (if not all) of my readers will find distasteful if not downright offensive.  They are words that are in his vocabulary not in mine and by quoting him, I am not condoning their use, I am simply attempting to be as accurate as possible.

Yiannopoulos has every right to be as offensive as he wishes to be.  Just as I have every right to call him on it and to point out what is factually inaccurate/contradictory about what he says (more about this later).

But let's take a step back and start with the coverage in the Pitt News:

With shouts of support for Donald Trump intermixing with middle fingers raised in silent protest, Pitt students both applauded and decried Milo Yiannopoulos’ meditation on free speech Monday night in the William Pitt Union.

College Republicans brought the gay, British sociopolitical activist to the Assembly Room at 9 p.m. Yiannopoulos’ speeches at other universities around the country have garnered protests, fights and rallies because of their highly controversial content: Yiannopoulos argues free speech should have zero limits.

“I’ve taken it upon myself to go through life as offensively as possible,” Yiannopoulos said.

As an example, Yiannopoulos asked the crowd of more than 350 people if any of them believed “that women are paid less to do the same work” as a man. When several audience members shouted, “Yes,” in return, Yiannopoulos had only one word for them:

“Idiots.”

In response, about 10 people got up and stood at the front of the stage, shouting, “Two, four, six, eight — stop the violence, stop the rape.”

The Pitt News has made a teensy mistake.  As you can see from the video (which you can watch, if you so desire, here) Yiannopoulos does NOT respond to their answer with the "one word" idiots.  He simply declares (with out evidence, by the way) that they are "very dumb."  I realize the two are synonyms but to my friends on the Pitt News, if you're going to quote someone, you'd better make sure you're using the exact words they use (especially if there's video of that person saying them).  He did use the word "idiots" when point out the "social justice warriors" in the room.  But that was at a slightly different time.  Different enough that it's not an accurate quote.

Again - a teensy mistake.  You're forgiven.

But it's at that point when, after chanting the "stop the violence, stop the rape" chant, those protesters are escorted away from the front of the room. 

The Pitt News reports that the Police escorted 17 protesters out.  They don't say whether that was the same group that was led away from the front of the room.  If it was, they missed this portion of Yiannopoulos talk (This is my transcription.  It starts about 11 minutes in and it's as complete as I can get it):

Why am I considered dangerous?  Well I don't say very nice things about lesbians.

[Crowd laughter]

By the way, I'd like to say that most of the things I say about lesbians, aside from the sort of pleasure cruises, cat piss and knitting needles (all of which are horrible generalizations which I should be ashamed of), most of the things I saw are in support of women.

I don't want women to get drawn into lesbianism.  That is, of course, how lesbianism works.  For women have a much more malleable sexuality than men do.  They're much more likely to have relationships with women, [than have] relationships with men.  I don't want women to get drawn into lesbianism, for a variety of reasons.  The lesbian obesity epidemic is one of them.  The federal government spent three million dollars last year working out why you're all so fat.

[Crowd noise and laughter]

I mean they spend the money on these things, not me.

There is, of course, the domestic violence epidemic.  Do you know about this?  The lesbian domestic violence epidemic?  I wrote about it very sensitively last year in a column entitled "Attack of the Killer Dykes."

[Crowd laughter]

They beat the shit out of each other.

And of course the last thing.  And this is something we should talk about in the Q&A.  The campus rape culture.  There is only one respect in which there is a serious culture of rape on campuses and I sort of gave you the answer already.  Do you know what it is?

It's lesbians.

When you look at Department of Justice statistics - you see people like me actually look at numbers rather than just say "we're offended" or apply to - appeal to grievance culture or some other sort of bollocks to make ourselves feel better or to make people feel bad - some of us actually look at the data, the numbers.  When you do that the Department of Justice figures suggest, well they say, that the women who identify themselves as victims of sexual assault vastly disproportionate identify as lesbians.

Now there's only two explanations for this.

One is that straight men are specifically going out and seeking lesbians to sexually abuse, which seems unlikely considering how they look, [Crowd noise and some laughter] the other explanation is that lesbians are raping each other at almost unprecedented rates.  Rates similar to the Congo, where rape is used as a weapon of war.

Let me restart the joke from earlier because it was great - it suggests that the only consent that lesbians are familiar with is co-signing at the Subaru dealership.

If there is a campus rape culture it is not a problem of male-on-female crime, rape's been going down for thirty years, the campus is the safest place for a young woman to be, it's a lesbian [problem].

And that's only about 15 minutes in.  Basically, if I am to understand the above, doesn't want women (of "malleable sexuality" or otherwise) to be "drawn into lesbianism" because they'll get fat and then get physically abused by other lesbians.  Beyond his obvious narrow-minded and childish insults, there's a lot to deal with here.

But is any of what he asserts true?

Did the government spend $3 million last year to study obesity among lesbians?

Well, yes and no.  Here's the Washington Post:

The federal government spent millions of dollars in recent years researching why lesbians have a higher obesity rate than heterosexual women and gay men, according to funding records.

The ongoing National Institutes of Health study, now in its fourth year and scheduled to last another two, has cost about $3 million to date, the Washington Free Beacon reported in a recent article. [Emphasis added.]

So he has the funding wrong as it's $3 million (so far) over four (out of six) years and not simply $3 million last year.  A minor error, but an error none the less, especially since in the video, Yiannopoulos prides himself on actually checking "the numbers."  He got the number wrong.  Sorry, Milo.  Kinda erases a little bit of your credibility.

But there's a bigger issue here - why.  Why study that in the first place?

From the Washington Post:

The project summary says that “racial and socioeconomic disparities are receiving increasing attention” and lesbian obesity is “of high public-health significance.”

I'm not sure why that's funny to Yiannopoulos and his supporters in the crowd - the government studying something of "of high public-health significance.”

But let's move on to his big point - the "lesbian domestic violence epidemic."  Is it a real thing?  Are lesbians "beating the shit out of each other" as Yiannopoulos asserts?  And more importantly, is this violence done at a higher rate than among heterosexual couples, as Yiannopoulos asserts?

For where he bases his argument, we must go to his above mentioned article.  Now remember he's warning about the higher rates of violence among lesbian couples when he writes:

Up to 45 per cent of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner and that 30 per cent of lesbians have reported sexual assault or rape by another woman. And those are conservative figures from a small domestic violence support group.

The link leads to this page where, if you search for "45" (in order to find the source of the "up to 45 percent" figure), you'll find this sentence:

It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991).

I have to point out that while "between 17-45%" can mean "up to 45%", it's not exactly the same thing unless you plow through the studies reference for context.  Is it a bell curve with 17 and 45 on the outer edges?  No way to know - but he did omit, for the sake of his article, the 28 point spread between 17 and 45.  Is most of it in the mid-20s?  Mid-30s?  No way to know but that's a lot of room.  He does say, though, that 45 and 30 percent are "conservative" figures, leaving it to the reader to assume that the "real" percentages are higher still.

That being said, the big takeaway from this page (at least regarding Yiannopoulos assertion of greater violence between lesbian partners) is found in the sentence immediately preceding the stuff he wants you to know.  Here it is:

Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). [Emphasis added.]

I'm sorry, Milo, but doesn't that completely contradict your overall thesis?  You must've read through that sentence when you were looking for the data that came right after it.  Why didn't you mention this in your article?

Then there's this:

The Huffington Post reported in 2014 that 50 per cent of lesbian women experience one of these Sapphic skimishes (sic) at some point in their lives.

And the link leads you to this sentence at Huffingtonpost:

50
The percentage of lesbian women who will experience domestic violence (not necessarily intimate partner violence) in their lifetimes. [Emphasis added/]

I'm sorry, Milo, but doesn't that also contradict your thesis?  You said "Sapphic skirmishes" (I am guessing you meant "skirmish" as a "skimish" doesn't seem to be an actual word) but the link says "not necessarily intimate partner" - two different things.  If you're discussing how lesbians in intimate partnerships are beating the shit out of each other you can't use a statistic that doesn't support your thesis to support your thesis.  Do I really have to explain this to you, Milo?

Now, about the "rape culture" on campus.  Milo, are you aware that the CDC reports (this is found in the Executive Summary) that:

Most bisexual and heterosexual women (98.3% and 99.1%, respectively) who experienced rape in their lifetime reported having only male perpetrators. Estimates for sex of perpetrator of rape for other groups (lesbian women, gay and bisexual men) were based upon numbers too small to calculate a reliable estimate and, therefore, are not reportable. [Emphasis added.]

And:

The majority of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women (85.2%, 87.5%, and 94.7%, respectively) who experienced sexual violence other than rape in their lifetime reported having only male perpetrators. [Emphasis added.]

Looks like your assertion that "lesbians are beating the shit out of each other" isn't supported by the CDC data.  And since you're the one making the assertion about lesbians abusing each other at "unprecedented" rates, it's up to you to explain the contradictions.  Which one is right and which one is wrong?  And how do you know?  Telling only one side of the story isn't being very accurate is it, Milo?

Or should we just assume, considering all of the above, that you're spinning the few numbers that you do have in order to support your already offensive thesis?

As I said above, Milo, you have every right to assert your case (however offensive it may be) in public but that doesn't shield you from criticism of fudging the data in order to make that case.

And to the protesters who left before Milo got to his lesbian shaming: you missed an opportunity to call him on his bullshit.  Attempting to shut down the discussion by screaming over it only convinces the Milo Yanniopouloses (the Milo Yannipouli?) of the world that you're batshit crazy and that they've been right all along.

Jack Kelly Sunday

Wherein we learn in today's Post-Gazette of Jack Kelly's absolutely nightmarish vision of the future (nightmarish for us, of course).  Here's Jack:

An outsider president could compensate for his or her lack of experience in government by assembling a Cabinet for the ages. My dream Cabinet would consist of...

He then goes on to extol the virtues of a number of Bush-era war criminals (alleged) and other incompetents.  Remember this is his list of people with experience who if a non-experienced president were to:

...take advantage of the enormous pool of talent available, he or she would have a successful administration despite his or her lack of experience in government.

The list starts:

Condoleeza Rice or John Bolton as secretary of state. Ms. Rice was a disappointment the first time around, chiefly because she’s a lousy administrator. But she’s a brilliant woman, a Russian expert and an attractive spokeswoman for America.

Mr. Bolton is brilliant, too, and tough as nails. He has the administrative skills Ms. Rice lacks. My preference would be to have Ms. Rice out front and Mr. Bolton as deputy secretary actually running the place.

Wait, isn't this list about people with good job experience?  Then why does he start the list with someone he admits to being "lousy" at at least part of her job?  En passant, you'll note the quiet sexism of Jack's next sentence.  Condy's wicked smart and as an added bonus, she's easy on the eyes!  A double plus good!

But let's look at how well Rice and Bolton did in their jobs.

Condoleeza Rice.  From the BBC:

As national security adviser, Ms Rice consented to the harsh interrogation
 of al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, the Senate Intelligence Committee
found.

Waterboarding is a war crime.  Enough said.  She should have been prosecuted for it long ago.  Shame on the current administration for letting the previous administration get away with war crimes.  Shame. On. Them.

John Bolton.  Again with the BBC:

John Bolton, United States Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, today said the US is "confident" Iraq has hidden weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, and production facilities.

And yet those pesky WMD just didn't exist.  Heckuva job, Johnny!

Jack goes on with his list:

Duncan Hunter Sr. as secretary of defense. The former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and former Army Ranger is just the guy to restore order, direction and morale to a bloated Pentagon that has gone badly awry.

So who's Duncan Hunter?  He's the guy who said this:

The inmates of Guantanamo have never been treated better and they've never been more comfortable in their lives. And the idea that somehow we are torturing people in Guantanamo is absolutely not true, unless you consider having to eat chicken three times a week is torture.

When it was absolutely not true. From CNN:

The U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay drew fresh criticism Sunday following a Time magazine report on a logbook tracing the treatment of a detainee who officials believe was intended to take part in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

And a little while later:

During the period covered by the logbook, Time reported, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved 16 additional interrogation techniques for use on certain detainees.

Afterward, interrogators began their sessions with al-Qahtani at midnight and awakened him with dripping water or Christina Aguilera music if he dozed off, the magazine article reported.

The magazine said the techniques approved by Rumsfeld included "standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair" and hanging "pictures of scantily clad women around his neck."

And Time had this:

The first break in al-Qahtani ‘s facade comes with a long-delayed call of nature. When a hunger strike he has launched fizzles, he starts refusing water. That becomes a battle of wills — and teeth. Al-Qahtani quickly becomes so dehydrated that medical corpsmen forcibly administer fluids by IV drip. He tries to fight them off with his hands and is restrained. Another time, al-Qahtani tries to rip the IV needle out; when he is cuffed to his chair, he turns his head and bites the IV line completely in two. He is then strapped down and given an undisclosed amount of fluids. An hour or so later, around 9:40 a.m., al-Qahtani tells his guards that he would be willing to talk if he is allowed to urinate. The log notes he is given 3 1/2 bags of IV fluid. He starts to moan and asks again to be allowed to relieve himself. Yes, but first he must answer questions:

Interrogator: Who do you work for?

Al-Qahtani: Al-Qaeda

Interrogator: Who was your leader?

Al-Qahtani: Osama bin Laden

Interrogator: Why did you go to Orlando?

Al-Qahtani: I wasn’t told the mission

Interrogator: Who was with you on the plane?

Al-Qahtani: I was by myself

That answer frustrates the interrogator — You’re wasting my time, he says — and when al-Qahtani requests his promised bathroom break, he is told to go in his pants. Humiliatingly, he does. The log notes 30 minutes later, “He is beginning to understand the futility of his situation … He is much closer to compliance and cooperation than at the beginning of the operation.”

But they were treated well and not tortured (or humiliated), they were fed chicken! - thus spake Jack's dream choice for Defense Secretary.

Then there's Jack's choice for Homeland Security, Texas Governor Rick Perry.  Who's under indictment in Texas:

A grand jury indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts on Friday, charging that he abused his power last year when he tried to pressure the district attorney here, a Democrat, to step down by threatening to cut off state financing to her office.

The indictment left Mr. Perry, a Republican, the first Texas governor in nearly 100 years to face criminal charges and presented a major roadblock to his presidential ambitions at the very time that he had been showing signs of making a comeback.

Grand jurors in Travis County charged Mr. Perry with abusing his official capacity and coercing a public servant, according to Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor assigned to the case.

You'll remember, of course, that in July one of those charges was dismissed.  The "abuse of power" charge still stands.  Does Jack even know this?

I could go on but I want to end with a special reference to another of Jack's dream secretaries:

Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, a former Indiana governor and Reagan budget director. We’ve got to clamp a lid on wasteful federal spending. No one could do this better than Mr. Daniels.

Do I need to point out (ARE YOU WATCHING P-G FACT-CHEKERS???) that Mitch Daniels was NOT a "Budget Director" under Ronald Reagan (the head of the Office of Management and Budget is usually the one described as the president's "budget director").  The three OMB directors under Reagan were David Stockman, James Miller and Joseph Wright Jr.  Daniels was, in fact, OBM director under George W Bush (from 2001 to 2003) and during that time...well let me let the Indystar describe the budget back then:

When George W. Bush became president in 2001, Daniels returned to Washington to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget. Bush gave Daniels the nickname "The Blade," but the administration's tax cuts combined with an economic downturn put Daniels in the awkward position of watching a $236 billion annual surplus turn into a $400 billion deficit during his 29-month tenure. [Emphasis added.]

That's the guy Jack Kelly wants the next inexperienced Republican president to watch over the budget.  And another thing, does Jack know that CNN reported last year that:

As a share of the economy, spending on domestic and defense programs has been on the decline since 2010, and is on track to reach the lowest level in more than 50 years by 2023.

At its height in 2010, "discretionary spending" under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983.

Today, levels are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962.

Please, please, Post-Gazette.  Someone needs to rein in Jack Kelly.  With every column like this that's published your reputation as a worthwhile source of news and information is degraded just a little more.

Oh, and you let Jack make another factual error with that "Reagan budget director" thing.  Do I need to start a petition demanding that you guys fact-check Jack Kelly?

I can you know.  You know I can.

Coming full circle

You have to admit, there's a nice symmetry to it. Lil Mayor Luke's very first scandal involved the police and an Officer Frank Rende and now his administration is up to its eyeballs in police scandals and the latest involves an Officer Frank Rende.

Back in 2006, Ravenstahl had to drop his public safety director nomination of Dennis Regan. Part of the reason was because police Cmdr. Catherine McNeilly had sent an email to city officials warning them that "Mr. Regan undercut her effort to discipline city Detective Francis M. Rende, the brother of the woman with whom Mr. Regan shares a Point Breeze home." The article in the Post-Gazette back then noted that Rende had a "dozen accusations of conduct unbecoming an officer, verbal abuse and excessive force" including coming back to have sex with a woman who was depressed and very drunk when he had answered a domestic call earlier that day. Rende was also calling off sick for his police job to work side jobs and had been using another officer's password to pick up even more work. The other part was because Bill Peduto (and others) were hammering Regan as being completely unqualified for the position. Rende kept his job.

Now, some six and a half years later, Officer Frank Rende is in the news again, but this time, Ravenstahl is calling for him to be fired. Maybe it's because this time the incident is on tape. But the snark in me says that while Luke was able to look past officers beating down Jordan Miles and look past officers having incidents of domestic violence when promoting them, this is just a case of projection on Luke's part. After all, soon he may be the drunk white guy who's partied a little too hard on the South Side:

VAWA "Vote" Goes National

Remember this blogpost?

It was about how Representative Keith Rothfus lied (by omission)  about his vote "for" the Violence Against Women Act (which he actually voted against).

Well, the story's getting some national attention.

First at the Maddowblog.  In a piece quoting to this McClatchy story:

At first glance it seemed as though Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri had broken with the majority of her fellow conservatives in the House of Representatives last week to renew an expanded version of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which funds programs to assist survivors of sexual assault and domestic abuse.

A statement from her office proclaimed: "Hartzler votes to protect women from acts of violence."

“Violence against women, in all its forms, is unacceptable,” Hartzler said in the statement.

But Hartzler, who was elected with strong tea party support, had voted for a Republican amendment to the bill, which failed 166-257, and against the version that’s headed for the president’s desk to be signed into law.

Which was essentially the same lie that Rothfus told his constituents.  Steve Benen at the Maddowblog goes on to say:

A spokesperson for Hartzler told McClatchy "there wasn't any intention to deceive." Oh no, of course not. Hartzler opposed legislation, then issued press releases to make it seem as if she supported the legislation. Why would anyone think she intended to deceive?

What's worse, Hartzler wasn't the only one playing this cynical game.

A Democratic source emails this afternoon to note that Reps. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.), Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.), Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), Steve King (R-Iowa), Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.), and Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) all did the exact same thing.

What happened to far-right conservatives having the courage of their convictions? If they opposed the Violence Against Women Act and felt the need to vote against it, then why pretend otherwise? Why try to deceive the public instead of explaining why they opposed the legislation?

Extremism is disconcerting, but by some measures, cowardice is worse.

The story's now at the Huffingtonpost:

When Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill late last month, more than 130 House Republicans voted against it. But some of those same lawmakers are putting out misleading statements that make it look like they voted for the bill instead.

Misleading deception. Disconcerting extremism. Cowardice.

These are not good phrases to describe a politician's reputation.  And yet when you unethically claim to support a bill you actually voted against, the description is accurate.

Congratulations.

Statement from the President on the Senate Passage of the Violence Against Women Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 12, 2013

Statement from the President on the Senate Passage of the Violence Against Women Act

Today the Senate passed a strong bipartisan bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. This important step shows what we can do when we come together across party lines to take up a just cause. The bill passed by the Senate will help reduce homicides that occur from domestic violence, improve the criminal justice response to rape and sexual assault, address the high rates of dating violence experienced by young women, and provide justice to the most vulnerable among us. I want to thank Senator Leahy and his colleagues from both sides of the aisle for the leadership they have shown on behalf of victims of abuse. It's now time for the House to follow suit and send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

UPDATE:

Statement by Vice President Biden on the Violence Against Women Act

Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. This law has been incredibly effective and I hope the House will vote without delay to renew the law so that we can continue to assist victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and hold offenders accountable for their crimes.

Delay isn’t an option when three women are still killed by their husbands or boyfriends every day. Delay isn’t an option when countless women still live in fear of abuse, and when one in five have been victims of rape. This issue should be beyond debate – the House should follow the Senate’s lead and pass the Violence Against Women Act right away. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue – it’s an issue of justice and compassion. 

A Coincidence, I Assure You

I'd love to think that this has something to do with my recent blog posts on the SPLC, but I can't imagine that this blog is that influential.  It must be a coincidence.

From the editorial page of today's Tribune-Review:

The Obama Justice Department's pattern of partnering with leftist groups that share its perverted agenda reached reprehensible new depths last summer with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which cynically brands political opponents as “hate groups.”

Among conservative groups thus smeared by the SPLC is the Family Research Council, whose Washington headquarters were the site of an August 2012 shooting. Its president said the SPLC's outrageous “hate group” designation provided the perpetrator with “a license to shoot.”

That incident and comment prompted Judicial Watch to investigate the influence of such SPLC rhetoric on government agencies. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton says “fawning emails” obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show Justice treating SPLC co-founder Morris Dees as if “a head of state was visiting” as it arranged his speech at a July 31 “Diversity Training Event.”

In the emails, Justice staffers wonder if Mr. Dees is OK with his speech being shown on all Justice computers, the car that will pick him up from the airport and lunch and dinner plans.

We're not surprised. Justice cozied up to the NAACP to dismiss a New Black Panthers voter-intimidation case. And it cozied up to ACORN affiliate Project Vote to boost registration of welfare recipients.

It all begs this question about the Obama administration: Has the SPLC become an arm of government or has government become an arm of the SPLC?

Here's the press release from Judicial Watch regarding these emails.

There are a number of different ways of approaching this - but we first have to point out (yet again) the financial connections between Richard Mellon Scaife and Judicial Watch, the prompter of the FOIA request.  Full and fair disclosure would dictate that the braintrust mention the fact that their boss has funneled millions of dollars in support to the same organization they're currently defending.

They never do mention that, of course.

According to the BridgeProject (formerly the Media Matters Media Transparency site), the foundations Scaife controls (Sarah Scaife, Carthage and Allegheny) granted Judicial Watch slightly more than $9 million over the past 15 years.  Considering how closely they're connected, I gotta snarkily wonder if Judicial Watch is an arm of the Scaife media empire.

But I digress.

Let's look at why the SPLC designated the Family Research Council as a hate group.  It's not simply a matter, as the braintrust writes, that the two organizations are mere "political opponents."  The SPLC has a page devoted to the FRC where they write:

The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I realize that it's one thing to assert - what's their evidence?

Luckily, the SPLC has a few choice quotes for your perusal:

• "One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order." —1999 FRC publication, "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," Robert Knight and Frank York
• “Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.” — Robert Knight, FRC director of cultural studies, and Frank York, 1999
• "Since homosexual conduct is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, and domestic violence, it too qualifies as a behavior that is harmful to the people who engage in it and to society at large." — Tony Perkins, “Christian compassion requires the truth about the harms of homosexuality,” Washington Post, 10/25/2010
• “The videos are titled 'It Gets Better.' They are aimed at persuading kids that although they'll face struggles and perhaps bullying for 'coming out' as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. …It's disgusting. And it's part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle." — Tony Perkins, FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

And some followup:

Part of the FRC’s recent strategy is to pound home the false claim that gays and lesbians are more likely to sexually abuse children. This is false. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” That doesn’t matter to the FRC, though. Perkins defended the “gay men as pedophiles” claim yet again in a debate on the Nov. 30, 2010, edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews” with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok. As the show ended, Perkins stated, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children. So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.”

In fact, the SPLC did. The college, despite its professional-sounding name, is a tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the similarly named American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the 60,000-member association of the profession. The American College of Pediatrics (ACP) splintered from the AAP because of the AAP’s support of gay and lesbian parents. Publications of the ACP, which has some 200 members, have been roundly attacked by leading scientific authorities who say they are baseless and who also accuse the college of distorting and misrepresenting their work. (Chris Matthews offered a clarification on a follow-up show to describe what the American College of Pediatricians is and separate it from the AAP.)

And about that shooting, the SPLC had this to say:

But this afternoon, FRC President Tony Perkins attacked the SPLC, saying it had encouraged and enabled the attack by labeling the FRC a “hate group.” The attacker, Floyd Corkins, “was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Perkins said. “I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology.”

Perkins’ accusation is outrageous. The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage. The FRC and its allies on the religious right are saying, in effect, that offering legitimate and fact-based criticism in a democratic society is tantamount to suggesting that the objects of criticism should be the targets of criminal violence.

As the SPLC made clear at the time and in hundreds of subsequent statements and press interviews, we criticize the FRC for claiming, in Perkins’ words, that pedophilia is “a homosexual problem” — an utter falsehood, as every relevant scientific authority has stated. An FRC official has said he wanted to “export homosexuals from the United States.” The same official advocated the criminalizing of homosexuality.

So you can see why the SPLC designated the FRC as a hate group.

Now about that "Diversity Training Event" at the DOJ where Dees spoke.  It was late July 2012.  From the context of the piece, you can easily imagine that the braintrust has a rather low opinion of the co-founder of the SPLC.

Perhaps they should tell that to another radical un-American organization, the American Bar Association.

8 days after Dees spoke on Diversity at the DOJ, this is what happened:

Morris Dees, co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, received the ABA Medal at the House of Delegates meeting during the association’s 2012 Annual Meeting in Chicago. Dees received the ABA’s highest honor for his efforts to ensure access to justice for society’s most vulnerable members.

Yea, the braintrust's on the wrong side of this story - as is the FRC and Judicial Watch and RMC himself.

One more thing

When writing this post about Ka'Sandra Wade, I specifically did not want to get too political, but it is impossible for me not to think about her murder and the friends I know who knew her without remembering that her death occurred during at time when Congress has let the Violence Against Women Act expire and when the NRA's answer to gun violence is MORE GUNS.

I'm eternally grateful that when women that I have known have suffered from domestic abuse, there wasn't also a gun in the house...

Remembering Ka'Sandra Wade

A Pittsburgh woman was buried this week leaving behind an 11-year-old son. She was a victim of domestic abuse. She had finally, seemingly broken free of the terror of her ex-boyfriend. She had moved out and was about to start a new job in the new year at the place were she had been an intern for nine months. Before that could happen, she was murdered by her former partner. She was 33 years old.

Her name was Ka'Sandra Wade.

People often ask why woman stay with someone who abuses them. Well, Ka'Sandra's story illustrates one reason why: Leaving can be dangerous. According to a United States Department of Justice National Crime Victim Survey, the most dangerous time for a woman who is being abused is when she tries to leave.

Ka'Sandra had people trying to help her, including at her job. Tragically, when she reached out to police one last time, the system failed her.

She called 911 in the waning hours of last year. She requested that police come to her home, but then the 911 operator heard a commotion and the call went dead.

Two officers responded. They were denied entrance by a man (her ex) who spoke out of a window saying no police were needed. They spoke for some ten minutes to the man and then left the scene. They left without ever speaking to the woman who placed the call even though, "The officers ... knew the caller was female. They knew the woman was calm at first. They were told that there was some sort of commotion. And they knew the line had been disconnected."

When Ka'Sandra's mother called police the next day, concerned that she hadn't heard from her daughter, police went back to her home. They found her shot dead.

What followed next was a standoff at the ex-partner's apartment. Her murderer eventually killed himself -- but not before telling the police that they could have saved her the day previous. It is unknown whether or not she was killed before the police arrived the day before or shortly thereafter as it's impossible to pinpoint a time of death quite so precisely.

What is known is that the Pittsburgh Police 'do not have a specific policy on how officers should handle “unknown trouble” calls such as the one at the center of a murder-suicide investigation.'

Can we all agree that they should have policies in place? Can we all agree that there was a breakdown in the system that was supposed to protect her and all of us?

To make matters worse, when the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had emailed questions (the required format) to the police to break this story, they were not only met with resistance, something quite extraordinary happened:

Diane Richard, the department’s public information officer, tipped other news organizations off to the P-G’s investigation when she sent the release to about 200 journalists.  

Post-Gazette executive editor David Shribman tells Romenesko readers:  

“This is probably unprecedented and certainly unprofessional. It is a horrifying, disrespectful departure from every interchange I have had, or been witness to, with public-relations professionals in four decades in journalism.”  

The Board of Ethics and Professional Standards at the Public Relations Society of America is looking into the matter, PRSA’s Arthur Yann tells me.

Chris Potter of the Pittsburgh City Paper adds:

I've been in this business for more than 15 years, and have never seen anything quite like this. And if the idea was to somehow dissuade the P-G from working the story, well ... clearly it didn't work.

Clearly, we have not heard the last of this -- nor should we.

In the meantime, there are ways that you can help.

There will be a vigil for Ka'Sandra Wade tomorrow:

ACTION United Vigil for Ka'Sandra Wade
When: Saturday , Januray 12 2013, 4:00 PM
Where: 5907 Penn Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15206
What: Vigil Announcement: ACTION United and Pgh Women will hold a Vigil in Memory of Ka'Sandra Wade on Saturday, January 12, 2013. We will meet at 5907 Penn Avenue on the 3rd floor, at 4:00 PM, and hold a Solemn Procession to Eastminster Presbyterian Church. There will be a Potluck Repast, so please bring something to share if you can. A collection will be taken up for the trust fund we are setting up for her son. Womens Organizations should bring their banners or signs...There will be an opportunity to sign up for our Campaign for Ka'Sandra's Law Please RSVP and SHARE!
RSVP: Facebook (or just show up)

There will also be an online vigil tomorrow. Please click here for more information and to get a button for your blog/Facebook page/etc., like the one on the sidebar of our blog.

You can also find information and resources on domestic abuse from the Women's Center & Shelter of Pittsburgh and The Center for Victims.

Also from Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents (who initiated the cyber vigil):

Finally, we ask that you mention that a fund has been set up for Zaire, Ka’Sandra’s son – donations can be sent to made payable to Sharon Jordan to this address: Sharon Jordan, c/o ACTION United, 5907 Penn Ave, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15206. Sharon is Ka’Sandra’s mother and she is now raising Zaire. The family may have other needs – please contact ACTION United if you would like to help. The number is 412-567-7275.

A Sad Dispute Between Two Friends

Towards the beginning of a chapter in her book "Who Stole Feminism?", Christina Hoff Sommers wrote:

Battery and rape are crimes that shatter lives; those who suffer must be cared for, and those who cause their suffering must be rendered incapable of doing further harm. But in all we do to help, the most loyal ally is truth. Truth brought to public light recruits the best of us to work for change. On the other hand, even the best-intentioned "noble lie" ultimately discredits the finest of causes.

The chapter then proceeds to debunk the claim that "more women are victims of domestic abuse on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year." While it's true that Professor Sommers is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, she's still right about truth and the "noble lie".

Writing as someone who routinely works to undermine wingnut advocacy by unearthing the misinformation being used to support its positions, it was sad to see a local dispute erupt between a pair of bloggers both of whom I admire and respect.

For those who don't know, Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania CEO Heather Arnet recently had a letter in the P-G in which she applauded Pitt's decision to fire Michael Haywood, Pitt's newly hired football coach, after his arrest in Indiana on domestic abuse charges. In the letter (it's the beginning of the second paragraph, by the way) she wrote:

Domestic abuse is the number two killer of women in this country.

Setting aside the worthwhile discussion of the wisdom of Haywood's firing - on the one hand Haywood's only been accused, not convicted, of any crime but on the other had Pitt not fired him, the PR nightmares would have continued at least until he was either convicted or fired - it's Arnet's claim above that triggered the local blogger dispute.

First, my friend Chad Hermann responded with a fact-check and found that Arnet's claim was simply wrong.

Turns out that according to the FBI, there are about 1,200 deaths of women per year due to domestic violence and (extrapolating from the CDC's numbers) there's 264,000 or so deaths of women per year from Cancer (their #2 cause). With about 314,000 Heart Disease was the CDC's #1 cause of deaths of women per year. Chad recapped:

Cancer – 264,000
Domestic Violence – 1,200

The numbers are so close, you can see how Ms. Arnet might have gotten them confused. I mean, what’s a little factor of 220 among friends and advocates and peddlers of inveterate poppycock?

In response to one friend's fact-check, another friend, Ms Mon at Ms Mon's Salon, responded. While admitting that Arnet's facts are "soft" and that many of Chad's points are "valid" she, quickly and unfortunately, departs from the argument at hand:

But his determined discrediting of the statistics are so palpable, they seem more like his own desperate attempts to prove that women are full of hokum, instead of, say, offering illumination as to why women are a tad sensitive about the subject. I guess when you have to make up for so many thousands of years of privileged, white, male subjugation, you can't be bothered with those kinds of details.

Looking at his blog post, I am not sure I see the same things Ms. Mon sees (that he's attempting to prove that women are full of hokum) - but that's OK. There's no reason in the world why my reading of his blog post should take precedence over anyone else's.

However, she effectively changed the subject from the one Chad was making, which was that Arnet's assertion that domestic violence was the number two cause of death among women in this country was simply wrong.

And he was right. One can argue with the tone of his blog post but one can't argue with the facts he's presented there. She was simply wrong about the cause of death among women and I'd have to agree with Chad that the error was so wrong that it undermines the credibility of the letter as a whole and, unfortunately, the letter writer.

Domestic violence is very very bad. It is a serious problem that always requires serious attention. Its victims need to be cared for and treated respectfully and its perpetrators need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. A truly civilized society should demand no less.

However...

No matter how well intentioned, in the end a noble lie only discredits the cause it's being used to support.