I’m fascinated with the op hockey au and ur art that goes with it and was wondering what would the marines be… like would they be refs or rules officials or judges? Like hardly anyone likes the marines and nobody likes rules officials/judges.

asking cause they’re a couple good marines (Koby, Rosinante and Belle Mere)

i mentioned this a little bit in this post but it boils down to them just being generally scattered around sports and sports-adjacent jobs.

i thought mb akainu would be a ref that screws over/directly causes ace injury during a whitebeards vs pirates game; garp works in media (not sports) but doesn't really like the notion that all his kids and grandkids are in pro sports lol; and koby & helmeppo are a rookie espn sports journalism duo (writer + cameraman) that interned at garp's media company for a while before changing to espn (garp was exasperated about it haha). but ye, the marines would be scattered as judges and rules officials and people on the olympics committee, etc etc.

i said nami would be a marketer or mb a sportscaster, so i think it'd be cute if belle-mère did something similar in her day, annndddd idk about cora. i made croc mihawk's manager but i have no idea what doffy would do and how cora would play into all that. would love to hear if anyone's got any ideas tho!

Hours after President Trump’s incendiary post last month about sending the military to the Minnesota protests, Trump called Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg.

The post put the company in a difficult position, Zuckerberg told Trump, according to people familiar with the discussions. The same message was hidden by Twitter, the strongest action ever taken against a presidential post.

To Facebook’s executives in Washington, the post didn’t appear to violate its policies, which allows leaders to post about government use of force if the message is intended to warn the public — but it came right up to the line. The deputies had already contacted the White House earlier in the day with an urgent plea to tweak the language of the post or simply delete it, the people said.

Eventually, Trump posted again, saying his comments were supposed to be a warning after all. Zuckerberg then went online to explain his rationale for keeping the post up, noting that Trump’s subsequent explanation helped him make his decision.

The frenzied push-pull was just the latest incident in a five-year struggle by Facebook to accommodate the boundary-busting ways of Trump. The president has not changed his rhetoric since he was a candidate, but the company has continually altered its policies and its products in ways certain to outlast his presidency.

Facebook has constrained its efforts against false and misleading news, adopted a policy explicitly allowing politicians to lie, and even altered its news feed algorithm to neutralize claims that it was biased against conservative publishers, according to more than a dozen former and current employees and previously unreported documents obtained by The Washington Post. One of the documents shows it began as far back as 2015, when as a candidate Trump posted a video calling for a ban of Muslims entering the United States. Facebook’s executives declined to remove it, setting in motion an exception for political discourse.

The concessions to Trump have led to a transformation of the world’s information battlefield. They paved the way for a growing list of digitally savvy politicians to repeatedly push out misinformation and incendiary political language to billions of people. It has complicated the public understanding of major events such as the pandemic and the protest movement, as well as contributed to polarization.

And as Trump grew in power, the fear of his wrath pushed Facebook into more deferential behavior toward its growing number of right-leaning users, tilting the balance of news people see on the network, according to the current and former employees.

Facebook is now confronting a mounting advertiser boycott that has pushed down its stock price as companies demand stricter policies against hate speech. Starbucks became the latest on Sunday to say it would hit pause on social media advertising.

Facebook is also facing a slow-burning crisis of morale, with more than 5,000 employees denouncing the company’s decision to leave Trump’s post that said, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” up.

Bowing to those pressures on Friday, Zuckerberg announced a rash of new policies aimed at better policing content on the site. That includes affixing labels on posts that violate hate speech or other policies — even on those from political leaders.

But the company said the post wouldn’t have qualified.

As the United States heads into another presidential election while facing a pandemic and civil unrest, the latitude given to Trump may afford him a potential advantage. In recent months, he has used Facebook and other platforms to tout misleading information about coronavirus cures, election fraud and the motives of protesters, frequently targeting a left-wing movement as a cause of violence without citing evidence.

It also places Facebook in growing conflict with its counterparts in Silicon Valley. Twitter has labeled several presidential tweets as abusive and misleading, and social media platform Snapchat curtailed the reach of the president’s account.

“The value of being in favor with people in power outweighs almost every other concern for Facebook,” said David Thiel, a Facebook security engineer who resigned in March after his colleagues refused to remove a post he believed constituted “dehumanizing speech” by Brazil’s president.

Facebook contends the use of incendiary populist language predates social media. Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice president for global affairs and communications, said in a statement that populism wasn’t invented in Silicon Valley, pointing to centuries of political history before social media companies‘ existence.'

“From the Arab Spring to local candidates challenging political incumbents, social media has also helped to open up politics, not favor one side over the other,” Clegg added. “Studies have shown the drivers of populism are complex and cannot be reduced to the use of social media, in fact political polarization has fallen in many countries with high internet use.”

Facebook declined to make Zuckerberg available for an interview, although it pointed out that Zuckerberg opposed Trump when his Muslim immigration ban went into effect. The White House declined to comment.

Zuckerberg talks frequently about making choices that stand the test of time, preserving the values of Facebook and subsidiaries WhatsApp and Instagram for all of its nearly 3 billion monthly users for many years into the future — even when those decisions are unpopular or controversial.

At one point, however, he wanted a different approach to Trump.

Setting the stage

Before the 2016 election, the company largely saw its role in politics as courting political leaders to buy ads and broadcast their views, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking.

But that started to change in 2015, as Trump’s candidacy picked up speed. In December of that year, he posted a video in which he said he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. The video went viral on Facebook and was an early indication of the tone of his candidacy.

Outrage over the video led to a companywide town hall, in which employees decried the video as hate speech, in violation of the company’s policies. And in meetings about the issue, senior leaders and policy experts overwhelmingly said they felt that the video was hate speech, according to three former employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Zuckerberg expressed in meetings that he was personally disgusted by it and wanted it removed, the people said. Some of these details were previously reported.

At one of the meetings, Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president for policy, drafted a document to address the video and shared it with leaders including Zuckerberg’s top deputy COO Sheryl Sandberg and Vice President of Global Policy Joel Kaplan, the company’s most prominent Republican.

The document, which is previously unreported and obtained by The Post, weighed four options. They included removing the post for hate speech violations, making a one-time exception for it, creating a broad exemption for political discourse and even weakening the company’s community guidelines for everyone, allowing comments such as “No blacks allowed” and “Get the gays out of San Francisco.”

Facebook spokesman Tucker Bounds said the latter option was never seriously considered.

The document also listed possible “PR Risks” for each. For example, lowering the standards overall would raise questions such as, “Would Facebook have provided a platform for Hitler?” Bickert wrote. A carveout for political speech across the board, on the other hand, risked opening the floodgates for even more hateful “copycat” comments.

Ultimately, Zuckerberg was talked out of his desire to remove the post in part by Kaplan, according to the people. Instead, the executives created an allowance that newsworthy political discourse would be taken into account when making decisions about whether posts violated community guidelines.

That allowance was not formally written into the policies, even though it informed ad hoc decision-making about political speech for the next several years, according to the people. When a formal newsworthiness policy was announced in October 2016, in a blog post by Kaplan, the company did not discuss Trump’s role in shaping it.

In an interview, Bickert said the company ultimately made a call to maintain Trump’s Muslim ban video because executives interpreted Trump’s comment to mean that the then-candidate was not speaking about all Muslims, but rather advocating for a policy position on immigration as part of a newsworthy political debate. She said she did not recall the document where the options were presented.

Facebook’s Bounds added that the “newsworthiness” policy was added in 2016 after content reviewers removed a photo of a naked girl fleeing a napalm attack during the Vietnam War. “Our goal was to recognize the essential public benefit of preserving content that in other contexts wouldn’t be allowed,” Bounds said. “In the case of elected officials, it also ensures that they will be held to account for their words,” so that people can judge for themselves.

In spring of 2016, Zuckerberg was also talked out of his desire to write a post specifically condemning Trump for his calls to build a wall between the United States and Mexico, after advisers in Washington warned it could look like choosing sides, according to Dex Torricke-Barton, one of Zuckerberg’s former speechwriters.

The political speech carveout ended up setting the stage for how the company would handle not only Trump, but populist leaders around the world who have posted content that test these boundaries, such as Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Narendra Modi in India.

“Though [Facebook] has cracked down on misinformation, the most problematic influencers are politicians,” said Claire Wardle, U.S. director of First Draft, an organization dedicated to fighting misinformation that has a partnership with Facebook to fact-check news articles. “You can do all the fact checking in the world, but these influencers have a disproportionate impact.”

Trump presented a unique challenge, she added. “Until then, no one would have considered a president who would have said those things.”

Protecting the right

After the election, it became clear Russia had used social media to sow disinformation. Facebook soon after became a frequent target of the president’s ire. He tweeted that the social media giant was “anti-Trump” and trying to undermine his victory.

At the same time, GOP leaders stepped up criticism that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, with leadership ranks full of liberals, sought to limit the reach of right-leaning voices.

“There’s no credible research supporting Trump’s claim that social platforms suppress conservative content, but he still succeeded in getting them to revise their rules for him,” said former Facebook spokesman Nu Wexler, who left the company in 2018.

As Facebook scrambled to tackle foreign interference and misinformation, its executives in the nation’s capital argued that caution and deference was necessary to survive the new political environment, according to three people familiar with the company’s thinking.

Facebook’s security engineers in December 2016 presented findings from a broad internal investigation, known as Project P, to senior leadership on how false and misleading news reports spread so virally during the election. When Facebook’s security team highlighted dozens of pages that had peddled false news reports, senior leaders in Washington, including Kaplan, opposed shutting them down immediately, arguing that doing so would disproportionately impact conservatives, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. Ultimately, the company shut down far fewer pages than were originally proposed while it began developing a policy to handle these issues.

How conservatives learned to wield power inside Facebook

A year later, Facebook considered how to overhaul its scrolling news feed, the homepage screen most users see when they open the site. As part of the change to help limit misinformation, it changed its news feed algorithm to focus more on posts by friends and family versus publishers.

In meetings about the change, Kaplan questioned whether the revamped algorithm would hurt right-leaning publishers more than others, according to three people familiar with the company’s thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. When the data showed it would — conservative leaning outlets were pushing more content that violated its policies, the company had found — he successfully pushed for changes to make the new algorithm to be what he considered more evenhanded in its impact, the people said.

Isolated and divided

With the 2020 election on the horizon, Facebook and Zuckerberg’s hands-off approach to free speech was leaving it increasingly isolated in Silicon Valley.

In May 2019, Zuckerberg, citing free speech, refused to take down a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that made her appear drunk.

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg reached out to Speaker Pelosi. She hasn’t called him back.

That summer, company leaders held a meeting to revisit its newsworthiness exception, which until then had been determined on a case-by-case basis, with the most controversial calls made by Zuckerberg. Internally, some were unclear how far that leeway extended, according to two people.

Clegg, the company’s new head of global affairs and communications and a former British deputy prime minister, announced the outcome of that meeting at a speech in Washington in September 2019. Aside from speech that causes violence or real-world harm, Facebook would allow politicians to express themselves virtually unchecked on social media. Facebook’s network of independent fact-checkers, which had been established as a key part of the company’s response to disinformation, would not evaluate their claims and the community guidelines would largely not apply to politicians.

Facebook did not want to be an arbiter of truth in political debate, he said, echoing Zuckerberg’s long-standing position.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg says in interview he fears ‘erosion of truth’ but defends allowing politicians to lie in ads

The speech angered some employees, triggering more than 250 of them to sign a petition disagreeing with the decision because they thought it gave politicians a pass.

One former executive, Yael Eisenstat, who worked to improve the political ads process, wrote in The Post that the controversy was “the biggest test of whether [Facebook] will ever truly put society and democracy ahead of profit and ideology.”

She said that she routinely experienced how the company’s efforts at integrity were often undermined by “the few voices who ultimately decided the company’s overall direction.”

Meanwhile, in October, as Facebook faced more potential regulation and political troubles, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan went to the White House for a private dinner with Trump, a part of the CEO’s effort to cultivate personal relationships in Washington.

Tweetstorm

As the pandemic and civil unrest dominated the first half of this year, Trump continued to turn to social media platforms to spread misinformation. He touted the unproven drug hydroxychloroquine as a possible cure for the coronavirus and claimed without evidence that the left-wing antifa movement was behind the violence at George Floyd protests.

Meanwhile, Facebook employees began challenging the company’s decisions.

Two months before Trump’s ”looting, shooting“ post, the Brazilian president posted about the country’s indigenous population, saying, “Indians are undoubtedly changing. They are increasingly becoming human beings just like us.”

Thiel, the security engineer, and other employees argued internally that it violated the company’s internal guidelines against “dehumanizing speech.” They were referring to Zuckerberg’s own words while testifying before Congress in October in which he said dehumanizing speech “is the first step toward inciting” violence. In internal correspondence, Thiel was told that it didn’t qualify as racism — and may have even been a positive reference to integration.

Thiel quit in disgust.

In May, following years of internal debate of its own, Twitter chose to go in the opposite direction. It labeled two misleading tweets by Trump about mail-in ballots with a fact-check label.

Twitter’s decision to label Trump’s tweets was two years in the making

Trump responded two days later with an executive order that could hurt social media companies by removing a key exception that limits their liability for content posted on their sites.

The next day, Trump tweeted about the Minnesota protests. Twitter quickly labeled the tweet for violating rules about glorifying violence, and Snapchat stopped promoting Trump’s account the following week. YouTube told The Post that it holds politicians to the same standards as everyone else.

Facebook, on the other hand, chose to haggle with the White House, asking for a deletion or a change, said the people. Axios first reported the call, which Facebook’s Bounds confirmed to The Post.

As employees raged on internal message boards and externally on Twitter, Zuckerberg told workers that Facebook’s policies might change again in light of Trump’s post. The company had rules allowing for “state use of force,” he said, but they were vague and didn’t encompass the possibility that such pronouncements could signal harmful aggression. Bickert’s team planned a series of policy meetings for the weeks ahead.

In June, Facebook removed a swath of Trump campaign ads with Nazi symbolism, after an initial internal assessment that found the ads did not violate the company’s polices, according to documents viewed by The Post. In meetings, senior executives argued that not removing them would be perceived as pandering too much to the president, according to a person familiar with the discussions.

Last week, the advertiser boycott picked up steam. Hershey, Verizon, Unilever, Coca-Cola and others said they were temporarily pulling ads.

On Friday, Zuckerberg told employees in a live-streamed town hall that he was changing the company’s policy to label problematic newsworthy content that violated the company’s policies as Twitter does, a major concession amid the rising tide of criticism. He also said in the most explicit language ever that the company would remove posts by politicians that incite violence and suppress voting. Still, civil rights leaders said his assertions didn’t go far enough.

“There are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies that I’m announcing today,” Zuckerberg said.

Phroyd

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

The Senate impeachment trial of President Trump is finally kicking off this week. And while the trial itself is a momentous political event, the whole process feels a bit like having peeked at the last few pages of a book: We don’t know exactly how the plot will unfold, but we already know where it will end. As at this point, there’s no sign that there are anywhere near 67 senators willing to vote to remove Trump from office.

But despite the final vote being something of a foregone conclusion, there are still a number of genuinely open questions that the trial might resolve. The answers to these questions might not be enough to break the country out of the partisan logjam that’s surrounded the impeachment process for months, but they could at the very least inject some uncertainty into a process that has come to feel quite inevitable. (And there’s always the chance, however small, for a truly shocking development.) Here are some of the major questions we’ll be following closely as the impeachment trial gets started:

What will Trump’s defense look like?

The impeachment process has been in motion for more than three months, but we still haven’t heard a formal defense from Trump’s legal team, outlining their case for why his conduct doesn’t merit impeachment and removal. It’s not because Trump was boxed out of the impeachment inquiry in the House either.1 They just refused to participate.

That means that the arguments we heard in favor of Trump during the House impeachment hearings were presented by his Republican allies in Congress, not his lawyers. And while their defenses of the president have been vigorous, they’ve also been scattershot.

For instance, at various moments over the past few months, Republicans have argued, among other things, that the testimony presented was “secondhand” or “hearsay”; that Trump was just concerned about a (debunked) theory alleging Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election; that Ukraine said there was no pressure so there couldn’t be a quid pro quo; that quid pro quos happen all the time in foreign policy; that the whistleblower was politically biased against the president; that Trump’s rights were denied throughout the process; and that Democrats have been looking for an excuse to impeach Trump since the day he took office. These arguments don’t add up to a coherent whole — in some cases, they directly contradict each other — but Republicans didn’t really need to offer a logically cohesive case in order to sow confusion during the hearings about Democrats’ claims.

Now, though, Trump’s legal team is expected to offer a more conventional defense, which will be presented at the trial by White House lawyer Pat Cipollone, and Jay Sekulow, who has been Trump’s personal lawyer since 2017. Several other attorneys were also added to the team in the past few days, including Ken Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel whose investigation led to Clinton’s impeachment, and the perennially TV-ready Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional lawyer and emeritus professor at Harvard Law School.

And we got a preview of the president’s lawyers’ strategy in legal filings released over the past few days, where Trump’s team argued that the impeachment vote was a “brazenly political act” that punished the president for simply performing his duties as chief executive. Those documents also hinted at a multi-pronged defense that echoes some of the arguments already previewed by Trump and his allies: First, that Trump’s behavior was “entirely appropriate” and didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense and second, that the process pursued by the Democrats was illegitimate and unfair. The filings also suggested that the defense is likely to be aggressive and concede no wrongdoing by Trump rather than simply arguing that his conduct doesn’t meet the standard for impeachment. The upcoming election could also play a role as well, since Trump’s legal team also accused Democrats of using impeachment to “interfere with the 2020 election — now just months away.” However it plays out, their arguments will be televised and Trump himself is sure to be watching closely.

How will Chief Justice John Roberts preside over the trial?

Another potential wildcard is Chief Justice John Roberts, who will cross the street between the Supreme Court and the Capitol each afternoon to preside over the trial. It’s possible his role will be mostly ceremonial, especially if President Clinton’s impeachment trial is any indication. (At its close, Chief Justice William Rehnquist famously said, borrowing a line from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, “I did nothing in particular and did it very well.”)

But the chief justice’s power isn’t actually all that clearly defined, and some legal commentators have argued that he could have significant influence over the proceedings if he chooses. In the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, for instance, Chief Justice Salmon Chase cast two tie-breaking votes. Roberts could theoretically do the same if the senators are deadlocked over an issue like whether to call additional witnesses. Although there are some limits — Roberts’s decisions can, for example, be overridden by a majority of senators.

The chief justice will be closely watched for other reasons, too. For one, the impeachment trial isn’t the only Trump-related case on Roberts’s docket this year. In a few months, the Supreme Court will consider a high-profile separation-of-powers dispute over whether House Democrats can obtain the president’s financial records. Secondly, Roberts’s relationship with Trump hasn’t exactly been smooth. While Trump was running for president, he called Roberts a “disaster” and a “nightmare for conservatives.” And in 2018, Roberts rebuked Trump after the president attacked a judge who ruled to restrict his asylum policy as an “Obama judge,” saying, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

Roberts, who is known for his concern about the court’s institutional reputation, may not want to do anything too splashy during the trial to avoid creating the impression of partisanship. But it will be instructive, all the same, to see how he navigates the treacherous waters of an impeachment trial — particularly if there are close votes or disputes over witnesses and evidence.

Will any new evidence emerge?

Of course, one of the biggest unanswered questions as the trial begins is whether the senators will agree to call witnesses or subpoena documents or if new evidence will emerge in other ways.

In the previous two presidential impeachment trials, witnesses did testify. Democrats have been pushing for the Senate to call several Trump aides who haven’t yet shared what they know about the president’s conduct on Ukraine, including former national security advisor John Bolton. (Bolton said he would comply with a subpoena to testify.) Only four Republicans would need to break ranks in order to make this happen.

That doesn’t seem especially likely at this point, even though three Republican senators have already said they’re open to voting to call witnesses. But a fight over witnesses could also end up giving Democrats more than they bargained for, since some Republicans have been arguing for what they’re calling “witness reciprocity” — in other words, if the Democrats insist on hearing from John Bolton, the Republicans will haul in Hunter Biden.

New evidence could also trickle out in other ways, though, and indeed, it already is. Last week, House impeachment investigators released new information obtained from Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani who’s currently under criminal indictment. The documents, which include text messages and voicemails, provide a detailed portrait of Parnas’s involvement with the Ukraine pressure campaign and inject a new layer of uncertainty into the impeachment trial as it begins — a reminder that there’s still a significant amount of information that we don’t know about Trump’s conduct when it comes to Ukraine.

At this point, as you can read in my colleague Perry Bacon Jr.’s article published today, we think the impeachment process in the Senate will play out largely as it did in the House: along party lines. But it’s also dangerous to assume that the trial will unfold exactly as we expect. There are still plenty of open questions that could lead to big surprises over the next few weeks — and continue to shape the narrative on impeachment — even if we’re pretty confident about how this story will end.

Is The Media Biased Against Republicans

Opiniontrump And His Voters Are Drawn Together By A Shared Sense Of Defiance

Are Google, Facebook, Twitter Biased against Conservatives?

Americans in general have begun to catch on: 66 percent of Americans believe that the media has a hard time separating fact from opinion and, according to a recent Gallup poll, 62 percent of the country believes that the press is biased one way or the other in their reporting.

So when CNN, NBC News, Fox News, or another outlet break a hard news story, there is a good chance that a large swathe of the public wont view it as legitimate news.

And politicians, right and left, are taking advantage of this.

The entire ordeal is part of an ever-growing list of examples in which the media seemed to be biased, whether consciously or not, against Republicans.

Before Donald Trump, there was New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who in 2014 accused the media of dividing us because they asked him about some protesters who had chanted “NYPD is the KKK” and . He also accused the media of McCarthyism when they dug into the personal life of an aide of his, who reportedly had a relationship with a convicted murderer. The mayor also publicly and privately accused Bloomberg News of being biased against him, since it is owned by his predecessor. However, de Blasio is not terribly popular within his own party, so Democrats in New York did not buy what he was selling.

What To Watch For

The NYU report makes a series of recommendations for social media companies and the Biden administration to address the suspicions of anti-right bias, including giving more explanation for content moderation actions, letting users choose between different algorithms and creating a new Digital Regulatory Agency dedicated to social media oversight. The researchers also predict conservatives are unlikely to actually leave major sites like Twitter and Facebook because of their perceived biases. Conservatives like the wide platform those sites offer, researchers said, and appear to relish wielding the bias-claim cudgel, even though its based on distortions and falsehoods.

The Technology 202: New Report Calls Conservative Claims Of Social Media Censorship ‘a Form Of Disinformation’

with Aaron Schaffer

A new report concludes that social networks aren’t systematically biased against conservatives, directly contradicting Republican claims that social media companies are censoring them.;

Recent moves by Twitter and Facebook to suspend former president Donald Trump’s accounts in the wake of the violence at the Capitol are inflaming conservatives’ attacks on Silicon Valley. But New York University researchers today released a report stating claims of anti-conservative bias are a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.;

The report found there is no trustworthy large-scale data to support these claims, and even anecdotal examples that tech companies are biased against conservatives crumble under close examination. The report’s authors said, for instance, the companies’ suspensions of Trump were reasonable given his repeated violation of their terms of service and if anything, the companies took a hands-off approach for a long time given Trump’s position.

The report also noted several data sets underscore the prominent place conservative influencers enjoy on social media. For instance, CrowdTangle data shows that right-leaning pages dominate the list of sources providing the most engaged-with posts containing links on Facebook. Conservative commentator Dan Bongino, for instance, far out-performed most major news organizations in the run-up to the 2020 election.;

Also Check: Who Controls The Senate Republicans Or Democrats

Republicans Are Far More Likely Than Democrats To Say Major Tech Companies Favor The Views Of Liberals Over Conservatives At The Same Time Partisans Differ On Whether Social Media Companies Should Flag Inaccurate Information On Their Platforms

Pew Research Center has been studying the role of technology and technology companies in Americans lives for many years. This study was conducted to understand Americans views about the role of major technology companies in the political landscape. For this analysis, we surveyed 4,708 U.S. adults from June 16 to 22, 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of the Centers American Trends Panel , an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATPs methodology.

Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology.

Americans have complicated feelings about their relationship with big technology companies. While they have appreciated the impact of technology over recent decades and rely on these companies products to communicate, shop and get news, many have also grown critical of the industry and have expressed concerns about the executives who run them.

Debates about censorship grew earlier this summer following Twitters from President Donald Trump as misleading. This prompted some of the presidents supporters to charge that these platforms are censoring conservative voices.

Top House Republican Opposes Bipartisan Commission To Investigate Capitol Riot

But McCarthy replied by opposing Katkos product, and more than 80% of the other House Republicans did too. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., initially said he was keeping an open mind but then announced that he too was opposed. This makes it highly unlikely that 10 of McConnells GOP colleagues will be willing to add their votes to the Democrats and defeat a filibuster of the bill.

Republicans have argued that two Senate committees are already looking at the events of Jan. 6, as House panels have done as well. The Justice Department is pursuing cases against hundreds of individuals who were involved. Former President Donald Trump and others have said any commission ought to also be tasked to look at street protests and violence that took place in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd.

But with all that on the table, several Republicans have alluded to their concern about a new commission dragging on into 2022, the year of the next midterm elections. A lot of our members want to be moving forward, said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the No. 2 Senate Republican toMcConnell. Anything that gets us rehashing to 2020 elections is, I think, a day lost.

Resistance even after 9/11

The Taliban were toppled but bin Laden escaped, and U.S. forces have been engaged there ever since. The troop numbers have declined in recent years, and President Biden has indicated that all combat troops will be out by this years anniversary of the 2001 attacks.

Recommended Reading: What Do Republicans Believe About Taxes

The Actual Reason Why Republicans And Their Media Are Discouraging People From Getting Vaccinated

Dr. Anthony Fauci told Jake Tapper on CNN last Sunday, I dont have a really good reason why this is happening.

But even if he cant think of a reason why Republicans would trash talk vaccination and people would believe them, its definitely there.

Which is why its important to ask a couple of simple questions that all point to the actual reason why Republicans and their media are discouraging people from getting vaccinated:

1. Why did Trump get vaccinated in secret after Joe Biden won the election and his January 6th coup attempt failed?

2. Why are Fox Newspersonalities discouraging people from getting vaccinated while refusing to say if they and the people they work with have been protected by vaccination?

3. Why was one of the biggest applause lines at CPAC: They were hoping the government was hoping that they could sort of sucker 90% of the population into getting vaccinated and it isnt happening!

Death is their electoral strategy.

Is there any other possible explanation?

So, whats left?

Censorship Of Conservative Content

Tech companies and social media sites have been accused of censorship by some conservative groups, although there is little or no evidence to support these claims.

At least one conservative theme, that of climate change denialism, is over-represented in the media, and some scientists have argued that media outlets have not done enough to combat false information. In November 2013, Nathan Allen, a PhD chemist and moderator on Reddit‘s science forum published an op-ed that argued that newspaper editors should refrain from publishing articles from people who deny the scientific consensus on climate change.

Shadow banning

Claims of shadow banning of conservative social media accounts were brought to the fore in 2016 when conservative news sites lashed out after a report from an unnamed Facebook employee on May 7 alleged that contractors for the social media giant were told to minimize links to their sites in its “trending news” column. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard investigated and found no evidence of shadow-banning of conservatives.

Don’t Miss: Why Do Republicans Still Back Trump

Despite Cries Of Censorship Conservatives Dominate Social Media

GOP-friendly voices far outweigh liberals in driving conversations on hot topics leading up to the election, a POLITICO analysis shows.

The Twitter app on a mobile phone | Matt Rourke/AP Photo

10/27/2020 01:38 PM EDT

Link Copied

Republicans have turned alleged liberal bias in Silicon Valley into a major closing theme of the election cycle, hauling tech CEOs in for virtual grillings on Capitol Hill while President Donald Trump threatens legal punishment for companies that censor his supporters.

But a POLITICO analysis of millions of social media posts shows that conservatives still rule online.

Right-wing social media influencers, conservative media outlets and other GOP supporters dominate online discussions around two of the elections hottest issues, the Black Lives Matter movement and voter fraud, according to the review of Facebook posts, Instagram feeds, Twitter messages and conversations on two popular message boards. And their lead isnt close.

As racial protests engulfed the nation after George Floyds death, users shared the most-viral right-wing social media content more than 10 times as often as the most popular liberal posts, frequently associating the Black Lives Matter movement with violence and accusing Democrats like Joe Biden of supporting riots.

Trump Continues To Push Election Falsehoods Heres Why That Matters

Trump: Social media discriminates against Republicans

Republican opposition to the commission

Rice was featured in one of the very few congressional commissions ever to receive this level of attention. Most are created and live out their mission with little notice. Indeed, Congress has created nearly 150 commissions of various kinds in just the last 30 years, roughly five a year.

Some have a highly specific purpose, such as a commemoration. Others are more administrative, such as the five-member commission overseeing the disbursement of business loans during the early months of pandemic lockdown in 2020. Others have been wide-ranging and controversial, such as the one created to investigate synthetic opioid trafficking.

In the initial weeks after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, the idea of an independent commission to probe the origins of the attack and the failures that let it happen seemed a no-brainer. It had broad support both in Congress and in public opinion polls. It still enjoys the latter, as about two-thirds of Americans indicate that they think an independent commission is needed. The idea has fared well particularly when described as being 9/11 Commission style.

Also Check: Who Is The Speaker Of The House For Republicans

Its Time To End This Forever War Biden Says Forces To Leave Afghanistan By 9/11

The enormous national anger generated by those attacks was also channeled by the administration toward the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which was conceived to prevent any recurrence of attacks on such a massive scale. Arguments over that legislation consumed Congress through much of 2002 and became the fodder for campaign ads in that years midterms.

The same anger was also directed toward a resolution to use force, if needed, in dealing with security threats from the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That authorization passed Congress with bipartisan majorities in the fall of 2002, driven by administration claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It became law weeks before the midterm elections.

Once those elections were over, the Republicans in control of both chambers finally agreed to create an independent commission to seek answers about 9/11. Bush signed the legislation on Nov. 27, 2002.

The beginning was hobbled when the first chairman, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and vice chairman, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, decided not to continue. But a new chairman, former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, and vice chairman, former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, filled the breach and performed to generally laudatory reviews.

Long memories

The American Mainstream News Media May Be More Biased Than We Think

Barely a day goes by without President Trump firing off an angry tweet referring to the fake news media. But what do we know about actual political bias in the media? Eric Merkley studied 400,000 news stories published over three decades and has found that the tone of economic news is more favorable during Democratic presidencies compared to Republican administrations.

Since even before his election over two years ago, President Donald Trump and his Republican surrogates have made a habit of responding to critical news coverage with allegations that mainstream press reports are fake news. This allegation, regardless of how often it is repeated, has been shown to be fundamentally without merit.

However, there has also been a long history of complaints from conservative elites that journalists are biased against conservatives and the Republican Party in their reporting for mainstream news outlets. There is evidence that most journalists identify with the Democratic Party and as ideologicalliberals. Consequently, these allegations cannot be so easily dismissed.

In new research, I find evidence of considerable bias against Republican presidential administrations in mainstream economic news content.;

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Elections To Watch In 2021

In its study of the media landscape in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election cycle, the Pew Research Center found that of the 30 news sources it asked about, only Fox News was trusted by a majority of Republicans. This finding stands in stark contrast with the views of Democrats, who said they trusted a variety of news sources, and it marks a further decline in Republicans trust of other news sources since Pew last conducted a similar survey in 2014.

This is in part because animosity toward the other party is at an all-time high and Republicans increasingly associate the news media with the Democratic Party. That means they are more likely to dismiss a source that isnt Fox News as politically biased. For example, in a among people who said they voted for then-President Trump in 2020, a staggering 92 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that the mainstream media today is just a part of the Democratic Party.

related:Why Attacking Cancel Culture And Woke People Is Becoming The GOPs New Political Strategy Read more. »

Views About Whether Social Media Companies Should Label Posts On Their Platforms As Inaccurate Are Sharply Divided Along Political Lines

Americans are divided over whether social media companies should label posts on their sites as inaccurate or misleading, with most being skeptical that these sites can accurately determine what content should be flagged.

Some 51% of Americans say they strongly or somewhat approve of social media companies labeling posts from elected officials on their platforms as inaccurate or misleading, while a similar share say they at least somewhat disapprove of this.

Democrats and Republicans hold contrasting views about the appropriateness of social media companies flagging inaccurate information on their platforms. Fully 73% of Democrats say they strongly or somewhat approve of social media companies labeling posts on their platforms from elected officials as inaccurate or misleading, versus 25% who disapprove.

These sentiments are nearly reversed for Republicans: 71% say they disapprove of social media companies engaging in this type of labeling, including about four-in-ten who say they strongly disapprove. Just 27% say they approve of this labeling.

Liberal Democrats stand out as being the most supportive of this practice: 85% of this group say they approve of social media companies labeling elected officials posts as inaccurate or misleading, compared with 64% of conservative or moderate Democrats and even smaller shares of moderate or liberal Republicans and conservative Republicans .

Recommended Reading: How Many Registered Republicans In Illinois

The Capitol Siege: The Arrested And Their Stories

It would only be logical for that memory to inform the imagination of any Republican contemplating a similar independent commission to probe what happened on Jan. 6. The commission would likely look at various right-wing groups that were involved, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, some members of which have already been charged. The commission might also delve into the social media presence and influence of various white supremacists.

Moreover, just as the 9/11 Commission was expected to interview the current and preceding presidents, so might a new commission pursue testimony from Trump and some of his advisers, both official and otherwise, regarding their roles in the protest that wound up chasing members of Congress from both chambers into safe holding rooms underground.

House Minority Leader McCarthy was asked last week whether he would testify if a commission were created and called on him to discuss his conversations with Trump on Jan. 6.

Sure, McCarthy replied. Next question.

All this may soon be moot. If Senate Democrats are unable to secure 60 votes to overcome an expected filibuster of the House-passed bill, the measure will die and the questions to be asked will fall to existing congressional committees, federal prosecutors and the media. To some degree, all can at least claim to have the same goals and intentions as an independent commission might have.

The difference is the level of acceptance their findings are likely to have with the public.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/is-the-media-biased-against-republicans/

In the earliest days of the Trump crisis, just about a month after the inauguration, I received the horrifying news that my best friend and podcast partner, Chez Pazienza, had died of a drug overdose.

This article was originally published at Salon

It was the evening of Feb. 25, 2017, and the shock still hasn’t quite worn off. In fact, I ask myself nearly every day what Chez might’ve said about the most recent atrocity committed by the chief executive. I’ll never know for sure, but there’s something comforting in that exercise, imagining how he’d frame this dark ride with equal parts Gen-X angst, stinging Bourdain-ish erudition and artistically worded blue streaks that would’ve made George Carlin applaud.

I’m convinced, however, that it wasn’t really an overdose that killed him. Sure, it was the weapon of choice, but it wasn’t the ultimate cause of death. Chez possessed the ability to foresee this Trump crisis stretched out in front of him — maybe not the specifics, but a general concept in his big brain for the horror show that was awaiting us. I believe it was the crushing reality of not only being force-fed a Trump presidency every day but also covering it professionally that forced him to drift back to his old addictions to ease the pain. And I wish more than anything that I could have stopped him.

Nevertheless, Chez could clearly see the incoming abuses, the crimes, the ungainly nonsense, the recklessness, the racism, the petty vindictiveness — all of it.

In 2015, he accurately forecast that Trump, if elected, would spitefully withhold federal funding from regions that refused to support his cruel whimsy. Naturally, we’ve watched this play out with Puerto Rico, California and most recently Pennsylvania, where Trump, this week, threatened to withhold funding for the commonwealth because of Gov. Tom Wolf’s COVID plan. In Trump’s view, responsible leadership is worthy of punishment because it makes him look bad by contrast, while incompetence, mainly his own, is routinely lionized.

Trump’s blinding dumbness in the areas of history, the Constitution, the presidency and democratic institutions has infected him with an ugly, bastardized view of his job description, inflamed by his own biases and whatever he’s picked up from watching cable news. He’s a presidential dilettante, even now, nearly four years into the gig.

His wafer-thin understanding of presidential leadership contributes to his most self-defeating misapprehension: that he’s only the president of the red states. Everyone else is the enemy, even more so than our actual overseas adversaries — surely more than Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin, whom Trump praises more often than many of his fellow citizens and colleagues. The rest of us are only useful to him as punching bags and targets for his screechy, obscene, misspelled tweets and, more recently, his fascist police force. The upside of his deformed view of the presidency is that if he loses this election, it’ll partly be because he refused to expand his support beyond his loyalists.

This is one of the reasons why he felt compelled to cheat in the 2020 election by attempting to blackmail the president of Ukraine into smearing Joe Biden — a plot that ended with Trump’s impeachment and trial in the Senate. After all, how could he win re-election with only 40-44 percent popular support without making up the difference … somehow?

His relationship with his disciples is a match made in hell, given that his Red Hat fanboys have an equally stunted view of the presidency. I assure you, they’d never allow Trump-style behavior from their doctors, their kids’ teachers or, hell, their airline pilots. If they hadn’t been so badly brainwashed by the conservative entertainment complex, they never would have gifted the nuclear codes and the immense power of the presidency to such an unstable, erratic, incompetent political tourist who has utterly failed to grow into the job and rise to the occasion — who has failed to accept the intense gravity of his post. As Barack Obama said in August, “It’s because he can’t.”

At no other time has that been more evident than in Trump’s response to the pandemic. For the first two years of his presidency, many of us sat on the edge of our seats wondering when Trump would be seriously challenged either by a military threat, a terrorist attack or a global pandemic. From the moment Hillary Clinton conceded, I suspected this buffoonish greenhorn would be put to the test and fail badly. I never imagined that his reaction, untethered from experts, would be quite this calamitous.

His response to the hurricanes that collided with Puerto Rico represented a harrowing preview of how he’d handle the pandemic. I was convinced at the time that he was at least temporarily unaware that Puerto Rico was even part of the United States. I mean, how could he have been so thoughtless and unsympathetic to actual Americans? Turns out, he probably knew — he just didn’t give a shit. Never before has a modern president behaved so callously toward a devastated population of his own people, hurling paper towels at their heads as if he were firing a T-shirt cannon at a college basketball pep rally. Today, the island territory continues to rebuild despite Trump’s reprehensible indifference.

America is better than this. We’re better than him.

There have to be consequences for his indifference to the destruction in Puerto Rico as well as the 225,000 casualties of COVID-19 (and counting). Neither should have happened here. But this is what it looks like when the president and his people fail to do the paint-by-numbers things in response to a crisis — things that so many other presidents managed to achieve. Had Trump listened to the experts at the CDC and WHO, thousands of Americans would still be alive today and we might have been free and clear of this blight by now. Instead, Trump listened to the entertainers on Fox News, not to mention the shrieking voices in his head, convincing him to abandon the effort at exactly the wrong time — in April, at the initial height of the infection curve.

Before giving up, he applied travel restrictions to China, but it was too little too late. Forty thousand people arrived in the United States from China by flying through Europe and landing in New York, magnifying the catastrophic outbreak there. After that, Trump did nothing else to slow the spread, making George W. Bush’s 2005 response to Hurricane Katrina look masterful by comparison. Now, eight months into this disaster, Trump continues to ignore the rules, ignore safety protocols and ignore the experts, holding maskless, undistanced rally after rally, fueling his own ego, even after being infected himself. And there’s no end in sight.

Win or lose, his bungled, herky-jerky reaction to the pandemic will be remembered as the defining failure of his presidency, and it’s the No. 1 reason why he deserves nothing but ignominy and prison.

Rather than accepting the challenge and rising to meet it, as any other president would have, he’s spent all these months of national stress, uncertainty and illness not comforting or proactively leading the American people, but whining, whining and whining some more about how COVID ruined his presidency. Solving the pandemic could have been his greatest achievement — but Trump always makes things worse for Trump. Undermining himself and then playing the victim when things go sideways is the only thing he’s good at.

He possesses the most brittle ego of any president since Richard Nixon — one of many character flaws that undermine his self-identification as a manly alpha. Indeed, he’s nothing more than an easily-ruffled snowflake who constantly bellyaches about how “unfair” the world treats him — you know, the alleged billionaire president. So unfair.

Donald Trump has redefined what it means to be an empty suit. He talks an enormous game, but in reality his entire record is composed of failures and stolen successes. He claims to understand things he’s never able to explain openly or in any detail. Accordingly, he’s obsessed with repealing the Affordable Care Act, but only because it was Barack Obama’s signature achievement, not because it’s bad policy — and it’s not bad policy, he just says it is and his fanboys believe him.

If challenged, I’d wager a year’s salary he couldn’t name anything in the law beyond the mandate and the coverage for pre-existing conditions. I’m sure he doesn’t know about the myriad consumer protections or the mandatory benefits, or how the low-income subsidies work or the Medicaid expansion or the marketplaces — none of it. Yet he’s seeing to it that the entire thing is obliterated mid-pandemic when Americans need coverage the most. He definitely doesn’t know that coverage for pre-existing conditions is made possible, for example, by placing caps on premiums and co-pays, while banning rescission and lifetime limits on coverage. Worst of all, he doesn’t know that many of his own voters are covered today because of the ACA.

Between the pandemic and the possible repeal of the ACA, America is physically sick. And because of Donald Trump, we’re spiritually sick, too. He doesn’t understand that the president sets the tone for the nation. He’ll never grasp that the way he communicates influences the way we communicate with each other. His constant firehose of crapola encourages others to let their hatred, racism and obnoxious, crazy-eyed antagonism fly freely — playing out in our public spaces and on our social media platforms every damn day.

Trump has debased the presidency, replacing decency and humility with unearned self-praise and horrendous sadism. Our nation’s most cherished values and institutions have been randomly crushed by this 90-foot kaiju monster for too long. His constant antagonism has turned father against son, mother against daughter, family against family. Over what? The damaging misadventures of a political fraud — a garish old brat who bankrupted his businesses, defrauded Americans with his sham foundation and university and is currently bankrupting the U.S. treasury while establishing himself as a Putin-style kleptocrat.

In 1860, our nation nearly crumbled under the weight of slavery and secession. Today, our nation is on the verge of collapse under the weight of a painted-up clown whose performative fascism has led to the extrajudicial murder of American citizens on American soil; the use of Homeland Security as a secret police force tasked with assaulting Americans in advance of awkward photo-ops; the use of the Department of Justice as a personal law firm; taxpayer revenue as a personal slush fund; and, worst of all, the construction of internment camps for Central American migrant children, where some have been raped by American guards. Rivaled only by the pandemic response, the Trump Cages are the most disgusting and unforgivable aspect of this presidential crisis.

The 2020 election is about ending all that, while beginning the process of a second Reconstruction — rebuilding our government in a way that guarantees this will never happen again, while convening a Trump Crimes Commission to hold the perpetrators accountable. Part of that process is about remembering what happened here, in this era. There will be voices who insist we should move on and forget about all this ugliness. We would do well to ignore those voices. The minute we forget the damage he’s inflicted upon us all, the next Trump will be waiting to strike.

Indeed, the only way to move on is to punish the crimes and plug the holes. We have no choice but to use this dark ride — one that took my friend Chez and many thousands of others — as an opportunity to repair the gaping Trump-shaped craters in the system exposed and exploited by this unqualified, disgracefully unpresidential and obviously unglued president. If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris successfully oust Trump, a week from today, the Trump crisis will be on its way to ending, while the hard work of cleaning up the mess will begin. In both the election and the aftermath, we cannot fail. Everything depends on what happens next.

Did Bill really ask Hillary for a divorce?

So as requested I am looking into the claim that Bill asked Hillary for a divorce.

Analysis: Probable. Information on Jenkins is scarce which makes this more difficult to evaluate. This claim doesn’t seem as far fetched as others, but it remains one of those aspects that only Bill and Hillary will ever know the full truth on. 

claim:Two years before running for president in 1992, Bill Clinton fell in love with businesswoman named Marilyn Jo Jenkins and asked his wife for a divorce. (She refused.) (Some sources have said this took place in 1990 or 1989) 

Background Information on Mary Jo Jenkins: Jenkins was a longtime employee of the Arkansas Power and Light Co.   Jenkins was a 1965 graduate of Crossett High School, according to the school's yearbook: the Termite. She went on to earn a bachelor's degree in elementary education from Henderson State University. At the college, she met Norman Jenkins III, who she married and had two children with. In 1983, she earned a master's in business administration from Western New England College. The next year she and her husband divorced. Her name had been linked to Bill in published reports, but only in vague references. It is important to note that her name was also mentioned in at least two other books written in the 1990s.She has been mentioned in A Woman In Charge By Carl Bernstein (published 2007.) Before the book A Woman In Charge, Jenkins had a pretty low profile. She had been publicly linked to Bill before as Jane Doe No. 1 in the Paula Jones lawsuit. In his deposition, Bill acknowledged visting with Jenkins twice at the governors mansion before he moved to Washington to take off as president. In the parts of the deposition that have been made public, Bill wasn't asked whether he had a sexual relationship with Jenkins. At the time however, both Bill and Jenkins denied an affair. Bernstein wrote in his book that Bill thought he was in love with Mary Jo Jenkins and asked Hillary for a divorce but she said no. “There are worse things than infidelity," Hillary told Betsey Wright, the book said. 

Information about Bill’s testimony about Mary Jo in the Paula Jones case: 

(this all comes from  “Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate." Copyright © 1999 by Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster.)

‘Clinton had denied to Bennett (Jones’s lawyer) that he had a sexual relationship with Jenkins. Bennett was not buying it. He noticed that Clinton reacted differently when Jenkins's name came up. The president paused in a forlorn and wistful way. Bennett couldn't quite put his finger on it, but Clinton's manner seemed to be a definite tip-off.” 

Bennett reminded the president that the judge would make a final ruling the next day at the deposition about the questions relating to women. Supposedly, Clinton was going to be asked only about women who had been state or federal employees, and Jenkins had never worked for either government.

He was going to object, but the judge could rule either way, Bennett said. It probably was a 50-50 shot whether questions would be allowed about Jenkins. The president had to be ready to answer, Bennett said, inviting Clinton to share with his lawyers his possible responses.

Afterward, Bennett met alone with Clinton's close confidant Bruce Lindsey.

"He needed that," Lindsey said.

During his years in the White House, Clinton had become increasingly isolated. He would not even confide in his own lawyers.

One day, Clinton and Bennett went for a stroll on the White House grounds. Both had cigars. Bennett lit his. Clinton did not. Bennett took the matter a step further. Rumors persisted in Washington connecting Clinton sexually with various women. For all Bennett knew, they were total garbage.

Perhaps it was the intimacy of the walk, the perfectly tended White House grounds or the male party and communion suggested by the cigars.

"If you're caught . . . in the White House," Bennett said, "I'm not good enough to help you."

"This is a prison," Clinton responded. "I purposefully have no drapes on the windows." As for women, "I'm retired," the president declared, repeating himself emphatically. "I'm retired."

Bennett arrived early at the White House. He approached Lindsey about what the president might say about Marilyn Jo Jenkins.

"Has he worked it out?" Bennett asked.

"Yeah," Lindsey said, providing no details or information on a strategy.

Soon the president and Bennett were together before the deposition began.

"I appreciate what you said yesterday," the president said, "and I've worked it out."

At the deposition, the Jones lawyers spent the morning asking primarily about Lewinsky. After lunch, they asked the president about his relationship with Jenkins, but the judge ruled that they could not ask further questions about her -- a victory for Clinton.

Why does this all matter and what is the truth?: I think the timeline on here is a key point. In 1989 Bill already had his sights set on the presidency and a divorce wouldn’t be good ground for him to walk on. However, Mary Jo Jenkins doesn’t seem like any Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey. Unlike the other two, Jenkins was educated and had a family. What I think is the most probable case is that Bill danced with the idea of a divorce without ever intending to go through with it. Why? As stated before, Jenkins was divorced and to Bill maybe she seemed like a new beginning and was tempted by this due to outside factors such as the stress of an upcoming campaign. I think if he did ask for the  divorce it wasn’t because he was in love with Jenkins but more so the idea of no responsibilities. 

  things that make this claim seem like a mixture of truth & exaggeration. 

 her name was also mentioned in at least two other books written in the 1990s

As shown by my other text posts, this is cause for concern because in the 90s Nichols and his crew were running around claiming that every woman was with Bill. Whenever talk about Bill being with women around this time period, be wary because of Nichols. 

 Bill acknowledged visting with Jenkins twice at the governors mansion before he moved to Washington to take off as president.

This makes the truth more blurred because the argument can be made that Bill met with her and admitted it because there truly was no relationship and he felt like he had nothing to hide. The argument can also be made that Bill saw her to say goodbye because he really cared about her. My thoughts? Going with the idea that Bill pondered with the idea of divorce due to stress and wanting to avoid responsibilities, to me it seemed that he might have met with Jenkins the last time to apologize for getting somewhat involved with her with no real feelings. To me this seems more likely, because at this point, Hillary most likely knew since it was right before they moved to Washington. 

He noticed that Clinton reacted differently when Jenkins's name came up.

This could be because unlike Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, Jenkins hadn’t necessarily gone after fame or accused him of anything. This could mean Bill was just being sympathetic and didn’t want her caught up in this. 

“There are worse things than infidelity," Hillary told Betsey Wright, the book said.

Betsey Wright is very trust worthy so I take this at her word.

It is important to note that the book A Woman In Charge that revived and gave more detail on the Jenkins story was published June 25, 2007 right around the time talk of Hillary joining the 2008 election was prominent. This is important because books published around times of elections can be biased and hold their  own agendas. It also seems odd that it took until 2007 for all these details of the Jenkins ordeal to come to light. 

Bottom Line: 

The truth of whether Bill ever asked for a divorce is blurred and we can only speculate.  In the heat of an argument maybe he asked for a divorce but people close to them have said they never seriously considered it. 

Here are some quotes that can help you come to your own conclusion:

According to people close to the Clintons, there was occasional mention of divorce, but it was never seriously considered. Clinton discreetly broached the subject at least twice with colleagues during conventions of the National Governors' Association, and Hillary told friends she thought about it during a rough stretch in 1989. According to Betsey Wright, then Clinton's chief of staff, Hillary concluded that she had invested too much in her marriage and was determined to see it through. But even in the toughest moments, no one close to the Clintons thought their emotional bond had broken entirely. Wright described it as an "intensely argumentative but passionate" relationship.

Jay Carson spokesman for former President Clinton would not discuss the relationship between Clinton and Jenkins but dismissed Bernstein's book as old news. "the only news here is it took a reporter nearly a decade and hundrerds of pages to find and write no news," Carson said. "I have nothing to add."

Lastly: If Bill did ask for a divorce I don’t think that it means he didn’t love Hillary. I think it seems more so an exaggeration.  They are still married and this whole thing with Jenkins was most likely just a bump in their marriage but they worked though it.If anything, this makes their relationship more authentic and strong because real couples have fights. Bill and Hillary have always been more private on their marriage and their marital struggles so this seems like one of those topics that only they would know the truth on.

  I hate leaving text posts on a sad note where it might seem that they don’t love each other so here are some final quotes showing how strong their bond is:

“Several close friends believed that Hillary filled so many roles in her husband's life – the mother he didn't have any longer, the sister who had never existed, the chief adviser he didn't have anymore and perhaps had never had. She was the smartest person in the room.”

“she decided he is worth fighting for, and it would be unwise to turn him out or to give him to someone else. Her decision was that it was better to fight for him and to fight for the relationship."

“Considering the nature of their relationship from the beginning, the patterns that developed in Arkansas, and the wall of conspiracy she has built around herself in the White House, the notion that she might leave her husband in the midst of crisis seems almost beside the point. In essence, she would be leaving herself.”

Even Carl Bernstein, author of A Woman In Charge, who revived the Jenkins story, also said: "There could be no question that Hillary was Bill's fiercest defender in preventing his other women from causing trouble. Always," Bernstein writes. "It was as if she, much more than he, better understood the danger -- to him, to her, to Bill's future, and to their dream."

sources: 

http://www.pressreader.com/usa/arkansas-democrat-gazette/20070605/281590941141493

Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate." Copyright © 1999 by Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster 

Matt Hancock backs 'One Nation Tory' Johnson for leader

Boris Johnson's allies dismissed talk of a Brexit pact with Nigel Farage today - as he won the backing of former rival Matt Hancock. Supporters of the Tory front runner insisted he did not 'need' to do a deal with Mr Farage, despite the rising threat from his new party. The rebuke came amid claims Conservative donors are plotting a tie-up with Mr Farage that could prevent the Eurosceptic vote from splitting at an election.The arrangement could mean the Brexit Party does not field candidates against Tories they see as sound on making a clean break from the EU. Mr Johnson's procession towards Downing Street gathered pace today as the Health Secretary backed him - amid claims he has already started promising Cabinet jobs.  Mr Hancock dropped out on Friday after a disappointing result in the first round ballot, but has now put himself in the running to be the next Chancellor by endorsing the favourite.Michael Gove also appeared to be trying to smooth relations this morning, rejecting the idea that Mr Johnson should be ruled out on grounds of 'moral probity' and saying he 'has what it takes' to be PM.However, Mr Johnson is facing more criticism over his 'submarine' campaign strategy of minimising scrutiny.Having snubbed the first Tory leadership TV debate last night, Mr Johnson is stay awaying from hustings with political journalists today. Mr Johnson (pictured leaving his London home today) is looking unstoppable for next PM Mr Stewart has been installed as second favourite in the Tory leadership race - albeit a long way behind Mr Johnson  Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (pictured out running today) is Mr Johnson's closest challenger - but came a distant second in the first round of voting last week  Justice Secretary David Gauke laid into Mr Johnson on Twitter today as tensions rose Brexit minister James Cleverly said if Mr Johnson became PM he would not need to do a deal with Mr Farage.He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I can't see that is something he would want to do and it is not anything he would need to do.'He is able to win elections with Conservatives and Conservative support. He didn't broach electoral pacts in London and I can't imagine he would need to broach electoral pacts at this point.' Channel 4 faces backlash over 'dodgy' Tory leader debate  An empty podium was left by Channel 4 to embarrass Boris Johnson after he snubbed the Tory leadership debate last nightChannel 4 was today accused of holding a 'dodgy' Tory leadership debate where candidates were encouraged to 'knock chunks out of each other' - while hard Brexiteer Dominic Raab was 'sidelined'. Viewers who attacked the broadcaster after last night's TV battle also declared that Boris Johnson had 'won' because he had refused to take part, calling it a pro-EU 'kangaroo court' and a 'trap'.Host Krishnan Guru-Murthy, who attended Oxford University, was also blasted as 'snide' for introducing each candidate by the school and university they went to.Channel 4 today insisted that the audience was made up of 'floating voters' who were 'open' to voting Tory and picked by an independent polling company.But those watching at home said those in the studio appeared 'biased' towards the EU because there was so little clapping for anyone advocating Brexit, calling it a 'remainer fest'.Channel 4 tried to shame Mr Johnson during the showdown last night by leaving an empty podium where he should have been - while Guru-Murthy taunted that there was still time for him to 'get a taxi' to the studios.The other hopefuls slammed Mr Johnson - who was holed up in his London flat - for his 'submarine' campaign strategy, with Jeremy Hunt demanding to know: 'Where is Boris?'But the would-be PMs then took a series of brutal potshots at one another, with Rory Stewart raging about 'macho posturing', Sajid Javid saying Dominic Raab was 'trashing democracy', and Mr Raab retorting that his colleagues would 'buckle' to the EU.   During the Tory leadership TV debate last night, Rory Stewart was the only one of the five candidates present who said they would be willing to talk to Mr Farage about how to secure Brexit. The International Development Secretary insisted Mr Farage was the 'man that led the Leave campaign' in the 2016 referendum.But a clearly infuriated Michael Gove retorted: 'Nigel Farage is not the face of Brexit.'Jeremy Hunt said Mr Farage's 'first choice' was Brexit on basic World Trade organisation terms, and that should not be the Tory position.  Sajid Javid said: 'You don't beat the Brexit Party by becoming the Brexit Party.'  Chancellor Philip Hammond will not survive the changeover to a Johnson regime, meaning the prized spot at No11 is up for grabs.Treasury chief secretary Liz Truss has been pushing hard for the job, having backed Mr Johnson from the start.  However, allies of Mr Johnson said he had been 'inspired' by Mr Hancock's campaign and it is understood the pair spoke several times over the weekend. Mr Hancock said he 'wholeheartedly endorsed' Mr Johnson who he said can 'bring the party and country together' by 'dominating the centre ground'.He praised Mr Johnson's 'disciplined campaign' and argued he is 'almost certain' to be the next PM. 'We need to unite behind him with a strong team that can bring the party together and then bring the country together,' he told The Times. 'I have repeatedly argued for a strategy of defeating the danger of Farage by delivering Brexit and defeating the danger of Corbyn by dominating the centre ground thereafter. That is Boris's plan and I wholeheartedly endorse it.'Mr Gove admitted he was disappointed by Mr Hancock's decision.'He is a friend of mine and I know that over the course of the weekend he had a very tough decision to make,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.'Without going into private conversations, I know that he was alternating between supporting Boris and supporting me.'He felt that we were the two strongest candidates in the race.' During his interview, Mr Gove was repeatedly pressed on whether Mr Johnson's 'morality' should rule him out of the battle for No10.  'I would dismiss that altogether,' he said. 'Moral probity does matter. But I think that all of the candidates who are standing to be leader, in my view, are capable of being prime minister.'I personally think that Boris and all the other candidates are people who on every ground have what it takes to be a potentially good prime minister.'Supporters of the Tory front runner insisted he did not 'need' to do a deal with Nigel Farage (pictured outside No10 earlier this month) despite the rising threat from his new partyMatt Hancock pictured at Parliament after quitting the Tory leader race on Friday, having securing just 20 votes in the first round - and has now endorsed Boris Johnson Rory Stewart told GMB today (pictured) that if he worked for Boris Johnson he would have to 'advocate for a no deal Brexit that I think can’t be delivered' An empty podium was left by Channel 4 to embarrass Boris Johnson after he snubbed the Tory leadership debate last nightHe added: 'There have been various attempts to to mount personal attacks against him and against some other candidates. 'I think that is wrong. Look, in the past, I have had my criticisms and differences with Boris. 'But I believe he is somebody who is capable of being prime minister.' Mr Hancock quit the race after securing just 20 votes in the first round with an admission that the party was not looking for the 'candidate of the future' but 'a candidate for the unique circumstances we face right now'.Mr Johnson's team insisted no offers of a job in a future cabinet had been discussed. Mr Hancock is seen as a potential chancellor or business secretary in a Johnson administration. Boris vows fast broadband in every home by 2025 - but doesn't say how much it will cost   Boris Johnson vowed to put fast broadband in every home by 2025 today - but faced a backlash about how he will pay for the pledge. The Government is currently aiming to have completed the rollout of full-fibre broadband to 100 per cent of homes by 2033, a target Mr Johnson described as 'laughably unambitious'.But the Tory leadership frontrunner said the pledge would be delivered within 'five years at the outside' if he becomes the next prime minister.Justice Secretary David Gauke, who is on the Remain wing of the party, said every intervention by Mr Johnson was increasing borrowing by billions. In a swipe at ministers such as Matt Hancock who are angling for a top job under Mr Johnson, he tweeted: 'If Boris wins, good luck to whoever becomes his Chancellor. 'It would be a noble act of self-sacrifice to accept the job. Who’d do it?'  It came as Mr Johnson's campaign was buoyed by a poll showing voters believe he is the only leadership candidate who can win the next election. The YouGov poll for the Sunday Times showed the Brexit Party was now ahead of both the Tories and Labour.It put Nigel Farage's party on 24 per cent, three points ahead of Labour and the Tories on 21 per cent with the Lib Dems close behind on 19 per cent. A total of 47 per cent think Mr Johnson can see off Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage and only 22 per cent disagree. Just 15 per cent say his nearest rival, Jeremy Hunt, can win the Tories another term in power. It also suggested Mr Johnson was the only candidate who would persuade voters to turn to the Tories. Some 22 per cent said they were more likely to vote Tory if he was leader.None of his rivals scored more than 8 per cent. But 59 per cent of voters said they wouldn't buy a used car from Mr Johnson.The endorsement comes despite Mr Hancock having turned his fire on Mr Johnson in the early stages of the contest over his attacks on business. Mr Johnson reportedly said 'f*** business' in fury at the CBI and other business groups trying to spread scaremongering stories about No Deal.Mr Hancock argued Mr Johnson had the 'wrong attitude' and told the BBC's Today programme that it was vital for the Tories to 'back business and not bash business'.'We need to support businesses because they're the ones who create the jobs.'Yesterday Mr Johnson fuelled rumours of an early general election after footage emerged of him saying he would 'get Brexit done and get ready for an election'.The comments came at hustings with party members on Saturday, but Mr Johnson's team furiously denied the claim. They said he had repeatedly ruled out an early election and argued he was referring to the election in 2022. Rory Stewart surges to SECOND favourite in Tory leader race  Rory Stewart lashed out at Boris Johnson for not having a 'plan' on Brexit today after making a shock surge into second place in the Tory leadership betting.The International Development Secretary launched a withering attack on the front runner after bookmakers had him leapfrogging Jeremy Hunt as the closest challenger.The criticism came at a hustings event with journalists in Westminster - which Mr Johnson has opted to snub as his 'submarine' strategy continues.Mr Hunt also taunted the favourite this morning, saying he needed to find some 'Churchillian courage'. Mr Stewart has won more backers overnight after putting in a strong performance in the Channel 4 TV debate, with minister Margot James and Scottish Tory Paul Masterson declaring their support. But he again flip-flopped today over whether he would serve in a Mr Johnson Cabinet, telling Good Morning Britain he '100 per cent' would not. Mr Johnson also won the endorsement of former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey and former Scotland Yard boss Bernard Hogan-Howe – now a cross-bench peer – who described him as a 'really great mayor' of London.Meanwhile, a new poll gave Mr Johnson a major boost and dashed the hopes of Mr Stewart.It found more than three quarters of Tory members believe the former foreign secretary would make a good leader but fewer than one in three thought the same about the International Development Secretary.The YouGov survey reinforces the view that if Mr Johnson makes it onto the final ballot paper when two candidates are put to grassroots activists to choose from he will be almost impossible to stop.Some 77 per cent of Conservative Party members believe Mr Johnson would make a good Tory leader while just 19 per cent believe he would do a poor job.Mr Johnson is also viewed by the general public as the candidate most likely to make a good leader as he was backed by 31 per cent of voters.Mr Stewart was the only remaining Tory leadership contender who failed to be viewed positively by a majority of Tory members.Just 31 per cent said Mr Stewart would be a good leader compared to 50 per cent who said he would be a poor choice.The poll will be welcomed by Dominic Raab who had the second highest rating among the Tory grassroots.Some 68 per cent said the former Brexit secretary would make a good leader and 21 per cent said he would be a bad choice. What happens next? 'Stop Boris' Tory leadership hopefuls now locked in a battle for second place to make it onto the final ballot paper The field of Tory leadership challengers has been whittled down to six after three candidates were ousted at the first ballot of MPs on Thursday and Matt Hancock opted to withdraw on Friday.Those still standing now have one day in which to persuade more of their Conservative colleagues to back their bids before the second round of voting takes place tomorrow.At this point the race is entirely about momentum. Boris Johnson has cemented his status as the favourite after he secured 114 votes - enough to effectively guarantee he is one of the final two candidates.But for the remaining five candidates, it is all still to play for. Four Tory leadership challengers are now out of the race for Number 10. Esther McVey, Andrea Leadsom and Mark Harper were eliminated in the first round of voting while Matt Hancock has chosen to withdraw from the raceWhat is happening today?Five of the six remaining leadership candidates will face a grilling by political journalists at an event in Parliament. The candidates will take it in turns to face 20 minutes of questions but Mr Johnson is not taking part. There will also be another hustings event, this one in front of Tory MPs, featuring all of the candidates as they seek to win further support. What happens on Tuesday?Tory MPs will vote for the second time in what is likely to be a make or break moment in the race to succeed Theresa May.There will be six candidates to choose from but only Mr Johnson will have any certainty about making it to the next stage.Anyone not named Mr Johnson will now have the same goal: To finish in second place and make it onto the final ballot paper alongside Mr Johnson.Jeremy Hunt came second in Thursday's vote with the support of 43 of his colleagues.But none of the other remaining candidates are too far behind and all of them will be hopeful of hoovering up at least some of the MPs who backed the four candidates who are no longer in the race.They will need at least 33 votes to progress to the third vote but if all of the six candidates manage to get past that threshold, whoever has the fewest votes will be eliminated.  The Foreign Secretary came second in the first round of voting and will now be hoping to persuade Tory MPs that he is the candidate capable of challenging Boris JohnsonRory Stewart faces the biggest challenge after he only secured the support of 19 MPs in the first round. Mr Johnson's grip on the contest is expected to grow still further after he picked up the support of former rivals Mr Hancock and Esther McVey.Once the second ballot has finished and at least one candidate has been eliminated there will then be a televised leadership debate on BBC One at 8pm hosted by Emily Maitlis. Mr Johnson has said he will take part after snubbing one held by Channel 4 on Sunday.What happens after the second round of voting on Tuesday? It is the job of Tory MPs to cut the list of candidates to two and after Tuesday's vote there will then follow further ballots on Wednesday and, if necessary, on Thursday, until the chosen pair remain.The number of further ballots needed will be determined by whether trailing candidates opt to withdraw from the contest but the third ballot is scheduled for Wednesday while the fourth and fifth would take place on Thursday.What happens once there are two candidates left? The Conservative Party's estimated 160,000 members will be asked to choose who they want to be their next leader. The final two will have to face 16 leadership hustings events across the nation with the first due to be held in Birmingham on June 22 and the last one taking place in London in the week starting July 15.Ballot papers are expected to sent out to members between July 6-8. The overall winner of the contest is due to be announced in the week of July 22. Mrs May will then go to see the Queen to formally resign and the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party will be invited to Buckingham Palace to form a new government. Who could the MPs who supported the four eliminated candidates now back?Mr Johnson has racked up endorsements from both Esther McVey and Matt Hancock over the weekend - increasing his already impressive tally.The support will be hugely disappointing to Mr Raab - who needs votes from Brexiteers like Ms McVey - and Mr Gove, who had been hoping to woo Mr Hancock's centrist acolytes.The 10 MPs who backed Mark Harper, a candidate with a softer approach to Brexit, have been targeted by the likes of Mr Hunt and Sajid Javid.   Boris Johnson is now the prohibitive favourite to succeed Theresa May after securing the support of 114 Tory MPs in the first round of votingSo does Boris have it sewn up?Previous Tory leadership contests have shown that the person who leads the race at the start of the process does not always finish in first.Leadership campaigns are also volatile and it is distinctly possible that an unforeseen event in the coming weeks could radically shake up the battle for Number 10.Mr Johnson is in pole position but there is still plenty of time for that to change.  Read More Read the full article

In Brexit limbo, UK veers between high anxiety, grim humour

In Brexit limbo, UK veers between high anxiety, grim humour LONDON — It’s said that history often repeats itself — the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Many Britons feel they are living through both at the same time as their country navigates its way out of the European Union. The British government awarded a contract to ship in emergency supplies to a company with no ships. It pledged to replace citizens’ burgundy European passports with proudly British blue ones — and gave the contract to a Franco-Dutch company. It promised to forge trade deals with 73 countries by the end of March, but two years later has only a handful in place (including one with the Faroe Islands). Pretty much everyone in the U.K. agrees that the Conservative government’s handling of Brexit has been disastrous. Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing this divided nation can agree on. With Britain due to leave the EU in six weeks and still no deal in sight on the terms of its departure, both supporters and opponents of Brexit are in a state of high anxiety. Pro-EU “remainers” lament the looming end of Britons’ right to live and work in 27 other European nations and fear the U.K. is about to crash out of the bloc without even a divorce deal to cushion the blow. Brexiteers worry that their dream of leaving the EU will be dashed by bureaucratic shenanigans that will delay its departure or keep Britain bound to EU regulations forever.

“I still think they’ll find a way to curtail it or extend it into infinity,” said “leave” supporter Lucy Harris. “I have a horrible feeling that they’re going to dress it up and label it as something we want, but it isn’t.” It has been more than two and a half years since Britons voted 52 per cent to 48 per cent to leave the EU. Then came many months of tense negotiations to settle on Brexit departure terms and the outline of future relations. At last, the EU and Prime Minister Theresa May’s government struck a deal — then saw it resoundingly rejected last month by Britain’s Parliament, which like the rest of the country has split into pro-Brexit and pro-EU camps. May is now seeking changes to the Brexit deal in hope of getting it through Parliament before March 29. EU leaders say they won’t renegotiate, and accuse Britain of failing to offer a way out of the impasse. May insists she won’t ask the EU to delay Britain’s departure, and has refused to rule out a cliff-edge no-deal Brexit. Meanwhile, Brexit has clogged the gears of Britain’s economic and political life. The economy has stalled, growing by only 0.2 per cent in the fourth quarter as business investment registered a fourth straight quarterly decline. Big political decisions have been postponed, as May’s minority Conservative government struggles to get bills through a squabbling and divided Parliament. Major legislation needed to prepare for Brexit has yet to be approved. Britain still does not have a deal on future trade with the EU, and it’s unclear what tariffs or other barriers British firms that do business with Europe will face after March 29. That has left businesses and citizens in an agonizing limbo. Rod McKenzie, director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, a truckers’ lobby group, feels “pure anger” at a government he says has failed to plan, leaving haulers uncertain whether they will be able to travel to EU countries after March 29. McKenzie says truckers were told they will need Europe-issued permits to drive through EU countries if Britain leaves the bloc without a deal. Of more than 11,000 who applied, only 984 — less than 10 per cent — have been granted the papers. “It will put people out of business,” McKenzie said. “It’s been an absolutely disastrous process for our industry, which keeps Britain supplied with, essentially, everything.” He’s not alone in raising the spectre of shortages; both the government and British businesses have been stockpiling key goods in case of a no-deal Brexit.  

Still, some Brexit-backers, such as former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore, relish the prospect of a clean break even if it brings short-term pain. “Perhaps it is time for a Brexit recipe book, like those comforting wartime rationing ones full of bright ideas for dull things,” Moore wrote in The Spectator, a conservative magazine. He added that he and his neighbours were willing to “set out in our little ships to Dunkirk or wherever and bring back luscious black-market lettuces and French beans, oranges and lemons.” Brexit supporters often turn to nostalgic evocations of World War II and Britain’s “finest hour,” to the annoyance of pro-Europeans. The imagery reached a peak of absurdity during a recent BBC news report on Brexit, when the anchor announced that “Theresa May says she intends to go back to Brussels to renegotiate her Brexit deal,” as the screen cut to black-and-white footage of World War II British Spitfires going into battle. The BBC quickly said the startling juxtaposition was a mistake: The footage was intended for an item about a new Battle of Britain museum. Skeptics saw it as evidence of the broadcaster’s bias, though they disagreed on whether the BBC was biased in favour of Brexit or against it. Some pro-Europeans have hit back against Brexit with despairing humour. 

Four friends have started plastering billboards in London with 20-foot-by-10-foot (6-meter-by-3-meter) images of pro-Brexit politicians’ past tweets, to expose what the group sees as their hypocrisy. Highlights included former U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage’s vow that “if Brexit is a disaster, I will go and live abroad,” and ex-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s pledge to “make a titanic success” of Brexit. The friends dubbed the campaign “Led by Donkeys,” after the description of British soldiers in World War I as “lions led by donkeys.” The billboards are now going nationwide, after a crowdfunding campaign raised almost 150,000 pounds ($193,000). “It was a cry of pain, genuine pain, at the chaos in this country and the lies that brought us here,” said a member of the group, a London charity worker who spoke on condition of anonymity because their initial guerrilla posters could be considered illegal. A similar feeling of alienation reigns across the Brexit divide in the “leave” camp. After the referendum, Harris, a 28-year-old classically trained singer, founded a group called Leavers of London so Brexiteers could socialize without facing opprobrium from neighbours and colleagues who don’t share their views. It has grown into Leavers of Britain, with branches across the country. Harris said members “feel like in their workplaces or their personal lives, they’re not accepted for their democratic vote. They’re seen as bad people.” “I’m really surprised I still have to do this,” she said. But she thinks Britain’s EU divide is as wide as it ever was. “There can’t be reconciliation until Brexit is done,” she said. Whenever that is. —— Follow Jill Lawless on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/JillLawless . Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit Published at Sun, 17 Feb 2019 11:38:21 +0000 Read the full article

I’ll Tell you Where all the Good Men have Gone.

Via Arun Eden-Lewis

Search the words, “Where have all the good men gone?” and dozens of anecdotes, articles, blogs, and books will appear on your screen.

Overwhelmingly, this question is posed by women, discussed by women, and answered by women.

This, ironically, is an essential reason for these so called man-deserts—men are simply not being asked to contribute their opinions and perspectives. And the good men themselves are increasingly less likely to offer their point of view, for many reasons.

I do not seek to apportion blame here, on either side, but simply to address this question from the seldom-heard voice that is the object of the question itself: good men.

The last 100 years of suffragettes, feminists, and political correctness have challenged and continue to challenge thousands of years of patriarchy—and rightly so. Consequently, the roles of both men and women have been transformed and redefined.

While we struggle to adjust to the new and still evolving status quo, the war of the sexes has taken millions of casualties. In Western culture, divorce rates for first marriages range from 42 percent in the U.K. to 53 percent in the U.S. to a staggering 71 percent in Belgium. Subsequent marriages fare even worse.

The spectre of divorce is another contributing factor in the conspicuously expanding man-deserts. Many men, having seen their fathers broken by divorce, fear the loss of their assets, their homes, and their children and are simply stacking their chips, choosing not to gamble, and checking out of the marriage casino.

Family courts invariably award primary custody to the mother, while the father is restricted to weekend access, supervised visits, or left to literally climb the walls of Buckingham Palace in a superhero costume to protest rights for dads. Men—will they ever grow up?

The ridicule and debasement of men in the media and mainstream culture is now pervasive. Watch a commercial, sitcom, or movie, and invariably an immature man-child or dumb dad is the butt of the joke—the hapless buffoon. Fortunately, these silly men are always saved from themselves by a smart, witty woman or a conscripted, eye-rolling child.

The emasculation of men has become normalised.

Sensibly, rather than have their balls cut off (sometimes literally, and that often gets a good laugh), men are running for cover in their droves, leaving women mystified and asking, “Where have all the good men gone?”

When I was in secondary school, perhaps 14 years old, there was a girl who patrolled the playground, egged on by her gang of girlfriends, kicking the boys between the legs. Clearly, she had been informed by someone this was the quickest, easiest, and funniest way to bring those stupid boys down to earth.

One day it was my turn. Caught by surprise, I crumpled to the ground after a swift kick to the balls, in too much agony even to cry out. Oh, how the girls laughed! Even then, I abhorred a bully.

The following day, I found my attacker in the playground and, contrary to my upbringing, without warning I kicked her swiftly between the legs. To everyone’s surprise she also crumpled to the ground, in too much agony to cry out. A crowd of cheering boys slapped me on the back—their new avenger.

The girls stared at me wide-eyed in shock—a boy who fought back? No one had told them that was allowed, surely it was against the rules! Equality: it’s a son of a gun.

I remember feeling no satisfaction or honour in defeating a weaker adversary but sometimes, especially in the case of a bully, personal satisfaction and honour is not the point—standing up to their aggression is. As I grew into a man—a good man—I learned to walk away from provocation, as most good men do.

“Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!” Remember the T-shirts launched in 2003? Followed by coffee mugs, posters, even a book.“Boys tell lies, poke them in the eyes!” Another favourite for young girls at the time. It took a fathers’ rights activist to have this merchandise removed from thousands of retail stores. Inevitably, he was ridiculed by a myopic majority.

Presently, in some areas of the U.K., 80 percent of primary schools have three male teachers or less, one quarter of primary schools have no male teachers at all, and some towns have 65 percent single mother families.

Man-deserts indeed.

A young boy can go to school and have no adult male role model, and then return home and have no adult male role models.

Young girls are achieving significantly higher academic standards than young boys. This feminisation of schools spills over into university, then the workplace, and eventually the home, completing the insipid cycle and the marginalisation of both boys and men.

I was born in 1968. I grew up with a strong mother, four stronger sisters, and no father. I was taught, not only by my family but also by wider society, to regard women as my equal, and I always have. Yet, unknown to me, a generation of women were being indoctrinated and trained with a sharp-edged tool kit designed to emasculate men.

Men have been subjugating women for centuries; now, they’re getting payback. It seems only fair. The fox has turned on the hounds and she’s packing a punch, or a kick to the balls. But the nature of men when faced with a fight is to fight back, either psychologically or physically.

Clearly there are no winners in this scenario.

The relentless competitive struggle to determine who wears the trousers is simply a turnoff for many men. Many are just opting out of the kind of psychological warfare that is common in relationships today, unwilling to engage in the minefield of mind games, which are usually executed in three ways.

The first is the habitual belittling and denigration of men, in private or in front of friends, family or colleagues, for what is supposed to pass as humour. The second is letting a man know, casually of course, that other men are sexy, have better looks, more money, talent, or fame. The third, and perhaps the most destructive is being told over and over, “We don’t need no man. Men are obsolete.”

I’ve lost count of how often I’ve heard this since adolescence.

If you tell a man often enough that he is surplus to requirements, eventually he will stop expending his energy to convince you and himself otherwise. Men are rapidly waking up to this phenomenon of man-bashing, so much so that a disillusioned social movement has arisen with its own freshly-minted acronym: MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way.

Supported by websites and online forums, men are regrouping with a common cause, a sense of brotherhood, and finding their voices again.

The essential precepts of MGTOW are financial independence, rejection of chivalry, social preconceptions of what a man should be, and consumer culture which defines masculinity by a man’s house, car, clothes, watch, or cologne. It is the refusal to be shamed into conventional compliance by being told to “man up.”

Many aggrieved MGTOW refuse to marry or even date Western women, the more ardent among them consciously choosing non-committal relationships, strippers, pornography, or celibacy. Above all, goes the MGTOW mantra, maintain sovereignty of self.

I have been dating for more than 35 years, and back in the 1980s, a man was expected to pay for the movie tickets, dinner, flowers, chocolate, the diamond ring, the house. In each subsequent decade these social conventions have slowly eroded, yet to a greater or lesser extent still remain. Long-held social biases, like the wage gap for example, take time to bring to full equality.

It is important to recognise, however, that equality is a two-way street. It is abundantly clear that many men and women are struggling to walk along that street in close proximity, let alone hand in hand. Why? Because for a century we have been digging up and bulldozing said street. Now, it’s full of potholes, power struggles, and barely fit to travel. Yet travel it we must.

The original message of equality has been somewhat skewed. Women often recycle the poorly thought-out doctrine that they are the same as men. Equality is not always sameness, and sameness is not always equality.

For example, women have equal opportunity to go to war and fight side by side with men, but the physical standards to allow them to do so are not the same. And this can be seen across a whole spectrum of professions, from firefighters to ballet dancers.

Equality is not always sameness. Difference is diversity, and should be a cause for celebration, not dogmatic elimination.

Men are often told (but, again, not asked) they are afraid of strong independent women. Many men, tired of such futile debates and wary of being branded a misogynist if they dare to disagree, are simply shutting down and becoming emotionally unavailable to women, taking permanent residence in their man-caves.

The truth is, men love strong and independent women—it turns them on, in every way. What men don’t love are the predominantly masculine traits that often go along with the package. The relentless competitiveness (necessary in the workplace no doubt, but hardly necessary at home in a loving relationship), the verbal aggression, the emotional manipulation, and the psychological controlling are huge turn-offs.

Increasingly, men are just not interested in competing at work and then having to come home and compete with their partners. In the sphere of heterosexual relationships, most women are not attracted to emasculated feminine men, which is fair enough. By the same token, most men are not attracted to masculine, domineering women.

So, these are some of the general and specific issues creating man-deserts, from the perspective of good men.

But what solutions are there? Waking up to our social conditioning is a good place to start.

Many women are beginning to reject the modern brand of feminism, the so called third-wave that is tantamount to thinly veiled misandry. Equally many men, for two or three generations now, are rejecting the attitude that a woman is some kind of second class citizen.

We clearly have work to do on both sides.

Letting go of these destructive modes of thought, communication, and behaviour is an essential process for healthier and happier relationships between men and women.

However, denying these issues will in no way change the interpersonal landscape for the better, and women will continue to ask, “Where have all the good men gone?” while wandering an ever-expanding and barren man-desert.

So, where have all the good men gone?

For now they have gone their own way. But they are out there, in the same desert, contentedly swimming in the oases they have found for themselves, no doubt waiting for the fourth-wave of feminism to wash over them so we can all truly embrace equality, just like the first-wave promised.

~

Author: Arun Eden-Lewis

The Military-Intelligence Complex

LTP News Sharing:

By Victor Davis Hanson

Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan

Many retired high-ranking military officers have gone beyond legitimately articulating why President Trump may be wrong on foreign policy, and now feel free to smear him personally or speak openly of removing their commander-in-chief from office. And the media and the bipartisan foreign-policy establishment are with them every step of the way.

 Much has been written about the so-called Resistance of disgruntled Clinton, Obama, and progressive activists who have pledged to stop Donald Trump’s agenda. The choice of the noun “Resistance,” of course, conjures up not mere “opposition,” but is meant to evoke the French “resistance” of World War II—in the melodramatic sense of current loyal progressive patriots doing their best to thwart by almost any means necessary the Nazi-like Trump.

We know from a variety of disinterested watchdog institutions and foundations that the media has offered 90 percent negative coverage of the Trump Administration. CNN in its anti-Trump zeal has ruined its brand by serial fabrications and firings of its marquee biased reporters. 

An entire array of CNN journalists and analysts either has resigned, been fired, retired, forced to offer retractions, or been disgraced either for peddling ad hominem crude attacks on Trump, displaying unprofessional behavior, concocting or repeating false stories, engaging in obscene commentary, or being refuted.

Including are: Reza Aslan, Carl Bernstein, Donna Brazile, James Clapper, Marshall Cohen, Candy Crowley, Kathy Griffin, Julie Joffe, Michael Hayden, Suzanne Malveaux, Manu Raju, Jim Sciutto, Julian Zelizer, and teams such as Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Harris, and Gloria Borger, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus.

About every month or so, a Hollywood or entertainment personage offers a new assassination scenario of shooting, torching, stabbing, beating, blowing up, caging, or lynching the elected president. 

Likewise, the country witnesses about every six weeks a new “turning point,” “bombshell,” “walls are closing in” effort to subvert the Trump presidency. 

And the list of such futile and fabricated attempts to abort Trump is indeed now quite monotonous: the efforts to sue three states on false charges of tampered voting machines, the attempt to subvert the voting of the Electoral College, the invocation of the ossified Logan Act, the melodramas concerning the emoluments clause and 25th Amendment, the Mueller’s Dream Team and all-star 22-month failed effort to find collusion and obstruction, the personal psychodramas of Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, Michael Avenatti, and the Trump tax returns, the desperate efforts to tar Trump as a “white supremacist,” followed by cries of “Recession! Recession!,” and now, of course, “Ukraine! Ukraine!”

Perhaps these efforts were best summed up by an anonymous New York Times op-ed writer who on September 5, 2018, outlined how officials within the Trump Administration took it upon themselves in the midst of the Mueller investigation to obstruct and impede the workings of the seemingly oblivious cuckold Trump: “The dilemma—which he [Trump] does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations . . . I would know. I am one of them.”

The Normalization of the Coup?

Yet far more disturbing have been the furor of lame-duck and retired intelligence and military officers. 

In unprecedented fashion, some have not just disagreed with the commander in chief, but have declared that he is unfit for office and by implication thus should be obstructed and perhaps even removed. Efforts such as these were recently praised by former acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, who announced to a gathering of former intelligence bureaucrats, “Thank God for the deep state.”

Donald Trump had been in office less than a month when the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. intelligence agencies had decided on their own to withhold information from the recently inaugurated president of the United States: “In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said.”

What would one call that? Obstruction? A coup? A conspiracy?

Most of the major intelligence heads in the Obama Administration—James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper—either leaked classified information aimed at harming candidate and then President Trump, later declared him a veritable traitor and Russian asset, or earlier took measures to monitor his campaign or administration’s communications. 

In the coming months, the investigations of Michael Horowitz, the inspector general at the Justice Department, and the department’s own criminal investigations by U.S. Attorney John Durham, may well detail one of the most extensive efforts in our history by the American intelligence agencies and their enablers in the executive branch to subvert a campaign, disrupt a presidential transition, and to abort a presidency. 

Just 10 days after Trump was inaugurated, Washington insider lawyer Rosa Brooks—a former adviser in the Obama Administration to Assistant Secretary of State Harold Koh and a former special counsel to the president at George Soros’s Open Society Institute—in Foreign Policy offered formal advice about removing Trump in an article titled, “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020.” 

Brooks needed just over a week to conclude that the elected president had to go by means other than an election. After rejecting the first option of the usual constitutional remedy of waiting until the 2020 election (“But after such a catastrophic first week, four years seems like a long time to wait.”), Brooks offered her three fallback strategies to depose Trump: 

1) Immediate impeachment. “If impeachment seems like a fine solution to you, the good news is that Congress doesn’t need evidence of actual treason or murder to move forward with an impeachment,” she wrote. “Practically anything can be considered a ‘high crime or misdemeanor.’”). Brooks did not elaborate on what “anything” might be.

2) Declaring Trump mentally unfit under the 25th Amendment. “In these dark days, some around the globe are finding solace in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution,” she wrote. Brooks did not mention that what non-U.S. citizens abroad may feel about removing Trump as mentally unfit is of no constitutional importance. Yet she was also prescient—given the later McCabe-Rosenstein comical aborted palace coup of ridding the country of a supposedly “sick” Trump. 

3) A military coup, which Brooks wrote, “is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America.” If not a “coup,” then “at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.” Notice the cheap praeteritio: claim that such an idea should have been previously “unthinkable” as a means to demonstrate just how thinkable it now should be.

In the months and years that followed, Brooks again proved either vatic or had foreknowledge of the sort of “resistance” that would follow. 

So it is now the decision of many ex-intelligence heads and flag officers to change the rules of the game. They will live to rue the ensuing harm to the reputations both of the intelligence services and the military at large.

In early March 2017, Evelyn Farkas, an outgoing Obama-appointed deputy assistant secretary of defense, detailed in a weird revelation on MSNBC how departing Obama Administration officials scrambled to leak and undermine the six-week-old Trump Administration. “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill . . .‘Get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration . . . The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, [they] would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence . . . That’s why you have the leaking.”

In other words, a Pentagon official was illegally leaking documents, apparently classified, in order both to defame the president as a Russian asset and to thwart any investigation of such internal and likely illegal resistance.

The New Retired Military

At various times, an entire pantheon of retired generals and intelligence directors has gone to Twitter or progressive cable channels like CNN and MSNBC to declare the president of the United States either a Russian asset and thus a traitor, or unfit for office, or in some other way to call for his removal before the election of 2020—for some, seemingly in violation of the code of military conduct that forbids even retired officers from defaming the commander-in-chief. None cited any felonious conduct on Trump’s part; all were infuriated either by presidential comportment and tone or policies with which they disagreed.

Retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey for the past three years has leveled a number of ad hominem charges against the elected president. He essentially called the president a threat to American national security on grounds that his loyalties were more to Vladimir Putin than to his own country. McCaffrey later called the president “stupid” and “cruel” for recalibrating the presence of trip-wire troops in-between Kurdish and Turkish forces. He recently equated Trump’s cancellation of the White House subscriptions of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini (“This is Mussolini”). 

When a retired military officer decides and announces that the current president is the equivalent of a fascist, mass-murdering dictator who seized power and defied constitutional norms, then what is the signal conveyed to other military officers?

Retired General Stanley McChrystal—removed from command by the Obama Administration for inter alia allegedly referring to the vice president as “Bite Me”—called the president “immoral and dishonest.” 

Former CIA director Michael Hayden—a four-star Air Force general formerly smeared by the Left for defending supposed “torture” at Guantanamo—compared Trump’s policies to Nazism, when he tweeted a picture of Birkenau to illustrate the administration’s use of detention facilities at the border—a plan inaugurated by the Obama Administration—to deal with tens of thousands of illegal entrants.  

One can disagree with Trump’s decision to pull a small contingent of tripwire troops back from the frontlines in Syria as Kurds (our current friends, but not our long-standing legal allies) and Turks (our long-standing legal allies, but not our current friends) fight each other, or see the logic of not putting even small numbers of U.S. troops in the middle of a Syrian quagmire. 

The choice is a bad/worse dilemma, one that involves the likelihood either of not defending de facto allies or getting into a shooting scenario against de jure allies. So why would retired General John Allen instead attack the commander-in-chief in moral terms rather than merely criticize the president’s strategic or operational judgment: “There is blood on Trump’s hands for abandoning our Kurdish allies”?

Again, when our best and brightest former generals and admirals inform the nation that the current elected president, with whom they disagree on both Middle East and border security policies, is “immoral” and “cruel” or deserves bloodguilt, or is the equivalent of a fascist dictator or similar to those who set up Nazi death camps, is not the obvious inference that someone must put an end to the supposed fascistic/Nazi takeover of the government? 

Apparently so.  

In the eeriest series of comments, retired Admiral William McRaven has all but declared Trump a subversive traitor. Apparently in reference to fellow military also working in resistance to the president, Raven remarked, “The America that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within.” 

In a New York Times op-ed, the decorated retired admiral went further, mostly due to his own disagreements with Trump’s foreign policy, especially toward the Turkish-Kurd standoff in Syria, and his dislike of the president’s style and behavior. Indeed, McRaven seemed to call for Trump to be removed before the 2020 election, “[I]t is time for a new person in the Oval Office—Republican, Democrat or independent—the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it.” (Emphasis added.)

Let us be clear about what McRaven wrote. We are just one year away from a constitutionally mandated election. Yet McRaven now wants a “new person” in the Oval Office and he wants it “the sooner, the better.” And he insists our collective fate as a constitutional republic depends on Trump’s preferable “sooner” removal. 

What exactly is the admiral referring to? Impeachment? Invocation of the 25th Amendment? Or the last of Rosa Brooks’ proposals:  a forced removal by the military?

Note again, the common thread in all these complaints is not demonstrable high crimes and misdemeanors but rather sharp policy disagreements with the president about the Middle East, or the president’s own retaliatory and sometimes crass pushbacks, usually against prior ad hominem attacks both from serving and retired military officers, or false claims that Trump was a veritable asset, something refuted by Robert Mueller’s 22-month, $35-million-dollar investigation of “collusion.” 

Mondadori via Getty Images

An Honorable “Seven Days in May”? 

Note that the Left seems either amused or supportive of the current furor of our retired officers and intelligence heads (in a way they were not with General Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor)—a phenomenon that began during the Iraq War when an array of retired officers was canonized by the media and past Pentagon critics for declaring the Bush Iraq War variously stupid, immoral, or doomed to failure. 

Apparently, an ascendant progressive view is that our armed forces, CIA, FBI, and NSA are protectors of civil liberties and progressive values, and therefore are to be lauded for almost any rhetorical attacks on the president deemed necessary to remind the country of the danger that Trump supposedly poses. 

Gone are the old days when Hollywood’s “Dr. Strangelove” warned us of supposed Curtis LeMay-reactionaries, or the 1964 political melodrama, “Seven Days in May,” that envisioned a future right-wing military coup against an idealistic president in the mold of Adlai Stevenson.  

Instead, the military in the present age—or at least its Beltway incarnation—has been recalibrated by the Left as a kindred progressive Washington institution, perhaps because of its necessary ability to enact change by fiat, whether in regard to issues regarding diversity, feminism, global warming, or transgenderism—all without the mess, delay, and acrimony of legislative and executive bickering.

In the past, when retired generals rarely and inappropriately weighed in on the allegedly improper, stupid, or immoral drift of a contemporary progressive president, they were met by a progressive firestorm as potential insurrectionaries. General Douglas MacArthur was roundly hated by the Left for his often boisterous and improper attacks on President Truman’s decision not to expand the war in Korea. 

Again, today there has arisen a quite different—and far more dangerous—calculus in which the media canonizes rather than audits retired officers who compare the commander-in-chief to a fascist, declare him unfit, or dream of his “sooner the better” removal. 

Had any of the current generals said anything similar about President Obama in the fashion they now routinely attack Trump, their public careers would have been ruined. There would have been Adam Schiff-like progressive congressional inquiries about the current status of the code of military conduct as it pertains, not to quite legitimate political editorialization, but rather to “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State . . . ” 

Attacking Trump in “contemptuous” fashion is not speaking truth to power but a confirmation of the existing status quo of the media, progressive orthodoxy, and the general Washington bipartisan bureaucracy. 

The result is that many retired high-ranking officers have made the necessary adjustments. Many have gone well beyond legitimately articulating why Trump may be wrong on foreign policy, and now feel free to malign, insult, and even dream of removing their commander-in-chief, on the grounds that Trump is sui generis, that the media will applaud their efforts, and that the bipartisan foreign-policy establishment will canonize their deep-state bravery. 

Perhaps.

But the danger is that half the country will conclude that too many retired generals and admirals are going the way of past CIA and FBI directors—no longer just esteemed professionals, op-ed writers, and astute analysts, but political activists who feel entitled to challenge the very legitimacy of an elected president—a development that is ruinous both for the reputation of a hallowed military and of the country in general.  

So it is now the decision of many ex-intelligence heads and flag officers, as retirees, analysts, and businesspeople, to change the rules of the game. Again fine. But they will live to rue the ensuing harm to the reputations both of the intelligence services and the military at large. 

Indeed, the damage is well underway.

https://ift.tt/2JMtCyE

Go to Source Author: Frances Rice

from Leave The Plantation https://ift.tt/33gDngd via IFTTT

In Brexit limbo, UK veers between high anxiety, grim humour

LONDON — It’s said that history often repeats itself — the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Many Britons feel they are living through both at the same time as their country navigates its way out of the European Union.

The British government awarded a contract to ship in emergency supplies to a company with no ships. It pledged to replace citizens’ burgundy European passports with proudly British blue ones — and gave the contract to a Franco-Dutch company. It promised to forge trade deals with 73 countries by the end of March, but two years later has only a handful in place (including one with the Faroe Islands).

Pretty much everyone in the U.K. agrees that the Conservative government’s handling of Brexit has been disastrous. Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing this divided nation can agree on.

With Britain due to leave the EU in six weeks and still no deal in sight on the terms of its departure, both supporters and opponents of Brexit are in a state of high anxiety.

Pro-EU “remainers” lament the looming end of Britons’ right to live and work in 27 other European nations and fear the U.K. is about to crash out of the bloc without even a divorce deal to cushion the blow.

Brexiteers worry that their dream of leaving the EU will be dashed by bureaucratic shenanigans that will delay its departure or keep Britain bound to EU regulations forever.

“I still think they’ll find a way to curtail it or extend it into infinity,” said “leave” supporter Lucy Harris. “I have a horrible feeling that they’re going to dress it up and label it as something we want, but it isn’t.”

It has been more than two and a half years since Britons voted 52 per cent to 48 per cent to leave the EU. Then came many months of tense negotiations to settle on Brexit departure terms and the outline of future relations. At last, the EU and Prime Minister Theresa May’s government struck a deal — then saw it resoundingly rejected last month by Britain’s Parliament, which like the rest of the country has split into pro-Brexit and pro-EU camps.

May is now seeking changes to the Brexit deal in hope of getting it through Parliament before March 29. EU leaders say they won’t renegotiate, and accuse Britain of failing to offer a way out of the impasse.

May insists she won’t ask the EU to delay Britain’s departure, and has refused to rule out a cliff-edge no-deal Brexit.

Meanwhile, Brexit has clogged the gears of Britain’s economic and political life. The economy has stalled, growing by only 0.2 per cent in the fourth quarter as business investment registered a fourth straight quarterly decline.

Big political decisions have been postponed, as May’s minority Conservative government struggles to get bills through a squabbling and divided Parliament. Major legislation needed to prepare for Brexit has yet to be approved.

Britain still does not have a deal on future trade with the EU, and it’s unclear what tariffs or other barriers British firms that do business with Europe will face after March 29.

That has left businesses and citizens in an agonizing limbo.

Rod McKenzie, director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, a truckers’ lobby group, feels “pure anger” at a government he says has failed to plan, leaving haulers uncertain whether they will be able to travel to EU countries after March 29.

McKenzie says truckers were told they will need Europe-issued permits to drive through EU countries if Britain leaves the bloc without a deal. Of more than 11,000 who applied, only 984 — less than 10 per cent — have been granted the papers.

“It will put people out of business,” McKenzie said. “It’s been an absolutely disastrous process for our industry, which keeps Britain supplied with, essentially, everything.”

He’s not alone in raising the spectre of shortages; both the government and British businesses have been stockpiling key goods in case of a no-deal Brexit.

Still, some Brexit-backers, such as former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore, relish the prospect of a clean break even if it brings short-term pain.

“Perhaps it is time for a Brexit recipe book, like those comforting wartime rationing ones full of bright ideas for dull things,” Moore wrote in The Spectator, a conservative magazine. He added that he and his neighbours were willing to “set out in our little ships to Dunkirk or wherever and bring back luscious black-market lettuces and French beans, oranges and lemons.”

Brexit supporters often turn to nostalgic evocations of World War II and Britain’s “finest hour,” to the annoyance of pro-Europeans.

The imagery reached a peak of absurdity during a recent BBC news report on Brexit, when the anchor announced that “Theresa May says she intends to go back to Brussels to renegotiate her Brexit deal,” as the screen cut to black-and-white footage of World War II British Spitfires going into battle.

The BBC quickly said the startling juxtaposition was a mistake: The footage was intended for an item about a new Battle of Britain museum. Skeptics saw it as evidence of the broadcaster’s bias, though they disagreed on whether the BBC was biased in favour of Brexit or against it.

Some pro-Europeans have hit back against Brexit with despairing humour.

Four friends have started plastering billboards in London with 20-foot-by-10-foot (6-meter-by-3-meter) images of pro-Brexit politicians’ past tweets, to expose what the group sees as their hypocrisy.

Highlights included former U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage’s vow that “if Brexit is a disaster, I will go and live abroad,” and ex-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s pledge to “make a titanic success” of Brexit.

The friends dubbed the campaign “Led by Donkeys,” after the description of British soldiers in World War I as “lions led by donkeys.” The billboards are now going nationwide, after a crowdfunding campaign raised almost 150,000 pounds ($193,000).

“It was a cry of pain, genuine pain, at the chaos in this country and the lies that brought us here,” said a member of the group, a London charity worker who spoke on condition of anonymity because their initial guerrilla posters could be considered illegal.

A similar feeling of alienation reigns across the Brexit divide in the “leave” camp.

After the referendum, Harris, a 28-year-old classically trained singer, founded a group called Leavers of London so Brexiteers could socialize without facing opprobrium from neighbours and colleagues who don’t share their views. It has grown into Leavers of Britain, with branches across the country.

Harris said members “feel like in their workplaces or their personal lives, they’re not accepted for their democratic vote. They’re seen as bad people.”

“I’m really surprised I still have to do this,” she said. But she thinks Britain’s EU divide is as wide as it ever was.

“There can’t be reconciliation until Brexit is done,” she said.

Whenever that is.

——

Follow Jill Lawless on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/JillLawless . Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

from Financial Post http://bit.ly/2GuFwNy via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

College of Physicians & Surgeons Nova Scotia (CPSNS) bullies Dr Enyinnaya Ezema: The Untold Story.

If you heard or have read some sponsored stories about a consultant Psychiatrist Dr. Enyinnaya Ezema, and the college of physicians and surgeons Nova Scotia (CPSNS), you did not hear the whole truth.

Here are some, yes only some of the things CPSNS did not want you to know. This will blow your mind.

Background

On December 3, 2012, Dr Ezema, an international Medical Graduate Psychiatrist started practicing Medicine in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.

Job Loss

On April 20th, 2015, Dr Ezema’s sponsor withdrew her sponsorship, stating that she was not informed of the charges made against him. A colleague of his - Nurse Sophie, a psychiatrist nurse had made a complaint against him.

Subsequently, two other complainants –Ms. Mara and Ms. Martha came forward. The question is, did Dr Ezema inform the hospital of the charges? Of course, he did. His lawyer informed the head of department of psychiatry New Glasgow- Dr. Theresa Vienneau. Dr Vienneau misinformed his sponsor stating she was not informed. Hence, Dr Enyinnaya Ezema lost his job. No job, unemployed wife and three young children.

Media Frenzy

After Dr Ezema lost his license, the college of physicians and surgeons Nova Scotia published same on their website and sent out the news to blogs. This caused a media frenzy.

Note, the college does not publish the names of doctors without license on their site. But they published Dr. Ezema’s name.

Refusal to publish reinstatement of License

After three and half months when his sponsor reinstated his license, the college still left the notice of him not having a license on their website and when they finally removed the notice, they refused to inform the public that Dr Ezema now had a license. This became very frustrating for Dr Ezema as pharmacists informed him of not having a license when he made prescriptions for his patients. And each time anyone searched his name on the internet, the college’s site would bring up the page of him not having a license. CPSNS told him to ask google when he complained to them.

Unprofessionalism and bias of CPSNS committee against Dr Ezema

During the investigation process, while investigating Nurse Sophie, Ms. Mara and Ms. Martha. The college insulted Dr Ezema by referring to him as “Creepy”. Yes you heard right. They called him Creepy. They did not allow the complainants to make their statements in their own words but continued to spoon feed them. A committee is supposed to be unbiased; a committee is supposed to be for justice, equity and fair-play. They literally gave the complainants what to say.

Here are some of what the committee members said:

“And having you sit, was that maybe part of the powerplay?”

“He waited until he had you along behind closed doors.”

“You don’t blame yourself”

“It felt more like an assault on you”

“Sorry what you went through”

And many more such statements, remember Dr Ezema had not been interviewed yet! His lawyers from The Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) continued to advise CPSNS of being biased but they paid no attention.

The Court Trial

On February 10th, 2016. Dr Enyinnaya Ezema went for the court proceeding against Nurse Sophie and the process lasted not more than 10 minutes. The case was stayed after Nurse Sophie- the only witness called by the crown gave her testimony and the judge said to Dr. Ezema “You are free to go.”

The college places interim restrictions on Dr Ezema’s license for no reason

Apparently, everyone was not happy at Dr Ezema’s court victory. And on March 2016 upon reviewing some documents from Dr. Theresa Vienneau, the CPSNS made assumptions and made up their minds to criticize Dr. Ezema regardless of the evidence at hand. They completely disregarded letters of support from five doctor colleagues. Dr Ezema’s lawyer continued to note their bias against Dr Ezema, which fell on deaf ears.

Once again, further damage to Dr. Ezema’s reputation. The college placed an interim restriction on Dr Ezema’s license and recorded same on their website, advised 14 institutions within and outside Canada as well as hospital staff and patients.

Thus, the college sanctioned Dr. Ezema for all this period for no reason. Of course, Pro- Psychiatrist-Dr. Ezema proved they were wrong. Till date the college neither apologized to Dr Ezema nor acknowledged any error or wrong done against him.

Guess what people? Before Dr Ezema was advised that the restriction on his license was lifted, the college had informed Nurse Sophie about the development. This absolutely made no sense. Was the college working with Nurse Sophie, to set Him up?

Three Audits

The college ordered audits to be done on Dr Ezema’s practice. Three audits from three different specialists were carried out and all three came out very positive.

The Panel

During the hearing by the panel in August 2017, Dr Theresa Vienneau was subpoenaed and she admitted under oath that she was informed of the charges against Dr Ezema. Same charges she had lied about, that Dr. Enyinnaya Ezema never informed her.

By right and rule of law the panel was supposed to grant Dr Ezema three separate hearings but they denied him that right. Canada is supposed to be a free and fair country. You give everyone their full rights.

Dr. Ezema asked the chairman of the hearing panel to recuse himself because he- Dr. Ezema had previously gone to his firm as a result of related issue as this would constitute a conflict of interest, but the chairman of the hearing panel refused to recuse himself.

Every other case that was brought against Dr Ezema which was based on facts and figures, Dr Ezema proved he was right again and again and again. Yet the college and panel chose to believe hear, say- He said, she said. They swallowed everything Nurse Sophie, Ms.Mara and Ms. Martha said hook, line and sinker. They gave them money for their expenses, paid for their transport to the proceeding and lodged them in the best hotels of their choice.

The Panel in their penalty phase failed to consider all that Dr Ezema had suffered in the hands of the college. They did not acknowledge the time he served which would have been the normal practice.

Dr. Gus Grant Denies Dr Ezema his Right

Dr Ezema is a fully trained Psychiatrist. An MRCPsyc- That is a UK/Irish qualification. In Canada there are many ways to licensure depending on the province. One of which is “Grandfather” This provision is to enable those who have not passed the Canadian fellowship exam who came to Canada prior to 2015 to be licensed. Many doctors in Nova Scotia are being “Grandfathered” in Nova Scotia.

Grant went ahead to move Dr Ezema from 2012 his rightful start date to 2015. If this is not bullying what is it? Remember Dr Ezema’s license was not reissued but reinstated. Grant also threatened to put Ezema in a more supervisory positioned when Dr. Ezema pointed out to Dr Grant’s error.

Dr Ezema has had three very positive audits which proved he is very competent. He has given his very best, his all to his patients. Patients travelled from far to see him.

Dr Grant said he did not “grandfather” him because there was more than a three-month break in his practice. But it’s been proven the break in practice was no fault of Dr Ezema. Documents were submitted to prove this. Dr. Theresa Vienneau admitted that under oath.

The doctors at the panel were visibly shocked that Dr Grant had denied Dr Ezema Grandfather.

“But it’s been proven that Dr Ezema is a good doctor” Dr. Scott Theriault expressed in shock.

“You mean you can grandfather him?” Dr Ethel Cooper- Rosen asked in Awe on why Grant did not “Grandfather” Dr Ezema even though he could.

As of January 12, 2018, there was no program in place to help International Medical Graduate integrate into Canadian culture by CPSNS.

On that day, Dr Ezema presented an excellent assessment of his qualification prepared by the College of Physicians and Surgeons British Columbia (CPSBC). And on the fifth page of the document, the CPSBC stated that in their province, every international Medical graduate must undergo a compulsory integration program to help them integrate into Canadian culture. Dr Gus did no such thing and has no such programs for international Medical graduates. On the cue of this document he got from Dr Ezema, He subsequently started a program for international medical graduate yet not even a simple “Thank you” to Dr Ezema for showing him the light.

Mr. Hector MacIsaac who expressed great disapproval at the continuous injustice meted to his client stated,

“I was caught on tape saying society has failed justice. I will like to retract that statement. Society has not failed justice but when you put small people in sensitive positions justice is perverted.”

You are now left to ponder on these questions.

Did     some top management in connivance with some nurses set Dr. Eninnaya Ezema     up?

Why     did they set him up?

Why     has Dr. Enyinnaya Ezema been maltreated and bullied?

Latticework of Mental Models: Lollapalooza Effect

Value Investing Workshop in Bangalore (9th Sept), Chennai (23rd Sept), Mumbai (30th Sept). Click here to register now. Few seats remain!

Why were Warren Buffett and his creation, Berkshire Hathaway, so unusually successful?

In 2007 Wesco Annual Meeting, someone asked the above question from Charlie Munger. He replied –

If that success in investment isn’t the best in the history of the investment world, it’s certainly in the top five. It’s a lollapalooza.

Lollapalooza in the conventional sense means something outstanding of its kind. A person, a thing or an event that is particularly impressive, or extraordinarily attractive. But being multidisciplinary learners, we shouldn’t be satisfied with the conventional definitions, should we? Moreover, Charlie Munger doesn’t use lollapalooza just for its dictionary meaning.

Here’s the definition of Lollapalooza taken from the book Poor Charlie’s Almanack –

Lollapalooza is, as personified by Charles Munger, the critical mass obtained via a combination of concentration, curiosity, perseverance, and self-criticism, applied through a prism of multidisciplinary mental models.

When Charlie Munger uses the word lollapalooza, he often attaches the word “effects” (as in “lollapalooza effects”) which means that multiple factors are acting together in ways that are feeding back on each other.

In simple words, lollapalooza effect is an outcome which is far bigger than the sum of the parts. Using this mental construct of lollapalooza, one can explain the cause-effect relationship behind extreme events in the world. Not only explain, but Lollapalooza helps us understand the workings of this complex world so that we can leverage that for our own benefit.

In 2017 Daily Journal (DJCO) annual meeting, Munger said –

I coined it when I realized I didn’t know psychology. I bought three comprehensive psychology textbooks and read through them, and like usual I thought they were doing it all wrong, and I could do it better. When three or four tendencies were operating at once in same situation, the outcome wasn’t linear, it was straight up. The scholars were ignoring the most important thing in profession, because they couldn’t do experiments with so many variable operating together, and then they didn’t synthesize it with other disciplines, because they didn’t know squat about other disciplines. I am lonely, but I am right.

Lollapalooza is a great problem-solving tool. When you learn the important mental models and start applying them for problem-solving, you will realize that multiple models seem to converge in one direction and together they form the critical mass for a cascading of positive effects – a lollapalooza. It simplifies your decision making tremendously.

According to Munger, a majority of the worldly problems would be no-brainers if you look at them through the lens of lollapalooza.

To wrap our head around Munger’s idea of lollapalooza effect, let’s explore two cases studies which exemplify this concept.

Tupperware parties and open outcry auctions.

These examples highlight the situations where human irrationality, under the spell of Lollapalooza, becomes an uncontrolled freight train ripping apart every decision on its way.

Lollapalooza and Tupperware Parties A Tupperware party, according to Munger, is the best example of Lollapalooza effect because multiple psychological biases work in the same direction and push people towards irrational decisions.

Famous psychologist Robert Cialdini, in his book Influence, has written extensively about how the structure of Tupperware parties is designed to exploit many of the human biases.

A Tupperware party takes advantage of four weapons of influence, i.e., reciprocity, liking bias, social proof, and confirmation bias.

Here’s a crash course on these biases.

Reciprocity is the deep-seated urge to return a favour. When someone does something nice for you, it sows the seed to reciprocate. This feeling of obligation to repay is what’s known as reciprocation bias. Even if we didn’t need the initial favour in the first place, it’s hard to get rid of the feeling that you have to return the favour in some form. This urge to reciprocate may lead us to do things which we wouldn’t have done otherwise.

Liking bias explains why people prefer to do business with people they like rather than people they don’t like. And who do we like? Those who are similar to us, who cooperate with us, who makes us feel special. Especially our friends and neighbours. We find it hard to refuse a request that comes from such people.

Social proof is a way to deal with uncertainty. When we’re in doubt we often make decisions by imitating what others are doing. Humans find great comfort in social validation. Following others usually serves well under normal circumstances but social proof can lead us astray when making crucial decisions.

Commitment and consistency bias is when we resist changing our views even if we’re wrong. Once we’ve taken a stand on something, it’s cognitively tough to change it even when we’re shown evidence that counters our original beliefs. The more we affirm our past decisions the stronger we believe in them.

Back to Tupperware party.

The invite for the Tupperware party comes from someone you like — a friend, a colleague, a neighbour or a relative. Liking bias at play. The party then starts with a game where everyone is allowed to win a prize. Winning “prizes” invokes the force of reciprocation. You want to pay back those who gave you the free items. Then old customers are asked to share the benefits of the Tupperware products. This unleashes the commitment bias. Then you see other people at the party buying items and that triggers the social validation — since other similar people want the product; it must be good. Social proof bias at work.

Combine these effects, and it’s not hard to see why many people try to avoid going to a Tupperware party in the first place, because they know that once they are there, they will buy something.

Lollapalooza and Auctions In 2007 Tata Steel acquired Corus group – an Anglo-Dutch steel major. The acquisition happened through a competitive open-outcry auction. Tata Steel submitted a proposal with an initial bid of 455 pence a share. Soon CSN a Brazilian competitor chimed in with an offer of 475 pence. In response, Tatas upped the bid to 500 pence a share. Then CSN raised the bid to 515 pence. After a long drawn bidding war, Tata group eventually won with a bid of 608 pence a share. That was 34 percent higher than Tata’s original proposal. The total payment was $12.1 billion (Rs. 53,580 crores at the then exchange rate) of which $6 billion was debt. At that time Tata Steel’s market cap was less than Rs. 30,000 cr.

By 2014, Tata Steel’s debt had ballooned to more than $13 billion. They never recovered from this mistake.

Social psychology experiments show that bidders in auctions often get carried away and end up bidding far more than the underlying value of the auctioned objects. Such outcomes are almost always the result of the combination of multiple forces working in the same direction.

In his famous lecture title Psychology of Human Misjudgment, Charlie Munger says –

…the open-outcry auction is just made to turn the brain into mush: you’ve got social proof, the other guy is bidding, you get reciprocation tendency, you get deprival super-reaction syndrome, the thing is going away… I mean it just absolutely is designed to manipulate people into idiotic behavior.

The list of cognitive biases that are at play in an auction is just mind-boggling. It starts with greed and envy but doesn’t stop there.

Commitment Bias: Every bid and its escalation is a public commitment. It reinforces and justifies the bidder’s belief that his bid price is right.

Social Proof: You’re in close contact with other people who are all providing social validation that the sale item is valuable.

Low Contrast Effect: Every successive bid is only a tiny increment over the previous one.

Loss Aversion: As the auctioneer starts the countdown on the competitive bid it intensifies the feeling that you’re being deprived of something which was almost yours.

Authority Bias: The auctioneer is seen as a symbol of authority because he certifies the authenticity of the auctioned object. He also announces an initial bidding price which serves as an “anchor.”

Incentive Bias: The incentives of the auctioneer are directly attached to the final price. Higher the winning-price more the commission for the auctioneer.

Scarcity Bias: Auction items are scarce because only one person can have it, and after the bids are finished, you’ve lost your chance.

Do you see what happens to people who get into open-outcry, auction-like situations? That’s why Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have a rule when they get invited to auction situations.

The rule is: Don’t Go.

Lollapalooza and the Stock Market So how does lollapalooza play out in the stock market?

If you think about it, you will arrive at the same conclusion as I did. The stock market is either one big Tupperware party or a giant auction room or both.

The environment in which a typical stock market investor operates today is the breeding ground for many psychological biases — all acting in the same direction. And when forces act in the same direction, as we’ve learnt from Munger, it’s an invitation to lollapalooza.

With the advent of social media, everyone has the power to shout their opinions openly. Publicly voicing your views triggers a strong commitment and consistency effect. Irrespective of how many people actually listen to you, the mere fact that you’ve spoken about a stock openly, engraves those existing beliefs deeper into your own psyche.

The same social media becomes the source of social validation too. When you see hundreds of people talking about an obscure company, it’s difficult to fight the urge to follow the herd. This effect is more pronounced during rapidly falling or rising stock prices.

The incessant noise from the TV channels, financial newspapers, WhatsApp groups and free stock tippers, aggravates the recency bias in an investor’s mind.

And then the mother of all biases – incentive bias.

“I think I’ve been in the top 5 percent of my age cohort all my life in understanding the power of incentives,” says Charlie Munger, “and all my life I’ve underestimated it. And never a year passes but I get some surprise that pushes my limit a little farther…Never ever think about something else when you should be thinking about incentives.”

The train of financial industry chugs on the rails of incentives. As a result, the incentive bias among the sellers of financial products creates a moral hazard for the small investors.

“All commissioned salesmen,” said Charlie Munger in 1988 Wesco Financial annual meeting, “have a tendency to serve the transaction instead of the truth.”

To invest in the stock market, a new investor cannot avoid contact with the so-called relationship managers of large financial institutions (banks, brokerage houses, mutual funds, etc.) This customer facing army is equipped with weapons of persuasion to be deployed against the innocent retail investors.

Unfortunately, even after knowing about the power of persuasion principles, it’s hard to resist giving in to the requests coming from these people. They are sharply dressed, they look confident, they are articulate, and sound very convincing. Can you imagine what a gullible investor, who has neither heard of Cialdini’s work nor the workings of Tupperware parties, gets sucked into?

Mr. Market – Benjamin Graham’s figment of imagination – is like the Tupperware hostess who would invite you every day to join the party. He’s also like the auctioneer who wants you to jump into the adrenaline-filled bidding war.

Remember the rule? Don’t go.

The post Latticework of Mental Models: Lollapalooza Effect appeared first on Safal Niveshak.

Latticework of Mental Models: Lollapalooza Effect published first on https://mbploans.tumblr.com/

Paul Ryan, in his final year in Congress, has done an impressive job of building a reputation as the figure responsible for the substantive conservative bills of the Trump administration — the tax cuts, repeal of the individual mandate for health care, boosts to military spending — while somehow escaping being implicated in President Trump’s most egregious wrongdoing: the financial crimes and possible collusion with Russia that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating.

Ryan rebuffed Trump after Trump praised Russian dictator Vladimir Putin at a summit in Finland, saying, “The president must appreciate that Russia is not our ally,” he refused to allow Putin to address Congress if he visits Washington, and he declared after the summit that “[Mueller] should be allowed to finish his investigation and carry out his work.”

He has also endeavored to shore up a reputation as a serious statesman interested in discourse, not a partisan bomb-thrower. In a talk to congressional interns, he admonished the young ’uns that “Snark sells, but it doesn’t stick,” telling them to “think about what you’re doing to kind of poison the well of society.”

This is important for Ryan’s potential future career as a lobbyist, think tank denizen, highly paid corporate speaker, or what have you. If Ryan is perceived as an enabler and co-conspirator with a fundamentally corrupt administration, some of those doors could close.

The problem is that Ryan’s prepared image is a lie. He has failed to take modest, reasonable steps to protect the Mueller investigation and hold the Trump administration to account. Even worse, he’s actively empowering forces in the House — most prominently Rep. Devin Nunes (CA) — who are conspiring to disrupt the investigation and protect Trump.

The clear goal is to delegitimize the Mueller investigation, to ensure that its conclusions are perceived as mere partisan propaganda rather than fact-finding by reputable investigators. That will enable Republicans in Congress to ignore any wrongdoing Mueller discovers, no matter how egregious, and ensure that efforts to impeach or remove Trump or any of his aides will fail.

It’s some of the most valuable work being down to protect Trump in all of Washington, and Ryan is right at the center of it.

In a rare failure of message discipline, or perhaps an effort to satisfy the administration at the expense of his reputation outside a narrow circle of Trump loyalists, Paul Ryan in May offered comments on Robert Mueller and said the quiet part loud.

“I think he should be free to do his job,” Ryan said, “but I would like to see it get wrapped up, of course.” He supports the investigation, sure, but he doesn’t want Mueller to keep digging for too much longer, regardless of how much wrongdoing he uncovers.

Then during his lecture in front of interns Wednesday, when a Democratic intern accused him of not standing up to Trump by defending the Mueller investigation, Ryan impatiently cut him short (so much for discourse) and responded, “Let me ask you this, is it still going on? It is, isn’t it? It hasn’t been ended; it’s still going on.”

This is a clever out for Ryan. While using the fact that the investigation hasn’t yet been scuttled as cover, Ryan is actively enabling efforts by his colleagues in the House to undermine and discredit it, and to, by extension, protect Trump. The investigation isn’t dead, but it’s weaker due to Ryan’s actions.

His greatest service to undermining the investigation has been through his empowering of and continued support for Devin Nunes. Nunes, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has been the Trump administration’s most effective and indefatigable supporter on this issue.

In February, Nunes released the infamous memo detailing claims of FBI bias against the Trump administration. The memo alleges that the FBI’s usage of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants to monitor Carter Page, the Russia-linked former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, was not properly vetted, and relied too much on the Steele dossier, the research for which was partly financed by the Clinton campaign, without discussing Steele’s possible bias.

The allegations are wildly misleading. Steele was originally contracted by the conservative Washington Free Beacon, a number of his findings have since been confirmed (suggesting it’s a valid basis of intelligence), and, most importantly of all, the FISA warrants contained a page-long footnote explaining all the ways Steele might be biased. The core allegation of the Nunes memo — that the FBI relied uncritically on Steele without considering his possible bias — was just a lie.

The memo’s release was a ridiculous partisan effort to discredit Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (who signed off on one of the warrants) and, by extension, the Mueller investigation that Rosenstein oversees. “The campaign to release the memo was part of a much larger conservative effort to discredit the Mueller investigation,” my colleagues Zack Beauchamp and Alex Ward explained when the memo came out in February. “Its release could end up serving as pretext for removing those responsible for the Mueller probe.”

The latter hasn’t happened yet, but the memo has become powerful ammunition for Trump, his allies in pro-regime press outlets like Fox News and the Federalist, and other Trump loyalists in Congress to claim that the entire investigation is a deranged witch hunt perpetrated by “deep state” enemies.

Ryan has not only done nothing to rein Nunes in, he has actively defended Nunes and insisted that he’s done nothing wrong.

In February, faced with calls by Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to remove Nunes, Ryan replied, “I think they’re just playing politics and I think they’re looking for a political distraction, is what I get out of that. Look, the tax cuts are working, tax reform is working, we’ve got ISIS on the run, things are going well, economic confidence is at a 17-year high. I think they would love nothing more than to play politics and to change the subject.” This was his response when asked about the Nunes memo, a memo that Trump’s own FBI chief argued never should have been released.

“This does not implicate the Mueller investigation,” he continued, which is a bit like arguing that the Saturday Night Massacre didn’t implicate the Watergate investigation.

A couple of months later, Ryan carried even more water for Nunes. In early May, “senior FBI and national intelligence officials” warned the White House that Nunes was seeking information from the DOJ that “could endanger a top-secret intelligence source” and potentially “risk lives,” according to a report by the Washington Post. The White House agreed to hold back the information, which was also disclosed to the Mueller investigation.

In that moment, Nunes was going further than the White House in obstructing the investigation, to the point of threatening to hold Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt. And Ryan was right there with him, telling the Post, “We expect the administration to comply with our document requests.”

In the face of House pressure — pressure Ryan did nothing to allay — the Justice Department partially complied with the subpoena in late June. But it wasn’t enough. Ryan held a floor vote on a resolution calling for more documents as part of the Nunes inquiry, which passed on party lines. Asked if he supported the idea of holding Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein in contempt of Congress if he didn’t comply, Ryan simply answered, “We expect compliance.”

Just this past Wednesday, two of the most vicious opponents of the Mueller investigation in the House, Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), introduced a resolution to impeach Rosenstein, with their stated reasons all relating to their ongoing effort to delegitimize the Mueller investigation. They fault Rosenstein for not appointing a second special counsel to investigate FBI/DOJ misconduct in investigating Trump and Hillary Clinton and in surveilling ex-Trump adviser Carter Page, and for redacting too much of a document given to Congress on the scope of Mueller’s investigation.

Ryan announced that he opposes the impeachment effort because, among other reasons, it could “dramatically delay” Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court if the Senate has to vote on the issue (ah, the reasoning of a man of principle). Ryan was sure to emphasize, however, that his beef with the Department of Justice was not over. “Republicans have been getting a lot of compliance from [DOJ] on the document request,” he said, but “we do not have full compliance. And we have to get full compliance.”

No, Ryan didn’t endorse a brazen effort to depose the official overseeing the Mueller investigation, but you do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to him. He is still collaborating in efforts to intimidate the Justice Department, and he has still done a tremendous amount to empower Nunes, Meadows, Jordan, and others in their efforts to undermine Rosenstein and Mueller.

This delegitimization effort really, really matters. If the Mueller investigation uncovers wrongdoing by Trump or senior officials, whether or not Trump and those officials stay in office is entirely dependent on the actions of congressional leadership. And casting the investigation, from the beginning, as a political witch hunt is a prophylactic measure meant to ensure that no matter what the investigation finds, it will not be interpreted as grounds for impeachment or removal.

Far more numerous, however, are Ryan’s sins of omissions: things he could have done to strengthen the Mueller investigation, protect it from interference, and subject the Trump administration to real scrutiny.

Ryan could have blocked Nunes from releasing that memo in the first place, and removed him from his chairmanship. He did not.

Ryan could condemn House Oversight Committee Chair Trey Gowdy and House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte for holding farcical hearings on FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok meant to cast the whole effort to investigate Trump’s Russia conduct as a witch hunt.

He could threaten to strip Gowdy and Goodlatte of their chairmanships unless they commit to launch investigations into Trump’s fraudulent charity, into his potentially corrupt real estate deals abroad, and into the possibility that Trump actively collaborated with Russian intelligence, WikiLeaks, or both. He could urge them to subpoena Trump’s tax returns and search them for irregularities. He has not done any of that.

Ryan could bring the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, a bipartisan bill that would protect Mueller against arbitrary firing, to the House floor for a vote, or force House Goodlatte to consider it in committee. He has not; he hasn’t even endorsed the bill.

Ryan could force a floor vote on the Protecting Our Democracy Act, a bill with 200 co-sponsors (two of whom are Republicans) to create a National Commission on Foreign Interference in the 2016 Election to investigate what exactly happened with Russia’s interference. He hasn’t endorsed the bill, let alone brought it up for a vote.

Ryan could also force a floor vote on a version of the Senate’s Secure Elections Act, which would get rid of paperless electronic voting machines that are hackable and push states to engage in routine audits to verify election results are legitimate. Mainstream Republicans like Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) are on board. Ryan is not.

A recent report by Politico Playbook suggested that congressional Republicans think all the criticism they’re receiving for carrying water for Trump is unfair. The message, Playbook reported, boiled down to, “WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT US TO DO?” They claim they’ve held sufficient hearings and slapped enough sanctions on Russia.

The litany above is what I want them to do, and the person who could make them do it is Paul Ryan. He could remove Devin Nunes with the stroke of a pen. He could bring floor votes on the above legislation whenever he wants. He could whip votes for the legislation too, and push Mitch McConnell to move it in the Senate.

That he doesn’t do any of that, and in fact actively enables the cover-up, is telling. Ryan genuinely believes that the cause of slashing corporate taxes and tax rates for rich Americans is worth collaborating with a reckless administration in an elaborate attempt to cover up wrongdoing. He makes that choice every day, and it should blacken his historical legacy.

Original Source -> Paul Ryan is helping Trump undermine the rule of law

via The Conservative Brief

The EBM Wars: When Evidence has a Price – The ECMO Trials (Part 2)

By ANISH KOKA

The year was 1965, the place was Boston Children’s and a surgery resident named Robert Bartlett took his turn at the bedside of a just born baby unable to breathe.  This particular baby couldn’t breathe because of a hole in the diaphragm that had allowed the intestines to travel up into the thoracic cage, and prevent normal development of the lungs.  In 1965, Robert Bartlett was engaged in the cutting edge treatment of the time – squeeze a bag that forced oxygenated air into tiny lungs and hope there was enough functioning lung tissue to participate in gas exchange to allow the body to get the oxygen it needed.  Bartlett persisted in ‘bagging’ the child for 2 days.  As was frequently the case, the treatments proved futile and the baby died.

The strange part of the syndrome that had come to be known as congenital diaphragmatic hernia was that repairing the defect and putting the intestines back where they belonged was not necessarily curative.  The clues to what was happening lay in autopsy studies that demonstrated arrested maturation of lung tissue in both compressed and uncompressed lung.  Some systemic process beyond simple compression of one lung must be operative.  It turns out that these little babies were blue because their bodies were shunting blood away from the immature lungs through vascular connections that normally close off after birth.  Add abnormally high pressures in the lungs and you have a perfect physiologic storm that was not compatible with life.

Pondering the problem, Bartlett wondered if there was a way to artificially do what the lungs were supposed to do – oxygenate.  Twelve years later in 1977, while most pediatric intensive care units were still figuring out how to ventilate babies, a team lead by Bartlett was using jerry rigged chest tube catheters to bypass the lungs of babies failing the standard treatments of the day.  In a series of reports that followed, Bartlett described the technique his team used in babies that heretofore had a mortality rate of 90%.  A home made catheter was placed in the internal jugular vein and pumped across an artificial membrane that oxygenated blood before it was returned via a catheter to the carotid artery.  The usual hiccups ensued.  The animal models didn’t adequately model the challenges of placing babies on what has come to be known as ECMO (Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation).

Patient 1 developed a severely low platelet count, hemorrhaged into the brain and died. Patient 2 survived but was on a ventilator for 7 weeks.  Patient 3 developed progressive pulmonary hypertension and died.  Patient 4 died because of misplacement of one of the ECMO catheters.

The team improved, and mortality in this moribund population improved to 20%.  The pediatric journals of the day refused to publish the data because they felt ECMO for neonates was irresponsible.  Once published, the neonatology community came out in force against ECMO, and some penned editorials implying the children only became supremely ill because Bartlett’s team was incompetent.  The team persisted, as is anyone that is driven by the desperate need of patients.  None of this should be surprising.  The constant battle between skeptics and proponents is a recurring theme known to anyone with even a limited understanding of  medical history.  But this is where the story goes off the rails.

One of the fundamental tenets of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) that had been established was that no therapy could be known to be beneficial unless it was proven so in a Randomized Control Trial (RCT).  The Michigan group ultimately published their phase 1 experience – a collection of the first 55 patients they treated with ECMO.  The results were remarkable.  In a group of patients that were failing all medical therapy that was known at the time,  with an expected mortality of 90%, 28/40 (70%) children with a birth weight over 2kg survived.   But, it didn’t matter.  Bartlett felt compelled to form an RCT because..

“none our colleagues — neonatology staff, referring physicians, other prominent neonatologists, other prominent life support researchers, hospital administrators, insurance carriers, the NIH study sections which reviewed our grant applications, the editors which reviewed our publications, and the statisticians which reviewed our claims and methods – believed that ECMO had been tested let alone proven in neonatal respiratory failure… 

we ourselves felt compelled to evaulate the new technique in a way that our colleagues listed above acknowledge and respect… 

We knew that 90% of patients assigned to the control group would die with conventional therapy..”

We hear about nefarious incentives pushing physicians to do more, but we hear next to nothing about incentives of payers and administrators to promote doing less.  What better time for hospital administrators and payers to invoke lack of proof than when sitting across the table from physicians asking for support for a procedure that promised to increase costs manifold.  A quick death of a baby is tragic.  But to those who are paying, its also cheap.

Bartlett went ahead with the randomized control trial he felt compelled to perform to convince the wider community.  He attempted to get around the ethical quandary by having a randomization protocol that would ensure far fewer than 50% of patients randomized would end up in the control arm.  The study was a randomized ‘play the winner approach’ that had been described but never before used in a clinical trial.  Using a balls-in-urn model, the randomization consisted of drawing a treatment allocation ball from an urn at random, with replacement.  Initially the urn contained one conventional therapy ball and one ECMO ball.  The protocol called for the addition of one ECMO ball each time a patient survived on ECMO or a patient died with conventional therapy.  Similarly, it called for the addition of a conventional therapy ball for survival on conventional therapy or death on ECMO.  The stopping rule – determined in advance – was to stop the randomization whenever ten balls of one type were added.

The first patient was randomly assigned to ECMO and survived.  The next random assignment was to conventional treatment and died.  The third patient assigned to ECMO survived.  The odds heavily favored ECMO, and the next nine patients were randomized to ECMO.  All the patients randomized to ECMO survived.

So the first adaptive trial design used in clinical practice was wildly positive for the new treatment proffered.  Unsurprisingly, the community of skeptics remained unmoved.  The arguments were predictable.  The randomization was atypical.  The study was biased to show the therapy would succeed.  The control arm only consisted of one patient! At best, nothing definitive could be said.  Another, more conventional randomized control trial was needed.

And so another group duly performed an RCT.  This second trial was designed to satisfy the EBM orthodoxy by assigning an approximately equal number of patients to control arm or ECMO.  The study was still designed to limit the number of patients assigned to the inferior arm by limiting the 50:50 randomization until the 4th death occurred in either group.  At that point, randomization would cease and all subsequent patients would be enrolled in the group with less than 4 deaths.  The first 19 patients were randomly assigned to conventional therapy or ECMO therapy.  Nine patients received ECMO, and all survived.  Ten patients received conventional therapy – six survived and four died. After the fourth death, randomization ceased and the next 20 patients were assigned to ECMO treatments.  Of these 20, 19 survived, 1 died.  It bears repeating that in a group of patients that were included in this trial because mortality with conventional therapy was believed to be 85%, 19/20 survived in the ECMO arm.  Even more troubling, four babies died being randomized to the control arm.  The medical community, buoyed by the need to generate ‘gold standard’ evidence could not help but randomize dying babies to a control arm to convince the statistical gods.  The gods of EBM are like the ancient Mayan gods – both require human sacrifice.

Driving while Drunk

EBM was intoxicating.  For clinicians, the application of statistics to data was like a magic truth machine.  Feed data into this machine, and beautiful binary answers emerged.  The era of EBM fueled an explosion of data being peer reviewed and published in an uncountable number of journals.  These simple conclusions – Coffee is bad! Moderate alcohol consumption is bad!- were then amplified by the lay media and bundled as ‘facts’ that the Starbucks coffee drinking populace devoured.   It is seldom obvious to the drunken driver how often they stray into opposing traffic – and while it took some time, it eventually became obvious that EBM had a problem staying in the right lane.

An EBM fact was apparently not like discovering the world was was not flat.  One year coffee was good, the next year coffee was bad.  The public seemed not to catch on, but others did.  One of the first to point out systematic issues with EBM was an unassuming Infectious Disease trained epidemiologist and biostatistician named John Ioannidis.  In 2005, he penned a provocative article that would go onto become one of the most cited papers ever that suggested most published research findings were false.  The thing is that he wasn’t exaggerating.

In the current world of clinical research we reside in, I develop a hypothesis that activation of the Koka receptor on the heart with drug KokaCabana will reduce mortality in heart failure patients.  The next step is to run a clinical trial comparing it to a placebo and counting mortality in the two arms.  At the end of the trial fewer deaths are seen in the KokaCabana arm.  The question that faces us is if fewer deaths was a play of chance or if KokaCabana actually works. This question is turned over to statisticians who for the most past rely heavily on the work on Sir Ronald Fisher, a British statistician born in London in 1890.  Fisher posited the idea that experiments have a null hypothesis that should be rejected by observations that are unlikely.  To quantify how unlikely the events are to occur, Fisher described the famous p value as the tail area under a frequency distribution that would exist if the null hypothesis was true.   A small p value means a very rare thing has been observed, or the null hypothesis is not true.

KokaCabana needs a small p value – billions of dollars hang in the balance.  The accepted threshold for significance for p values is 0.05.  A value of 0.04 and Egyptian Pharaoh’s would be envious of the riches Dr. Koka will acquire.  A value of 0.06 and KokaCabana will be judged to be a sham, the equivalent of a worthless sugar pill.

That there could be a physiologic threshold to differentiate useful from useless should seem preposterous on its own.  Unfortunately, the problem extends well beyond the 0.05 cliff of truth.  The general premise that a p of 0.05 provides some assurance of a real effect is incorrect and was never intended to do so by the man who originally described p values.  What we are desperate to know is the probability our hypothesis (h) is true given the evidence provided (e), but our p value instead gives us the probability this particular evidence is observed (e) given a certain hypothesis (h).

In brief:   Probability (h | e) ≠ Probability ( e | h)

In more simple terms: Probability ( 4 legs | dog ) ≠ Probability ( dog | 4 legs )

Given a dog, the probability of 4 legs is very high.  Given 4 legs, the probability of a dog is not very high.  The trial results are akin to being given a result of 4 legs.  Proving the 4 legged creature is a dog requires things like context.  It helps to be told you’re in a dog park for instance.  That context is part of what can be termed the prior probability.  The prior is what allows one to travel from evidence to hypothesis.

Probability (h | e) ~ Probability ( e | h) x Probability (prior)

Somewhere along the way the importance of context – the importance of the prior probability – was lost.  The evidence based movement was supposed to be the great equalizer that leveled the playing field between the experts and their biases and everyone else.  You didn’t need to be an interventional cardiologist to decide if a device used in patients with cardiogenic shock was effective or not.  A family practice physician who hasn’t stepped in a cardiac intensive care unit to manage a patient with heart failure only needs the published randomized control trials on the subject to know if the device for cardiogenic shock is effective.  The problem of course is the prior.  Whose prior should we trust?

Not paying attention to the prior increases the chances of committing the fallacy of the transposed conditional – mistaking the probability of the data given the proposed hypothesis with the probability of the hypothesis given the data.  And so it was that the evidence based movement that sought to embrace numeracy to build a stronger foundation turns out to have a river running underneath it.  Think sink hole, not Hoover Dam.

John Ioannidis even attempted to quantify how changing prestudy odds changes the likelihood a study actually tells you what you think it does.  The different colors are used to reflect differing levels of bias.  The higher the pretest odds, the higher the likelihood of a real effect.  The higher the bias, the lower the likelihood a real effect is found. Also implicated as a source of false positive studies are multiple investigators working on the same research question.  Chance dictates one of the studies is positive.  The focus is on the one positive study, not the many negative — and thats if the negative studies are even published.

It is interesting that Ioannidis chooses to solve the problem that started with an attempt to quantify certainty by attempting to quantify uncertainty.  The graphs are pretty and serve to make the point that evidence is subject to context and bias, but both are markedly subjective and make possible a wide range of outcomes.  Bias on the part of researchers has at times increased the chances a real effect is found.  As an outsider it is hard to know what drives investigator bias.  Many times third parties assume the worst – financial, academic promotion, etc.  Skeptics of the day presumed some type of bias that didn’t allow the Bartlett team to see things clearly, and demanded a more conventional trial in which 4 babies died in the control arm.

Interestingly, Ioannidis’ solutions feel imprisoned by the very frame that created the problem.

” large scale studies should be targeted for research questions where the pretest probability is already high.. ”

” greater understanding of [pretest odds ] is needed ”

“large studies with minimal bias should be performed on research findings that are relatively established ”

Yet, large scale studies are particularly prone to demonstrating statistically significant, yet small clinically insignificant findings.  A greater understanding of pretest odds is best acquired by those with the most bias (otherwise known as expertise).  Lastly, in the zeal to overturn established practices, consider that there may be good reason practices are established.

The Lindy effect is a term popularized by the mathematician-philosopher-best selling author, Nassim Nicholas Taleb used to predict robustness.  Things that have been in existence for a long period of time can be considered more robust, more likely to endure than things that have not passed the test of time.  As an example – the recent controversy about the value of opening stenosed coronary arteries stems from a novel first of its kind 200 patient study that was essentially negative.  While there are important lessons to learn from the trial, clinicians as a group have been reluctant to allow one 200 patient trial to completely reverse a concept that has been operative for for forty years.  This may not be irrational.  Forty years of robustness where numerous other treatments for angina have come and gone may very well have real meaning. In Lindy terms, past survival predicts future survival – this predicts arteries will be opened in one fashion or another for at least the next 40 years.

So EBM as practiced and widely accepted struggles with causal inference.  Regurgitating the most recent conclusion from the randomized control trial in the New England Journal of Medicine means you are more likely to be participating in the fallacy of the transposed conditional than you are to be speaking truth.  It turns out that finding cause has to do with why the numbers are produced.  The numbers – no matter how cleverly you manipulate them – don’t have the answers you seek.

The EBM Wars: When Evidence has a Price – The ECMO Trials (Part 2) published first on https://wittooth.tumblr.com/