Y’know, on some issues there IS no so-called “middle ground,” only action, extreme action, and inaction. And you better know the issue before you choose inaction.

Wtf is with the Tudor fandom?? Those are the same people who have “cancelled” Isabel and Fernando lmao for their colonization of America. Why are they so mad when we talk about Elizabeth I + colonization then? who tf do they think they are by saying “social justice warriors”?

I feel, personally, like the weaponization of serious issues for the purposes of ships and stanning various figures has kind of brought us to this point, ngl. Anne Boleyn supporters bring up the Inquisition, bring up slavery, bring up the colonization of America, while KOA supporters toss Ireland and the treatment of black and Jewish people around like a ping pong ball, on and on, back and forth, pettier and pettier with each exchange. There’s no real room to discuss anything, because it’s inherently polarized, and the only ones who really lose are the ones in the fandom who wanted to discuss it from the beginning because it reflects some part of their lived experience, only to find themselves used as pawns and then discarded when they’re no longer of use. And, in that area, as a white American Celticist, I got off fairly clean. I haven’t had to deal with the constant harassment that others have had to deal with. I’ve just been lied about and ignored, which, in many, many ways, is better. Annoying, but better. 

  I’m personally at an odd place with Ferdinand and Isabella given that I do live at Ground Zero of the Spanish colonization of America - The people of Florida have, for the most part (though not uncontroversially), begun to seriously question the narratives that we were always fed about Ponce de Léon and the “Discovery” of Florida, taking into account more re: his treatment of the Táino people, who were exploited, enslaved, and butchered by Spanish forces who were paid with Ferdinand of Aragon’s gold, working under Ferdinand of Aragon’s authority. We are starting to question what, exactly, it means when we talk about having the oldest continuously occupied city in the nation, along with the question of where the legendary emeralds of the lost Plate Fleet (that, let’s be real, we ALL want to find) came from, which hands mined them before they were put into crucifixes, whose blood stains them. I’m not going to pretend I have any personal love of them, though I recognize their overall historical importance. I think that, like any other historical figures, we can talk about the good and the bad, along with the lasting effects, both good and bad, of them and their reign. 

  That being said, the blatant hypocrisy of the Tudors fandom to criticize one fandom when, the second the spotlight is turned on them, they suddenly demur and claim that, actually, that doesn’t MATTER anymore, it was centuries ago, is galling. Either we critically analyze history like adults for both sides of the Catholic VS Protestant debate, acknowledging that both sides committed atrocities that echo down to the present, or we don’t. We keep brushing things under the rug, keep trying to argue why our faves were the most pure, keep trying to enter into a dick measuring contest with a thin veneer of academism. (And, at the risk of putting too fine a point on it, in my field, I have just as much standing as they do. I’m not asking for people to bow down or even to take what I say uncritically, since I hate elitism in the field, but I AM asking, if they’re claiming to be academics and using that to swing their weight around, to give me the same respect as another academic. You can’t have the respect that comes with the position without acknowledging the responsibility.) 

  All I ever REALLY wanted was for people to talk about the darker side, not to permanently #Cancel anyone (the past is a fucked up place—If I didn’t feel like I had to constantly defend my field’s existence constantly from people wanting to paint the Irish as barbarians, I could tell you some REALLY fucked up things from Irish history/literature. Especially the literature), but to TALK about the nuances involved, only to find that, on both sides, people only really cared about boosting their own pet faves. I’m not saying “You can only post a gifset of Elizabeth/Isabella if you include a dissertation tacked on at the end of how they weren't  #GirlBosses", rather that the general perception of them needed to become more nuanced, and yet, somehow, that led to me becoming one of the black sheep of the Tudor fandom. (That and, admittedly, mentioning the very true fact that one British Dynasty has received more media attention in 20 years than the entirety of Irish history’s received in cinematic history…..which I stand by, not the least because I didn’t mention WHICH dynasty, since it applies, in fact, to multiple, including the present ruling dynasty.) (Okay, and calling an ugly fraud of a portrait an ugly fraud of a portrait. Which I also stand by.)

One thing that I appreciate with the saner parts of, for example, the French Revolution fandom is that, while it can still be quite polarized, there is, essentially, at least the IDEA that both sides fucked up and did fucked up things. The idea that, even though you can appreciate that certain figures, like Robespierre, like Marie Antoinette, like Philippe Égalité (though I’m still working on that one) were slandered in their time, they ALSO were complicit in some terrible, terrible things. I haven’t really seen any Robespierre fans defending, say, the September Massacres, the Vendée, or the suppression of the Brezhoneg language. (I’ve gotten more mixed reviews from the pro-Royalist side, but at least the understanding that the Ancien Régime and the people in it weren’t ideal, which is more than I’m getting on this side.) Is the Frev fandom ideal? No. It isn’t. It suffers from many of the same shortcomings as any other historical fandom, and there are quite a few people I utterly refuse to engage with because I find them to be too extreme on one side or the other (being the one Orléanist Stan™ does help things along), but, that being said, at least they’re having SOME historical perspective.

I made the unfortunate mistake of thinking that, when people said “Oh, yes, we can appreciate these things in the context of their time, with critical thinking!” They actually meant it, as opposed to just wanting an excuse to shut us up until we’re useful again. Instead, I quickly realized that people only cared so long as it bolstered them and their side, not about the people who were actually harmed, and if we bring THEM up, we’re SJWs. No need to argue with what we’re actually SAYING if you can just lie about us repeatedly. And, frankly? I’m utterly disgusted at the number of blogs that I thought would know better, who I respected for their nuanced approach to history and the study of it, humoring them. I’m utterly disgusted at how their narrative of “Evil SJW”s has actually gained currency from people who have based their entire reputation, sometimes their careers, on critical thinking and analyzing biases. 

Addressing some of the hateful comments/messages I get

It comes as no surprise to me that because I make social justice related posts I get on average hundreds of abusive messages saying that: I am wrong, to kill myself, that I am a traitor to my race, and a bunch of other garbage I have to constantly sift through since I care about the “Black Lives Matter” cause and other related social issues. Its sorta sad but it is to be expected. But since I am in a relatively good mood today I will be addressing some of the most common messages I get and somewhat attempt to respond to them.

“I bet you are all butthurt now that (insert name of black person recently killed by police here) is dead. Good riddance, another monkey gone”

The statement above is a general example of the majority of messages I get. They always come from some account with the punisher logo as the PFP or a “blue lives matter” pfp and they seem to be under the general assumption that Black Lives Matter is a covert organization that is here to destroy America. 

First off: using a derogatory word like ‘monkey’ to describe a black person (regardless of context) is pretty racist and does not help your case when you try to tell me how ‘racist the BLM organization’ is (which makes little to no sense since Black Lives Matter is a movement, not a cohesive group. That would be like saying the Capitalist organization is making America money. Its a system of beliefs, not an actual group). That and the general aggressive tone of all of these collective messages does not make me think you are here with good intentions. It makes me think you are an angry racist who gets almost sexual pleasure from the deaths of people who look different than you.  And since many of these accounts I get these messages from also fetishize black women.... I am quite frankly confused as to how many of you come to these logical conclusions.

People die everyday. I cannot refute that people die everyday and that its a normal part of life. However, denying that there are issues with racism in this day and age is willfully ignorant and denying these deaths are apart of that problem is just impressively stupid. And generally stupid hides behind a torrent of abuse and hatred. If I prove you wrong you will just scream at me louder and start making cheap shots at me using my: race, sex/gender, nationality, religion, and generic physical traits as ammunition to try to degrade me into submission. I’m not butthurt, mostly just confused as to how you take pleasure from the deaths of people (including children) on the sheer basis of race alone. 

 “You’re a puppet of the CCP”

This is another funny batch of messages I get since:

1. I am VERY critical of the CCP on this blog due to the fact they have committed several human rights abuses RECENTLY and currently run concentration camps. Along with this I have covered the situation happening in Hong Kong

2. I have never defended the CCP on this blog and never plan to. (There is a major difference between a Chinese person and the CCP as a whole. People are not always representative of their governments case in point: North Korea)

3. tenimum square massacre. 

4. China is not a socialist country nor should it be your go-to excuse to label something you dont like is bad. Its a dictatorship that uses Communism to maintain power. Socialism/communism does not always equal dictatorship. Socialism and communism are both economic systems that dictate who can control what in terms of economy. Its not a synonym for ‘everything evil’ (coUGH RED SCARE)

At this point this whole “you are part of the CCP” argument has become a worse version of the red scare or satanic panic in the 90s. You are trying to label me as bad by applying a boogieman like persona to me to discredit my points. Along with that you ignore all the instances where I criticize the CCP and instead say I glorify it. Again, I don't understand these logical conclusions. 

“There is no gun control problem in the US, pussy” 

We have had 230 mass shootings as of 5/31/21 in the US. That is more than how many days that have passed in 2021 so far. This means multiple shootings have had to happen per day in order to achieve this number. Clearly these is an issue. 

I am not saying to ‘ban all guns’ but I am saying there is an issue. How is that growing number not concerning? 

“ALL LIVES MATTER”

They do. I am not saying that one group of people deserve more rights than another. However, if all lives truly mattered to people then we would not be in the issue we are currently in. If all lives truly mattered to everybody we would not have police brutality or racial discrimination. We would not have femicide. We would not have law makers denying people healthcare based on their gender identity. We would not have a majority of the issues we have today if all lives truly mattered to people. 

Black Lives Matter is not about black supremacy or even about special treatment. Its about equality. Its about the fact that all lives do not truly matter to people and as a result an entire group of people is regularly demonized and targeted by police simply because of their skin. If you believe that ‘all lives matter’ stand up for the people who’s lives are regularly disregarded by the system. This includes everybody, not just the people who look like you. 

Reasons to never attend anything run by Jeff Mach

We’ll let him speak for himself.  Published on Medium on 2/25/19. Not directly linked because he shouldn’t get the clicks. TW: Rape, consent violations, general grossness

TL:DR as posted elsewhere by David Christman: Jeff Mach, the former owner of Steampunk World's Fare and Wicked Faire, boasts about how being accused of sexual misconduct has made him more sexually desirable.No. Really. He brags about it. That he's more desirable since being labeled a sexual abuser.This is the kind of person Jeff is. This is the twisted pile of flaming garbage he truly is. And he's no longer trying to hide it.

----------------------------

Jeff Mach

Feb 25

So when I was a Fetlife darling, one of the top ten Kinky and Popular writers, running well-known fetish events, I got quite a lot of offers — partly due to those things, partly due to my book on submission, my visible skills, and the knowledge you earn after 25 years in the kink world. And partly, of course, due to my politics, my strict social-justice, ban-’em-all-and-let-God-sort-’em-out stances.

When I was accused of horrible misconduct and “Jeff Mach allegations” became the phrase which followed me on Google, all that stopped.

…YEAH, RIGHT!

I can’t begin to describe how many more offers I get from people, now that I am “banned”. As it turns out — and this is not public knowledge — I’m recovering from my divorce; I have trust issues; and I have dedicated myself to rebuilding things like Evil Expo and recovering from the ending/divorce of a 13-year relationship. I am actually a celibate. But that’s not the point.

It’s true. I have experienced a 90% drop in offers short-haired (and blue/pink/green-haired) women who wear politically progressive t-shirts. Which is a pity, because I’m a fan of those people.

But I’ve received about a 200% increase in somewhat more traditional women who have asked if I’d like to “get together”, “spend a weekend”, or, in many cases, “take a quick trip to the restaurant”. I thought “want to try my new whip?” and “I’m not wearing panties” were pick-up lines of the 90s. But no, they’re quite real.

I’m NOT denigrating people who are offering my sex or play — not by any stretch of the imagination. I feel grateful, I feel flattered, and some of them have been the most interesting, articulate, attractive people I’ve met in almost three decades of the scene.

I’m just fascinated.

I embarked, by choice, on a trip of semi-celibacy, and semi-monogamy, especially during the first year of my exile, while I was working hard on myself.

But I simply had no idea what was going to be offered to me.

And I don’t go to kink parties — I wasn’t a big partygoer back in the day. Doesn’t matter. Happens at Goth events. Happens at concerts. Happens online. And these aren’t people who are ignorant of the allegations, or even people who think they’re not true.

They think the allegations are true, they think I’m a Dangerous Top, and they consider it HOT AS F*CK.

I’m not sure how to feel here. I was never a “consent advocate” to get laid. I expected that I’d date people with similar politics. But those things were never part of how I met or played with people; those things tended to rely on short discussions in person, then long, long correspondences, long negotiations, long discussions in person, more negotiation…

…..a lot of people dropped out during this process. Or were pretty much picked up in front of me by people who said, “Hey, let’s go do a thing. Just tell me where I can’t leave marks and what I’m allowed to penetrate.”

Now that I’m labelled a Dangerous Top, an Unsafe Dominant, a Manipulative Monster Who Forces His Will On Those Around Him…

…..I could start a Japanese vending machine with all the panties that get handed to me. I could take a vacation just travelling to the places where people invite me to their homes and hotel rooms.

Here’s a thing, O best beloved:

The Kink Scene of 2017 was a time of shakeup, power plays, and redistribution of authority. Applying current social norms to kink events of five or ten or fifteen years later meant that most people who’d done a reasonable amount of play were now considered Guilty of Abuse — and the more people who label you guilty, the more others are encouraged to come forward. It’s natural; they see others getting acclaim and support and status and (frankly) social media clout and influence by taking you down; they hear you’re a Horrible Person; and suddenly, they remember that scene they had with you ten years ago, when you did That Unmentionable Thing.

(Current favorite moment of irony: I have a very vehement accuser who claims that I did [nonsexual] play with a [legal] sixteen-year-old college student. I’ve got a picture of him beating her — in public. It’s ironic. And it’s sad. But his friend runs the website that’s gone after me; they’re not going to post stories about him.)

And it doesn’t matter, because this is all a sidenote. To the proponents of Social Ostracism and Shaming, I say:

It ain’t working.

Or — I definitely know some of my brethrin who, like me, are heartbroken, unsure about the world, traumatized, and spending their time in self-recrimination.

But we don’t have to be. We COULD just be screwing our brains out.

And those of us who are accused, but just plain don’t care? (Yes, Tim, you’re the first person I look at.) Well, everything he said is starting to make sense. Is he giving submissives what they want? Does he deserve to be at the top of everyone’s playlist?

I don’t know. All I know is that M has gone silent and underground. I’m here, writing books. But it’s really, really clear that there are a LOT of bottoms who were turned off by my bland, hyperconsent-focused, heavily-negotiated, cautious, “Let’s talk more” kink, who figure that now that I’ve left that world, I’m DTF, hardcore, and ready to give them erotic satisfaction like Robert Downey, Jr. being paired with the Winchester brother’s in someone’s 300-page erotic BDSM novel.

So now I know a secret. I’m not sure I wanted to know this. I don’t know what to do with it — so far, I’ve done nothing (except, of course, write):

Being taken down for #MeToo allegations, in the kink community, has opened up the doors to more kink opportunities than I’ve had in the past 25 years combined.

In addition to all the other problems — the witch hunts, the mob mentalities, the cultures of fear, the damage to (and death of) kink events, the discrediting of kink in news media, the disillusioning of a younger generation —

— it’s just possible that the “punishment” of exiling a dominant for being “too much like the sexy, rapey protagonist of the stories to which we get off” might not actually work.

If I could sail, do needlework, or take vacations, I’d be able to hoist a mast made of panties sewn together, and set off for Tahiti.

I really feel like that’s not what was intended when people decided I was a monster.

Here’s the bottom line:

Mob justice doesn’t work. Social shaming is a blunt instrument which does extraordinary harm, whether or not it also does good. But even if you ignore those things —

Calling #MeToo and shutting off kink practitioners, trying to remove their voices, attacking them and never having conversations —

— simply results in a world where they have more opportunities than you can imagine.

This is a bad method for dealing with consent issues. We need a better one.

Jeff Mach

(author, educator, dominant)

nikolai-mikhailovich:

I can't . . . I can't even read these any more XD . . . can the anons just unfollow or download New X-Kit to block 'Assange' or whatever terms they need to stay sane? Why is this discussion still running? XD  

@nikolai-mikhailovich​, I... am not entirely sure, to be frank. Mostly, I suppose the minds of intellectually-lazy people are made early and it makes them very obstinate. Somehow I suspect they already know they’re in the wrong, so they will try to guilt-trip you, or misconstrue your ideas and arguments; ultimately, though, they don’t have much to say.

Where they are more of a nuisance is that you do waste a lot of time replying to people like those, and I believe you have to reply to those people because you will always need proof at some point that you can counter-argument on such topics. At the risk of feeding the proverbial troll, bad arguments on serious subjects must be analysed, discussed and counteracted. Someone I admire once said about fascist ideas that they always seem evident at first, to those at least who won’t try to see further, which frankly is many people; the problem is, countering those simplistic ideas takes a lot of time and a lot of educating as you need to paint a whole cultural context for why, say, the numbers of immigration don’t automatically explain the numbers of unemployment. Short-sightedness usually wins because it’s short. Intelligence, literally, implies that you take the long run to link ideas together.

yourellamental:

Thank you  for posting that  Julian Assange is the most important  whistle-blower of all time.  That is TRUTH !!

@yourellamental​, thank you for the kind words!

I will add that no matter his personal faults, Mr. Assange should be given political asylum to protect him from extradition for political reasons that have nothing to do with whether we find him nice or not. Even if he were to be proven guilty of sexual misconduct (perhaps we ought to remember here that he was never accused of rape in the first place, as both women accusing him recognised that the sex was consensual; international media have reprised the term ‘rape’ but it is incorrect, perhaps gravely so, considering it does smear the name of a man who never even charged with the offences or crimes he is accused of committing, and is therefore innocent in front of the law) the facts remain that his capture by the United States would be an international tragedy impacting the very core of what the West holds true and dear concerning freedom of the press and freedom of information. Let him be heard, even tried for those alleged sexual assault charges, but let it never be a pretext to use him as an example for all journalists henceforth tempted to cross the path of superpowers that would do wrong without consequence.

nikolai-mikhailovich:

I have to say, I can fully understand - and support - victims having anonymity, but why not also people accused? I don't know enough about the case to voice an opinion, but we've had celebrities in the UK found innocent, but - during the course of the investigation - traumatised by press coverage, intrusive paparazzi, and their reputations ruined (not to mention vigilante justice). Since when was "innocent until proven guilty" something only 'bad' people believe in?                    

You know, in early phases of our dispute the darling Nonny made a spiteful comment about ‘leftists blindly supporting rapists’ and I didn’t take the time to answer at that point, but I’m going to come back to it.

‘Just saying. I don't care about the US. He needs to be extradiated to Sweden to face his rape charges. That's what a lot of UK MPs and officials want anyways.’

Followed by a disparaging remark about the very real menace Assange faces of being tortured and either getting a life sentence or being executed, threats that I am supposed to have made up, of course. I did provide context for this and the fact that several U.S. officials have been on record advocating for Julian Assange’s execution, or life-long imprisonment, and even for him to get abducted from within the embassy.

‘I don’t care about the U.S., he needs to be extradited to Sweden’. It is almost absurd to be this dense. Like The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald noted back in 2012 when the U.K. Supreme Court rejected Assange’s last appeal: Sweden ‘has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the U.S.’ which has actually sent innocent asylum seekers to be tortured once extradited to America.

As for ‘what a lot of UK MPs and officials want’... Indeed. Speaking of leftists speaking up for human rights and, you know, democracy:

‘The UK government, headed by Theresa May, is gloating over Assange’s arrest, issuing statements that are clearly prejudicial to any legal proceedings. When May, speaking to parliament, declared the “whole house will welcome the news this morning that the Metropolitan police have arrested Julian Assange,” Tory MPs and many Labourites cheered in approval.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn issued a pro-forma statement declaring that the extradition of Assange “should be opposed by the British government,” but he kept his mouth shut when May issued her denunciation before parliament and has maintained a silence on Assange during his forced asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy.

As for the United States, while the Trump administration is now leading the campaign against Assange, the Democratic Party is solidly behind his persecution, blaming Assange for contributing to the exposure of the crimes for which Hillary Clinton was justly and massively hated. One of the central aims of the Democrats’ anti-Russia campaign has been to justify the attack on WikiLeaks as part of a broader campaign for internet censorship.

Added to the list of those responsible is the pseudo-left, the organizations of the upper-middle class in the US and internationally, which seized on the initial fraudulent and trumped-up rape allegations against Assange to justify his persecution and their own cowardly abandonment of Assange to American imperialism.

For its part, the establishment media, which functions as an arm of the state, has jumped in to support the attack on Assange.’

Many people will have a disturbing tendency to support ‘human rights’ only when it applies to things they like or comprehend, and generally things that don’t shake their sense of self. They’re not interested in legal proceedings and fair justice, they want to know that if they were the ones being accused of anything, they would be protected. Meanwhile, since being accused only ever happens to other people, they know they can safely join the howling cohorts from the comfort of their home and rejoice at the idea that someone bad, who isn’t them, is being punished for something that they have not committed, or that they have, but whose consequences they have escaped scot-free.

[...] “Mr. Assange is not a free-press hero,” declares the Post. “Unlike real journalists, WikiLeaks dumped material into the public domain.” By the Post’s definition, the only “real journalists” are those who self-censor at the behest of the Pentagon.

These newspapers, which once published the Pentagon Papers, are nothing but apologists for US imperialism. One can only imagine the howls of outrage that would issue from the media if it was the Russian government that had carried out the forcible seizure and arrest of a journalist and critic of its foreign policy!

In the seven years of Assange’s confinement in the Ecuadorean embassy, much has changed. Most significant is the eruption of class struggle internationally. It is the fear of the emergence of the class struggle, combined with growing opposition to capitalism, that is compelling the ruling elites to destroy all democratic rights, including the freedom of expression, of which Assange's persecution is the most grotesque example.

In the working class there is overwhelming sympathy for Assange. A dividing line has opened up in social, economic and political life. The ruling elites are shedding their democratic pretenses. Their media and the pseudo-socialist opposition—the representatives of the politics of the affluent upper-middle class—function as defenders of the state and the dictatorship of the financial oligarchy.’

You’ll forgive the overwhelming leftist but, yes. Quite.

Responding to a year’s worth of hate mail

lol it’s been a while since we ventured into the inbox. here’s a selection of the hate mail we’ve received.

all of these have usernames attached because we have anon off, but since I don’t necessarily trust everyone who reads this not to send (arguably deserved) hate, I’m not including the names. you’re welcome.

Thats why all u can call out are sources and “art theft” Ur legit jus mad bc u dont have anywhere near as many followers as they do. Grow the fvck up, man, and act ur age.

you first. make sure to pay attention in your 3rd grade spelling class! it’s really important to learn how to write properly. :)

People need to grow a spine and stop being so butt hurt by every little thing. I do agree that art 6p uses needs to be correctly sourced and credited to the OC, but sometimes it can be hard finding a credible correct source to a specific image

oh my god. you’ve made a medical breakthrough. you’ve managed to figure out spinal regeneration AND a solution to the opioid epidemic??? get this person a nobel prize!!!

also here’s how to find the source for an image it’s really not that hard

There are no sources for some of sixpence’s stuff I’m calling the cops

don’t forget to call a whaaaambulance too we need to be hospitalized from that sick burn

I love how you guys take stuff out of context! Like my favorite is people correcting you on stuff sixpenceee said and you calling it harassment, super funny keep up the great comedy!

thanks! so nice to see our work is appreciated :)

Get over it!

get over what. you need to be more specific. get over a nearby mountaintop? get over our own past hangups? get over what Joss Whedon did to Natasha Romanoff? because that last one is never going to happen.

c'mon dude, grow the fuck up . you're probably some little baby who's sad that she gets more attention then you do. boo fucking hoo. you're a god damn child

you can tell we aren’t babies because we’re allowed to say “fuck”

After looking through your "evidence" to all the things you claim sixpencee to do and be, the only thing I've seen is that your nothing but a typical Tumblr social justice extremist who wants attention. You don't wanna close this blog? The fucking fine, Tumblr will be more than happy to do that for you since this blog is meant to target someone. You should be ashamed of yourself.

we’ll add “be ashamed of ourselves” to our to do list, thanks! quick question tho. is “the fucking fine” a new tax on nsfw posts? b/c that’s quite an innovative way to deal with pornbots that I think legit should be tried.

I feel like you're a sad person if you have to have a blog about someone you don't like. Obviously, you being negative about sixpenceee being negative doesn't make a positive. I hope you find happiness and someday you're able to not waste your time analyzing and scrutinizing a blog every day.

if making a blog about someone you don’t like makes you a sad person, what does sending hate mail to a blog you don’t like make you?

certainly not a good person, that’s for sure.

yoo, i understand that you don't like her blog (it's quite clear), but was an entire blog dedicated to shitting on her reall neccessary? You're not exactly making anyone happier, it's more along the lines of ruining someones blog. Some of your 'proof' posts trot into special snowflake territory (hate me all you want but it's true) and it's a valid argument for the people that can actually accept mistakes and move on. Call put her mistakes sure, but you're really dragging them out too far.

yeah, it’s necessary, because a lot of the people who call sixpenceee out end up deactivating / removing posts because they get inundated with hate from sixpenceee’s fans. 

also we’re not the ones ruining sixpenceee’s blog. she’s doing a great job of doing that herself; we’re just shining a spotlight on it.

I just think there are far worse people in the world, and sixpence could really be a pretty agreeable person with just a different perspective and different environment around her than you or others. But are those differences enough for us to completely demonize her and instead not try to relate to her enough to level with her and communicate on a more constructive basis ?Aren't there worse people in the world that need exposing versus just a girl who likes to post over related things?

this just in, supporting child slavery is not problematic, it’s just a different perspective!

I don't want to defend sixpence but this blog really isn't productive in the slightest. Maybe people will unfollow on the off chance they run into your blog? Or...You COULD do normal things like contact the authorities, report literally every chance you get (since you clearly you have the free time). If you're not going to actually do something then you're part of the problem. A little blog won't even dent the change you want to make.

you think we haven’t reported sixpenceee’s bullshit? tumblr doesn’t do shit about it because she’s one of their most popular bloggers.

and I dunno, the 200+ positive messages in our inbox thanking us for making this blog mean something. not much, but something.

Do you seriously have nothing better to do than to have a blog dedicating to defiling another blog?? Like why???? You COULD just unfollow her and go about your life instead of being extra and making a blog about your teenage angst

ngl I love that you used the word “defile”. it’s a fantastic word that’s really underutilized

Woowwwwwww someone pissed in your cheerios lmfao

...I was wondering what that taste was. thanks for clearing up that little mystery!

You have too much time on your hands lol

thank you for reminding me of the absolutely awful movie In Time. please don’t steal my time, I need that.

This is beyond stupid. I love Tumblr cause we can post whatever we want and show others who we really are. I can't do this on Facebook lol so why go after someone who wants to post whatever they want or interested in?? There is no harm going on. I think your just jealous. If you don't like the posts then just don't follow the person. Making a page about how much you don't like sixpence is very immature!

we’re also posting what we want and showing the world who sixpenceee really is. freedom of speech doesn’t just apply to people you agree with, you know.

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but what is the goal here? To get her page taken down? Why are you spending so much energy to call out one person for their, frankly, common misconceptions and issues? Wouldn't it be easier to hide her content from your own viewing so that you don't have to see it? Couldn't you give her your grievances directly? I mean ultimately it's about whatever makes you feel better. No one can stop you, but you also gotta know that you can't necessarily stop her either.

check the FAQ for our goals. 

and sixpenceee is notorious for ignoring people who don’t kiss her ass

and you’re right. you can’t stop us now cuz we’re haVING A GOOD TIME HAVING A GOOD TIME!!

ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

5 The Hierophant, 8 Strength, 9 The Hermit, 10 Wheel of Fortune, 12 The Hanged Man and 14 Temperance.

5 The Hierophant– I suppose the traditions with which I have the deepest connection are therather silly but fun ones that seem to be quite specific to my family. 

For example, even though “International Talk like a Pirate Day” (Sept 19th)is allegedly something celebrated around the world (it isn’t; it’s totallyparodic, but go big with your ambitions or go home, right?), I’ve never knownany group other than my family to actually dedicate a day to talking likepirates. Also, apropos of pirates, whenever someone achieves some sort ofvictory (say, when my lawyer family members win a trial, or when someone nailsa public speaking event, or when my sister-in-law sells a painting, etc.), wehoist a Jolly Roger on our flagpole.

Likewise for “Black Cat Appreciation Day” (Aug 17th), when we feedour 5 cats (all black) special wet food, make them wear little hats, and havethem dance.

And, in particular, there’s “Black and White Days” (the week of May 15th)which serves as a kind of family reunion on my mom’s side of the family (Iswear, it’s not racist! It’s a festival for Holstein cows, because she comesfrom Cache Valley in Utah, where dairy is the basis of the local economy! It’sbeen going on for literally over 100 years.). We do a barbecue and watch the town’sparade.

8 Strength – Youmean I only get *one* subject to go on about for hours?! But I could blatheraway about *so many* different things! 

Critical Literary Theories (especially those related to gender and sexuality)and how they’re based off of and apply to real life—they ain’t some “IvoryTower Academic” bullshit, but real and meaningful methods through which toexamine and freakin’ improve the world!

Story-telling and writing, including the hows and whys of various techniques toimprove a person’s competences in both! Complete with examples both classic andcontemporary, esoteric and popular, of instances where it fell flat or shoneforth!

Animation and Video Games and Graphic Storytelling, and how rich and valuablethey are as individual artforms in their own right (they’re not specific*genres*, for all 79 hells’ sake! do we consider “film” to be a specific genre?no, it’s a mean to convey different stories in different genres!)! I swear, Icould RANT FOR A SOLID WEEK about how ludicrously unfair it is that they’redisdained and belittled as “kids’ stuff” when, quite frankly, in many waysthey’re way more advanced than standard “live action” cinematography orconventional novels!

9 The Hermit – Asof right this moment, what I like best about myself is how my reflexive habitof analyzing most everything critically is making me both a smarter and a morecompassionate person. 

Like, of course, I don’t see *everything*; I miss a heckof a ton and still have more ingrained prejudices than I’d like, sometimes evenstuff that seems surprisingly obvious once pointed out to me … But what I dosee has made me more aware of the suffering of others, and more driven to begentle with them because of it. Also to dismantle the societal structures thatperpetuate needless suffering.

And when something new is brought to my attention, I try to ponder over it andbecome more educated about it. I like this trait about myself, and wish it wasmore common than it seems to be.

Also, my hair. It’s freakin’ FAAAAAB-U-LOUS!

10 Wheel of Fortune– No matter how much changes in my life, I find I can always count on myimmediate family. I’m extremely lucky in that regard.

And I can always come back to some really engaging stories, too. Final Fantasy9, 10, and Tactics, for example; Gravity Falls and Steven Universe, The LastUnicorn and ParaNorman; Terry Pratchett’s novels, Balzac, Alexandre Dumas …Those will always be there for me.

12 The Hanged Man– This one is a bit trickier to answer, because it feels like all the majorparadigm shifts in my perspective (regarding philosophy, religion, politics,social justice, and all big similar issues) happened a few years ago. Anythingsubsequent to those—anything more recent than those—feel like simply anexpansion and application of those ideas, in a way.

However, one thing that tumblr in general has helped me to learn is that fanficand fanart and fandom in general … really do exist only for the fun of thefans. Kind of an obvious realization when said out loud, right? Yet my attitudeto crossovers and self-inserts was dramatically different when I first got ontumblr several years back.

It also has helped me to nuance my understanding of queer identities andsexualities, to broaden my appreciation and acceptance of them.

14 Temperance – If we’re talkingabout me personally (meaning what *I* cannot indulge in safely), then theanswer is alcohol and other drugs, whether they be stimulants or depressants. 

Because of my Depression and my Anxiety, I’m constantly trapped in my own headand fighting not to spiral down. As a result, the idea of something that couldremove me from myself is … intriguing. Downright tempting, in fact. Like, *not*feel the heaviness or the emptiness that I do feel all too often? Or *do* feela rush of energy and elation (ecstasy, anyone? ba-dum-chee!), or a long anddreamy haze of felicity? Who wouldn’t want that?

But all of those substances are wretchedly addictive, and I’d lose myself tothem far too easily. So I can’t risk indulging in them, not even once.

In addition, I can’t really safely indulge in existentially depressing storiesfor too long at a time, or I start getting all … what’s-the-point-of-it-all angsty.Even when the stories are ones I enjoy full of comedy, albeit dark comedy, like“Bojack Horseman” or “Rick and Morty”. 

Thanks for the asks!

I have written and rewritten this article several times. I am, frankly, quite confused concerning much that is going on in the United States now. Especially with the Black Lives Matter movement. And I have struggled with how to respond to it. My preference would be to withdraw into a safe little world of my own making. But I am becoming convinced that is not really a viable option. Both because it is not a proper response. And also, because I doubt I would be safe even there for very long. Just to get it out of the way up front, I am a white Christian male. And I believe that the only hope for the problems our world faces is in Christ. I acknowledge the impact that has, along with my life experiences, on how I see and understand what we are going through as a nation. And I realize it may be different than your perspective. But hopefully you will be able to at least hear and understand my perspective, even if in the end you disagree. The State of the Union The United States has become a deeply divided nation. The political rhetoric continues to become more and more toxic. We are becoming more and more intolerant, even as we champion toleration. We are more and more demanding of our rights, although often it is unclear to me why they are considered as rights. It often seems more like entitlements that actual rights. The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced us to social distancing and isolation. It has also caused extensive economic damage to large segments of our population. Many segments of the population are resentful, feeling like they are unfairly treated or represented. Social unrest seems to be growing in intensity. Then, with the killing of George Floyd, a black man, by police in Minneapolis, the nation seemed to erupt in protest and violence. There are protests in many cities and towns across the nation. And many of them have turned violent. There is a growing demand for justice and equality, regardless a person's skin tone, gender or sexual orientation. Do Black Lives Matter? I find this to be a really confusing question. Of course black lives matter. And so do lives with every other skin tone. All lives matter. I whole-heartily believe that. And yet that statement, 'all lives matter', is one that is often met with hostility. That confused me for a long time. But the issue is not that black lives somehow matter more than others. But, rather, this slogan is calling attention to the plight of black lives in a society that is not always friendly to them. One that is even hostile at times. And in that respect I can support the cry that black lives matter. Although when I say it, it is with the recognition that all lives matter. Just that some are currently in greater need. I have heard many reasons given for the plight of our black community. And it seems there is plenty of blame to go around. But pointing fingers accomplishes nothing. We need to work together to fix our broken society. But supporting the intent of 'black lives matter' is not the same thing as supporting the Black Lives Matter organization. I have looked at their website and mission statement and find it to be racist and contrary to other positions that I hold as a Christian. And I cannot support it. It is unfortunate that this organization is using a legitimate issue to promote such a divisive agenda. Responding to Racial Issues I believe that the only lasting way to bring about peace in our world is to change the hearts and minds of people. Yet, at the same time, I believe there are some things we can do to erase the difference that exist among us. It would seem to me that any change needs to start with education. I need to know that there is a problem. I need to understand what the cause of the problem is. And I need to have some awareness of how the issue can be resolved. And then I need to get involved. What that looks like will vary from person to person. We are all different and I do not believe there is a one size fits all solution. But we should make it clear to those around us that racial prejudice is not OK. And we should support efforts to resolve the inequalities that exist within our country. Supporting them with our voice, our dollars, and our vote. Responding as A Christian There are many practical things that we can do as people to overcome the racial divide and inequity that we are facing. But, as a Christian, I believe that the only truly effective way to bring about lasting peace is to change people's hearts. And I believe that can only be accomplished through the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of people. Jesus walked a road that is often missed today. All too many Christians and churches focus on proclaiming the gospel and forget about the hurts of the people around them. Many others focus on those hurts and neglect to share the good news of salvation. But Jesus did both. He fed the crowds and healed the sick. And at the same time, he proclaimed the kingdom of heaven. The Good News of Salvation No amount of law or government regulation will be able to change my heart and attitudes toward other people. Protests in the street will not convince me that I should treat other people fairly, especially those who are different than I am. No amount of heated and fiery rhetoric will lead me to 'turn over a new leaf' and begin to be less self-centered. And self-help books or seminars will never be able to fix me, making me to not just tolerate others, but to love them. At the heart of the problem is my own sin and fallen human nature. Discussions of sin are not popular today. Our culture wants to label sin as an outdated concept that has held back human advancement. And yet, dismissal of God, sin, and the message of the Bible has done nothing to solve our problems as a society. If anything, it seems to be making matters worse. The Bible teaches that all of us are sinful self-centered creatures living in rebellion against our creator. And that sinful nature is at the heart of all of our struggles with other people. But the Bible also affirms that God has offered us a way out of that swamp through faith in Christ and the sacrifice he made for us. Surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and allowing the Holy Spirit to transform our lives makes us new. And that, I believe, is the only real hope there is in this world. My Individual Response It is unfortunate that so many Christians, as well as many others who call themselves Christians, do not live up to the example of Jesus and the teachings of the New Testament. Jesus went to the hurting, broken, and struggling people of his world. He reached out to them, healing, teaching, and bringing the love of God to them. As a follower of Jesus, should I not follow his example? To love those around me. Not just with my words. But also, with my actions. And not just those who are like me. All people are created in the image of God and are worthy of my respect and compassion. I need to personally be willing to get my hands dirty in being the hands and feet of Jesus. If I am not living like Jesus, then it is important that I examine my own life. Is my Christianity only a cloak that I wrap around myself when it is convenient? Something that has not actually changed my life? If so, I need to seriously address my relationship with Christ. The Church's Response The church represents the Kingdom of God here on earth. It has the potential to be a powerful force for social change in our world. Historically the church has been responsible for much of the positive changes in our world. But, unfortunately, we do not always have such a positive impact in our world. And today we seem not to have much of a voice in the call for change. At least not in the United States. And that, I believe, is primarily our own fault. As an individual believer, I am to be the salt and light in the world around me. But that applies equally to the church. Our local churches and denominations have some differences in faith and practice. But we are all called to positively impact the world around us. As churches, we should be color blind, not tolerating any racial prejudice within our membership. And we should look into our communities for those segments of our population that are in need and neglected, doing something about it. We need to be relevant in this struggle for social equality. Through the Gospel While there are many practical things that the church can do to address the physical needs of the people around us, the most effective thing we can do is to share the gospel. While Jesus always responded compassionately to those in need around him, he also proclaimed to them the Kingdom of God. Meeting their physical needs was important, but temporary. Meeting their spiritual needs, though, was eternal. The Great Commission was Jesus' last instruction to his disciples. And it in large part defines the task of the church today. Or at least what our task should be. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.Matthew 28:18-20 NIV We are to go out into the world around us making and baptizing disciples. And then to teach them to live in obedience to Jesus' commands. We are to live like Jesus. And to bring others into relationship with him. Others who will also live like Jesus. But this is more than just an educational program to teach people to live good lives. Living like Jesus involves the life changing work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God living within us, transforming us into the image of God. And, ultimately, this is the only real hope for humanity. To become what God has created us to be. A Call to Action While not everyone will agree with me, I do not believe the solution of racial issues in our country is making new laws or enforcing existing one. I do not believe that defunding police, whatever that means, is the solution. Removing monuments that commemorate an undesirable past will not solve our division. Rioting in the streets will only make matters worse. The solution has to start within my own heart and mind. I need to be willing to reflect the love of Christ to the world around me. To be willing to reach out to those who are hurting and oppressed. To be salt and light in a world in darkness and decay. And I need to encourage others to live out their faith, to lend a compassionate hand to those in our community that are less fortunate than we are. While much of the world has written off Christianity and the Church as a positive influence for change, I believe it is our only hope. We, both individually and collectively, need to be the hands and feet of Jesus in a hurting world. And, finally, we need to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world around us. It is, in the end, the only real hope for peace in our world. As we go into the world, let us go with the message of the gospel of peace. The good news that God loves us and has provided us with a way out of the mess we are in.

5 MINUTES WITH… HARSHAD RAJADHYAKSHA

Ogilvy India’s Harshad Rajadhyaksha talks Bollywood, being a Mumbaikar, and his upcoming gig at AD STARS 2019 as a final judge with Little Black Book.

If blood, sweat, dreams and tears can seep into the fabric of a city and bring it to life, Mumbai’s heart beats strongly – and Harshad Rajadhyaksha has his finger on its pulse.

Harshad is Chief Creative Officer at Ogilvy India (West) in the port city of Mumbai, India’s artistic centre and advertising capital. He attended the Sir JJ School of Art, which alongside the Bombay Art Society, has been instrumental in developing Indian creativity since late colonial days. Mumbai is also home to Bombay Cinema, aka Bollywood, and Harshad’s Grandfather was a film director.

Call it environment or call it genes – it’s probably a bit of both – Harshad will soon be applying all of that nature and nurture to judging the Film and Video Stars categories at AD STARS 2019 in Busan, South Korea. He told reporter Lee Patten all about his latest work and the art of being surprising.

You’re coming to Busan, South Korea as a final judge this year. Can you tell us your expectations for judging at AD STARS?

It’s always an enriching experience to see creative work in such concentrated doses, even though it can be tiring. However, I’m looking forward to the whole judging experience in Busan and interaction and discussions with my fellow jury members. 

As for Korea, I’ve never been there before. The traveller in me is already hoping that after doing justice to the judging, there will be some moments available to soak in at least some of the experiences that Busan has to offer. I am thoroughly looking forward to it all.

Do you consciously draw on the rich cultural and political heritage of your home city when you make ads? I believe that great ideas can be universal, but I also believe that the expression of those ideas come alive best when drawn from localisation. So to answer your question, I draw on the cultural and social heritage of not just my city Mumbai, but from India as a whole, as most of our work caters to a national market. Universal ideas are understood by all, but they make a place in the consumer's heart if they see nuances in them that are part of their everyday lives. Life in Mumbai and India provide me with plenty of nuances for my work.

Is it true your grandfather was the cinematographer Bal Joglekar? How much of an influence did he have on your career path?

It is indeed true. Frankly, in all my growing-up years, I knew him just as a loving, doting grandfather. I hardly paid any attention to his work then. As it happens with so many mistimings in life, only when a person leaves us do we miss not having spent more time asking them the important questions. Now I do wish I would’ve asked him hundreds of questions about his work, shooting feature films in the Black & White era of Indian cinema.

While my parents (both applied artists) have been a more direct influence on me falling in love with communication arts and advertising, I do believe that my love for photography has somewhere indirectly been kindled by spending time with my grandfather tinkering away with his numerous cameras and rolls of film.

You grew up in Mumbai and still live and work there. What was it like being a kid in Mumbai?

I grew up mainly in the 1980s, and I couldn’t have asked for a better era in which to grow up. Mumbai has always been to India what New York is to the world. Mumbai is a vibrant mix of people and their cultures from all over India – a melting pot of sorts. So growing up here, my neighbours and acquaintances have included people from so many states of India, all with their unique languages, cultures, and food! 

Many Indians would migrate to Mumbai to make a living, so I was exposed to a rich, encapsulated form of the whole of India itself. In our profession, nothing can be more valuable than the wealth of human observations.

We love your epic “A Close Shave in Mumbai” photography series. How would you sum up the spirit of the city and Mumbaikars?

Thank you for your kind words. What I try to capture in my photo series are absolutely simple, everyday moments that all of us lead in this super busy city. Beyond the pictures, what I think appeals to viewers are the insightful captions I write and design through typography on each frame. At times what these captions do is present a moment all of us would have seen a hundred times but in a totally different light.

Mumbai and its people are not just a great source of material for my album; they are an integral part of my life. This city to me is not just a place; it is a living entity, a tough but loving life-coach of sorts. A city that’s not easy to live in that is super fast-paced, that tries and tires you out at every turn, but then, it loves you back and rewards you like no other place can. No matter what your beginnings are, no goal is too high in Mumbai if you are ready to put in the effort and have the drive.

You must be extremely proud to be part of Ogilvy India’s ongoing “Start a Little Good” campaign for Unilever. Can advertising be a real force for change on environmental issues?

Yes, my work partner Kainaz Karmakar and I created that campaign, along with our team at Ogilvy. The two films out are just a beginning in what will be a journey of touching upon several real issues where our client Unilever India is making a real difference on ground.

While ‘Goriya’ the cow is a story that shines the light on the issue of plastic waste with a lighter touch, the ‘Shower’ film is consciously a far more intense and heart-tugging piece of work. The response to both pieces has been great, from people from all walks of life. 

‘Shower’ has been shared on WhatsApp groups of all kinds, from spiritual gurus to their followers, to housing societies with their members, and schools with parents. Also, several schools have started showing and discussing the film with their students as teaching material on water conservation. 

As long as anyone remembers the work and its message every time they turn on the shower knob or are about to chuck away plastic waste and act responsibly, the films have already done their bit to make things a little better than they were. That’s the ‘little good’ we are referring to – and yes, advertising can absolutely be an agent of good on any social issue, if created sincerely.

“Beauty Tips with Reshma” for Make Love Not Scars wildly exceed expectations and targets, with a limited budget. Does this prove that people still respond more strongly to a great cause, and to the power and bravery of a real person, than they ever will to glamour and celebrities?

Yes, I think you summed it up well. India is a celebrity-crazy country, and their influence is everywhere through various endorsements. Also, people do respond to the messages given by celebrities when they promote products or thoughts, but Reshma’s case was different. She was a real person, severely attacked and traumatised in the most brutal way. However well-intentioned, I think no celebrity could ever come close to expressing any message on behalf of an acid attack survivor the way Reshma did. While it was a powerful idea, Reshma proved to be the soul of the campaign by agreeing to face the camera.

You’ve been working with Kainaz Karmakar since 2007 when you moved to JWT. Creatively, why do you think you fit so well together? 

Kainaz and I have been colleagues and friends far before our official partnership started in 2007 when our then boss, Agnello Dias (Aggi) teamed us up at JWT. Since we were already friends for some six years before that, it meant that there was no ‘getting the work chemistry right’ period needed and we could hit the ground running. 

While we enjoy the strongest of partnerships, we are very different people in several ways, but therein lies our strength, I think. We trust each other absolutely, but on work, are quite firm on our respective outlooks. This often sees us have strong, intense debates about the task at hand. We keep chipping at each other’s thoughts, moulding and re-moulding them until both of us share the conviction that we have the best possible outcome at hand.

Like Kainaz often says, 1+1 will logically become 2. However, when two ideal people come together to create, that same logic is defied and 1+1 magically becomes 11.

What advice would you give to young people thinking about getting into the industry today?

To all the young creatives, this is the simplest advice I’ve heard uttered from a big name in advertising – be surprising. From the first day of your professional life to as many years as you may call advertising home, if you are surprising in your solutions (while being relevant to the task, of course), you are truly creative, and the world is going to notice you for all the right reasons.

How do Indian regions differ in India when it comes to advertising?

Mumbai, having been the traditional seat of industry and commerce for India since the colonial era, obviously saw the Indian advertising industry set up and flourish here. In fact, along with Mumbai in the early years, Kolkata (then Calcutta) too had its small share of professional advertising agencies. Because of this, Mumbai has been the obvious spearhead of the industry for decades now. 

However, the scene has shifted quite noticeably since the Indian markets opened to the world in the 1990s. Several new multinationals came and set up headquarters in Mumbai, but a considerable number also started setting up their presence in Bangalore and Delhi – and then serious Indian startups also began making their intent and presence felt, emerging from all these cities. 

As a result of which, most agency offices in cities like Delhi and Bangalore, which maybe were not professionally on par with their Mumbai offices a couple of decades ago, have now caught up. In some cases, they have superseded their Mumbai offices in quality of output too. However, to again draw an American parallel, the advertising scene in Mumbai is like what New York is to the US. It is the home and capital of Indian advertising.

* Read the original interview via Little Black Book. Harshad will arrive in Busan, South Korea to judge the AD STARS 2019 Awards on 19th August

Yippee! It’s episode three!

@izzyisahufflepuff @firesidoni @yesharrypotterlover123blr

Transcript under cut:

Welcome to AWA. Today’s episode is going to be slightly different because Liz is ill so I’ll be handling your questions solo. Hopefully I’ll do okay.

izzyisahufflepuff said:

“I just saw your tips for toothbrushing, and though they're very helpful, can you offer some tips as to how I can stop forgetting to/coming up with excuses not to brush my teeth? please and thank you”

Now what I generally recommend is something like habitica or similar apps that sort of provide little incentives in a game like structure. Wouldn’t say gamify I hate that word an irrational amount. But that’s something that’s worked for me in the past. Or something like writing down a little schedule for yourself could work quite well. That’s about as much as I’ve got for that one really. Just try and establish a routine through an app or a more old fashioned method. But whatever you do, try to go a couple of days in a row of doing a thing and you should start to adjust hopefully.

Next Question: firesidoni says

“I generally have a terrible time making out what people are saying when there's much background noise - I have a hard time turning the noise into words. Is this (potentially) an autism thing, or just a me thing?”

It’s definitely not a you thing. That’s something where I’ll definitely have a problem hearing people if there’s a lot going on. I tend to withdraw and things like that ‘cause it can be hard to pick out one particular set of sounds and interpret them so you’re not alone there. As for dealing with it I don’t have an answer for you there, I just avoid those situations where I can.

yesharrypotterlover123blr said

“Hi I'm autistic. I try following blogs and debating people, but I wind up offending people accidently. I don't feel comfortable saying it's autism, because it might not be (as I'm very sheltered and privileged/rich/white), + it sounds like an excuse (regardless of the situation in question) but I'm sick of seeing privileged neurotypicals get the benefit of the doubt just for being tactful. Any advice?”

Ok, for not offending people I guess one thing that really helps is just well sometimes I’ll go “right I won’t discuss this issue” if it’s sort of an emotive topic. One thing that really can cause problems, I think this came up in a previous episode, is when you’re interested in an abstract debate on an issue. A lot of people can get this, neurotypicals as well. People like looking at issues in the abstract and going about it in a thought experiment sort of way when the person they’re trying to have the conversation with is saying “this happened to me, this is an experience I had”.

The question is: is this a person who’s talking about – if you look at someone’s blog and they’re talking about had or have on a regular or semi-regular basis. I might post, I don’t know, money’s really tight or something like that, or alternatively on familiar ground someone might talk about sensory issues. You wouldn’t want, I’m sure, lots of us post about that kind of thing but you wouldn’t want somebody replying to that saying let’s start a long proper debate about how you feel. So that’s sometimes how trying to debate people comes across I think.

Because sometimes the best response isn’t a debate. It’s not necessarily what you want, it seems you like debating, but what’s sometimes best is saying “that sucks” rather than saying “but does it happen like that” or “is your experience really valid”. That can just, I think, get in the way. That means you’re not going to get a good faith debate because you could maybe say on a particular issue I’m not sure that…

There’s a difference between disagreeing on a solution for a societal problem, which is fine it happens every day it’s perfectly healthy, and disagreeing that something is a problem in the first place. It’s quite possible and healthy to have a discussion about the former, “right you know, this is an issue how do we get past it” there aren’t always cut and dried answers to these questions.

The trick is at least start out saying “that sucks how can things get better” rather than “did this really happen, was this an issue, was that person…” I don’t know, running dry on examples but I think maybe do something like put up on your blog, I don’t know if you have already, something about “I like debating” and maybe post an invitation, put a post up on your blog or add a little line on your profile “I’m open for a proper theoretical debate, theoretical conversation”

I think there’s impassioned conversations about social justice and there’s debates about these things and there’s room for both, but you’ve got to set parameters for a debate. Like in schools and colleges debate clubs don’t just spring up. They’ve got to be formalised. You say we’ll set up here, go by these rules, and not make things too personal, that’s great that’s fine but a real problem lies when people take that kind of debate club mentality, that debate club ethos and expect it to apply in every situation.

It doesn’t sound like you’re falling into that trap you want to engage people in a respectful way, you’re trying to work out how to do that so kudos to you. The main thing is you’ve got to set the parameters. Say “this is a call for debate so get in my inbox, comment on my post and we can start that conversation”. I think that could happen. Might not be that successful but you’ve got a better shot with that because sometimes you might end up derailing a more personal subjective conversation about social justice and things like that with a demand for an entirely different kind of conversation.

It’s how, I think, things can get out of hand it’s two very different styles of discussing issues and I guess that’s what you’ve got to be really clear on. You can always say “sorry I was looking at it in an abstract kind of way, I wasn’t trying to minimise what you’re going through or the issue”. You can always say “sorry I’m looking at it a bit too abstract you guys carry on”, or alternatively try to look at it from the other person’s pov. How you’d feel if somebody tried to put an abstract spin on something personal to you. I’ve started rambling so that’s as much as I’ve got on that I think.

There is a long question on here. It’s a three parter and it sounds kind of thorny so I’m probably going to be spending the rest of the episode responding to this and working out what to say.

“Hello guys, I was wondering how you feel about polyamory. As a queer autistic boy in a big group of friends (including my partner) who are all allistic nb, queer, and polyamorous (no one’s dating each other, just friends), I feel very left out in a way, because my brain is incredibly hierarchical. I find that I can only have one (1!!!) best friend at a time, and I can only love ONE person (i.e my partner). How can I unlearn this hierarchal thinking? It feels absolutely impossible

but I hate feeling left out (a big source of anxiety for me). People often (my friends and partner included) seem to make polyamory seem like a more Moral alternative, and that monogamy, on the other hand is a Conscious Choice one has to be Determined to make? This feels alien and a bit upsetting to me. And even though my partner says that just because you love 1 person doesn't mean you love someone else more, you can love equally, but this concept I just cannot grasp.

It's as hard to me to understand, as it is for humans in general to imagine colours we've never seen. It's impossible. But I feel kinda guilty and immoral, as if I'm not as emotionally developed as them or something, and as if I'm "possessive" because I can't handle my partner dating someone else than me WHILE they're dating me? My partner isn't actively polyamorous when they’re with me ‘cause they know it'd upset me but still... I don’t wanna be the autie weirdo.. I don’t know what to do”

And breathe. Right, that sounds like a fraught sitch. Thing is I know lots of my friends who are poly and many of the things you’ve mentioned, and I think that frankly I’m sure Liz would back me up on this, acting all as if it’s a better choice is just daft. It’s plain daft is what it is. Looking at alternative forms of relationships to monogamy is really interesting. It works really well for some people but not for others. Some people have, you can have vastly different levels of comfort, different thresholds for jealousy without being a controlling person, without being a bad or insecure person. It’s okay that you feel that there’s one person you want to be with and you don’t want to date anyone else or have your partner date anyone else.

It’s fine. And that could be the way you feel for the rest of your life or you could change your mind, but whatever feels right in that relationship is the right call. There’s no higher or better form of a relationship and anybody who says otherwise is leading you astray I think. I think that there’s a good chance with a lot of people who wouldn’t be comfortable being polyamorous and going for it anyway I feel like there’s, if you feel you’d get possessive, then simply trying to switch to a different form of relationship wouldn’t make it go away, it might just manifest in a different way. It doesn’t sound like you’re being a bad or possessive person at all.

Lots of people have a small amount of people they’re close to in friendship and romance. Lots of people have one partner and one best friend. That’s a really common thing and sometimes people can be a bit elitist about it and a bit, “oh I’m doing a different thing I’m standing out”. It could be that they’re not trying to say the form of their relationship is an inherently moral choice, might just be it’s the right thing for them. There’s a point halfway through about talking about monogamy as a conscious choice. They’re both conscious choices. Choosing to remain with one person choosing to be with multiple people, that’s a conscious choice. But choosing something that’s different to the mainstream isn’t necessarily a better thing nor a worse thing. The only way to make that kind of decision is based around your emotional well-being and your partner’s emotional well-being.

That’s the only thing that really matters there. Tis important to just do what makes you happy. There’s no more right or wrong answer than that. It sounds like you’re someone who’d be much more comfortable being monogamous. It sounds like you wouldn’t be happy with that, it would make you feel less happy in the relationship and even if you feel like you said to your partner “alright let’s try a different tac”, if you’re just doing that to make them happy and you’re uncomfortable with it, chances are they’d notice your discomfort and that would have a knock on effect.

I feel like if you think it’s a thing you can handle or go for, and would be genuinely interested in it then go for it, but going down that path because of what sounds like peer pressure is a really bad way to go I think. It’s got to be about what’s right for you what’s right for your partner and I don’t think it’s necessarily autism at the root of it. It may have something to do with it. But you don’t have to unlearn any thinking.

You don’t have to change. The thing is if it is down to disability then anybody expecting you to change a part of yourself change a part of your thinking is being really gross I think. That’s plain weird. Be yourself, there’s no better person to be. There’s nothing wrong with you, there’s nothing less moral about you. You’re trying to do what’s right for your emotional well-being. It doesn’t sound like you’re judging others, it doesn’t sound like you’re doing anything negative towards anyone.

You keep on going the way you’re going. It might be a good idea to talk to your friends about how they may come across and how it feels like they’re pushing it as a superior thing. I guess a lot of people fall into monogamy by default but you’re someone who knows the options there, knows the choices they’ve got and you seem to know what makes you feel comfortable. There’s a point to make that people default to monogamy but for some people it seems like you included, it seems like the right way to go.

That’s the last question in the inbox and that just about wraps up the show.

Somehow I’ve manage to talk to about as long as our regular show just on my lonesome. I was tempted to fill in for Liz by occasionally doing an impression but I think they’d probably end up listening and I’m not sure they’d appreciate it. So it’s tarrah for now until next time dear listeners.

That was Adulting with Autism, a very Nick centric special.

Take care.

Someone sent me this ask: I'm getting a bit overwhelmed with all these things happening in the US. Tumblr and other social media are saying that what trump is doing is extremely wrong and unconstitutional, but one of my Republican cousins posted a video with Bill Clinton proposing a ban on illegal immigrants and on the lines what Trump was saying in his campaign. idk I've seen how people are reacting to trump, I'd say they have different approaches to same things. But i'm not so sure anymore. this sucks

Oh goodness. That's a lot.

I don't know about 'unconstitutional,' but I'm certainly of the belief that a lot of what Trump is doing is 'extremely wrong.' (In fact, I think part of what's frightening to people like myself is that a good deal of it isn't clearly unconstitutional.) However, you're right to notice that things are more complicated than social media portrays them to be. 

This got super long. Topics covered: immigration policy, my opinion on these immigration questions, a note about citing politicians’ opinions, reactions to Trump and Trump supporters 

ETA: It’s been pointed out to me that a huge part of the immigration conversation revolves around whether or not people are ‘illegal’ or ‘undocumented’, so I’ve added a bit about that.

Immigration Policy

Immigration is a hugely polarizing issue in the US and I’m no expert, but I’ll try to paint the picture with broad strokes. 

People who oppose it are (openly) concerned about ‘cultural fragmentation’ (the idea that the English language, Christianity, and western dress are all essential to American Culture and worth defending to the point of imposing these norms onto newcomers), immigrants taking their jobs or their children’s jobs in a climate with relatively high unemployment, undocumented immigrants receiving benefits (schools, roads, healthcare, food stamps) without having their incomes monitored to see whether or not they should be paying taxes into the system that pays out for these benefits, and the arrival of terrorists and gangs/cartels from the middle east and global south.  

People who approve of it say that immigration is an essential part of our so-called American culture (that before we are English-speaking or Christian, we are a nation of immigrants), that we live in a globalized world where trade and ideas are passing between borders and in which we need to allow for people to also pass between borders to facilitate commerce and science, that immigrants are good for the American economy bringing necessary labor and skills and innovations and ideas that boost the quality of life for all Americans, that we have a moral duty to open our borders to as many people fleeing violence or oppression or extreme economic hardship as we can reasonably fit. 

Most Americans fall somewhere in between these two stances. 

Neither position is essentially Democratic or Republican. Even though, currently, Democrats are for the most part pro-immigration and this sitting Republican president is ‘protectionist’ (xenophobic?), a lot of (wealthy) Republicans (like George W. Bush) have traditionally been pro-immigration and a lot of (labor) Democrats have traditionally opposed more open borders. 

A lot of the conversation revolves around whether people are in the country legally or not, the preferred term for the latter being ‘undocumented.’ The question of how to deal with people who are not on the books in the US has, indeed, long been the biggest topic of debate. 

Trump’s conversation and actions have affected both documented and undocumented immigrants. 

So let’s separate out two related, but different hot topics. 

1) Trump said a lot on the campaign about a building wall and about ‘illegal immigrants.’ He signed two executive orders dealing with this last Wednesday. (Summary here.) These comments and these orders are mostly directed at immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America and primarily undocumented immigrants. Democratic presidents like BIll Clinton (and even Barack Obama) supported similar measures (partly to appease their labor base who saw immigrants from south of the border as a direct threat to their jobs). People on the left didn’t like this, but it didn’t strike people’s hearts the same way the more recent immigration related executive order has. T

2) The more recent executive order has to do with immigrants and refugees from seven majority Muslim countries.  (Summary here). Here is a comprehensive argument for why it’s unconstitutional. This affects many people with green cards and proper visas, well-documented immigrants. (It should be noted that because of this, the courts have put a stay on the ban, stopping it temporarily, until they can take it up and decide on its constitutionality formally.) 

Also, there’s been a huge outcry from people who would otherwise support this order because it took effect so quickly and so clumsily. The people who had to enforce the order didn’t know exactly how they were meant to do it. 

My Opinion on these Immigration Questions 

Obviously, borders exist for a reason. Very simply: different nations have different governments with different laws and taxation systems and different citizen rights and benefits/resources (roads, policing, schools, health care, military protection). We need to monitor immigration to manage which laws and which benefits apply to whom and at what time (especially, imo, so that the people who hold all the $$$ like Bill Gates and *cough* Donald Trump don't move about in such a way that they are paying taxes to no nation and reaping the benefits of all the nations) (oh. fucking. wait.) (ANYWAY!). (Which, by the way, did you know that eight people hold as much wealth as the poorest 50% of people in the world?)  

Additionally, immigrants and their demographics (where they come from, how much wealth they bring with them, and how educated they are) impact the local US economy (usually for the better, but not always and not for everyone). I believe that immigration policy (and trade policy) needs to be attentive to the American workers who are so often left behind, not by penalizing immigrants, but by helping out these out-of-work laborers, perhaps with tax benefits, extended unemployment benefits, and/or fully-subsidized new industry training programs. 

But all that is background noise. Here’s the heart of the matter for me: immigrants, especially impoverished immigrants, and especially especially impoverished immigrants on the ethnic and cultural margins (who don’t speak the language, who don’t practice the same religion, whose physical appearance differs) are vulnerable people. And we have a moral duty as human beings to protect and free vulnerable peoples and to uplift their stories so that history does not repeat itself. 

When a vulnerable person says, this policy hurts me and my family, we have to listen for the truth in that. And quite frankly, Trump’s most recent executive order re: immigrants has caused so much pain that it’s hard to miss it. Families have been ripped apart. People were literally being detained without legal access in airports around the world. People fleeing violence in their home countries, who have spent months and often years being vetted for entry, are now being turned away. 

(Also, as a person of the Judeo-Christian faith, I believe I have a Biblically-based ethical imperative to fight for refugees and accept and protect immigrants. But that’s a whole different essay.) 

Note about Citing Politicians’ Opinions 

My feelings about Bill Clinton’s policies are lukewarm so I’m not inclined to bite on that video. He was a moderate in his time and I’m a progress now, at a moment when the progressive movement has (for the better, imo) moved even farther to left (I believe and hope through dialogue with and leadership of vulnerable and marginalized people). Bill Clinton also wanted to be ‘tough on crime,’ using approaches to criminal legislation, policing, and sentencing that have been proven to harm communities, not help them. He also drafted trade policies that protected CEO’s profits not workers’ well-beings. 

It’s important for both progressives and conservatives to be careful not to agree with something just because it’s supported by someone we like. We need to make sure that our policies- no mater who supports them- are lining up with our values (mine being justice, compassion, and freedom for all). 

Reactions to Trump and Trump Supporters 

I’m of the unpopular opinion (unpopular in my progressive corner of the internet, at least) that we need to respect all human beings, even the most vile and oppressive ones. That does not mean condoning or allowing their abusive attitudes and behaviors. In fact, out of respect for their souls, we sure as shit should be confronting them. 

I’m also of the unpopular opinion that not all conservatives or even all Trump supporters are equal. Not all of them white supremacist nazis. Some of them are, yeah. But not all. 

People I love voted for Trump and guess what? I haven’t stopped loving them. 

A lot of the people I know and love that supported Trump have been frustrated by the political system for years, feeling like the professional class, which dominates the media, disrespects their culture and their work. A lot of them volunteer with their churches’ homeless shelters and soup kitchens and a lot of them care deeply for the vulnerable in their communities.

The creation of conservative media silos and the gaslighting of those stuck in them has effectively changed their perspective on reality. 

And it fucking sucks and makes me really angry at them, but it doesn’t change the fact that my dear family friend, who went on a loud pro-Trump rant in the middle of the hospital while his wife was having brain surgery, also gave me my first job and drove eight hours (roundtrip) in a day to cry like a baby at my wedding. It doesn’t change the fact that my Aunt Mary, who’s had a Trumbip sign proudly in her front yard since this time last year, babysat me five and sometimes six days a week until I went to kindergarten, showed me how to make mundane errands into an adventure, and taught me to laugh at myself. 

Continuing to be in relationship with these people means confronting them about some things and it means letting some things go. I do recognize that I  can continue to be in relationship because there’s nothing about my publicly known identity of which they disapprove. 

But what it comes down to for me is this: I’m not going to let the right take those meaningful, life-affirming relationships from me, too. I’m just not.  

So, in conclusion, yeah, it sucks. :(

Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

A careful reading of the dense document delivers some urgent insights.

Apr 29, 2019  

Benjamin Wittes, Editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution  

I spent the week after the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report going through it section by section and writing a kind of diary of the endeavor. My goal was less to summarize the report than to force myself to think about each factual, legal, and analytical portion of Mueller’s discussion, which covers a huge amount of ground.

Here are five conclusions I drew from the exercise:

The president committed crimes.

There is no way around it. Attorney General William Barr’s efforts to clear President Donald Trump, both in his original letter and in his press conference the morning of the report’s release, are wholly unconvincing when you actually spend time with the document itself.

Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. He doesn’t have to. But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior. They describe criminal behavior even if we allow the president’s—and the attorney general’s—argument that facially valid exercises of presidential authority cannot be obstructions of justice. They do this because they describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power at all.

Consider only two examples. The first is the particularly ugly section concerning Trump’s efforts to get then–Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “unrecuse.”

The alleged facts are simple enough. According to Mueller, the president asked Corey Lewandowski to convey a message to Sessions. It was a request that Sessions reassert control over the special counsel’s investigation, make a speech in which he would declare that the president didn’t do anything wrong and that the special counsel’s investigation of him was “very unfair,” and restrict the special counsel’s investigation to interference in future elections. Lewandowski asked a White House staffer to deliver the message in his place; the staffer in question never did so.

A few factors are important to highlight here, all of them aggravating. Lewandowski was not a government employee, so this was not an example of the president exercising his powers to manage the executive branch. Indeed, Trump very specifically did not go through the hierarchy of the executive branch. He tried to get a private citizen to lobby the attorney general on his behalf for substantive outcomes to an investigation in which he had the deepest of personal interests. What’s more, the step he asked Lewandowski to press Sessions to take was frankly unethical. Sessions recused himself from the Russia probe because he had an actual conflict of interest in the matter. In other words, the president of the United States recruited a private citizen to procure from the attorney general of the United States behavior the attorney general was ethically barred from undertaking.

But it gets worse, because Trump did not merely seek to get Sessions to involve himself in a matter from which he was recused. Trump wanted Sessions both to limit the scope of the investigation and to declare its outcome on the merits with respect to Trump himself. This action would have quite literally and directly obstructed justice. Limiting the jurisdiction of the special counsel to future elections would have, after all, precluded the indictments Mueller later issued for Russia’s hacking and social-media operations. It would have precluded the prosecutions of Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Mike Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and Rick Gates, as well. Nor is there any real complexity here with respect to Trump’s intent. As Mueller reports, “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

As a criminal matter, this fact pattern seems to me uncomplicated: If true and provable beyond a reasonable doubt, it is unlawful obstruction of justice. Full stop.

Another example: Mueller reports that after the news broke that Trump had sought to get then–White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire the special counsel, Trump sought to get McGahn to deny the story. He also sought to get him to create an internal record denying the story. McGahn refused.

The attempt to get McGahn to write an internal memo disputing the story is the crucial fact here. The president’s conduct might otherwise be defended as a mere effort to lie to the press, but one doesn’t order the creation of false internal documents for purposes of denying a published story. So the question is, first, whether what Mueller described as Trump’s “repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel” would have “the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility” if he told the truth. The second question is whether such a corrupt outcome was specifically intended by the president.

Mueller acknowledges that there is “some evidence” that the president simply thought the story was wrong and was proceeding on his memory. But Mueller is pretty clear that the weight of evidence “cuts against that understanding,” though—as always—he stops short of making that judgment explicit. Mueller previously concluded that McGahn’s underlying story was amply supported by the evidence, while it’s hard to believe the president would simply have forgotten an effort to fire Mueller. As to the president’s intent, Mueller is pretty unabashed: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

Assuming that one believes this could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, imagining this fact pattern as a count in an indictment is not difficult. It is hard to imagine a plausible defense based on the idea that pressuring an employee to create false government records by way of influencing his ability to tell the truth is within the president’s constitutional authority.

If one accepts, as I do, Mueller’s general reading of the obstruction statutes as applied to official presidential action, there are many more examples. When Trump leaves office, assuming statutes of limitations have not yet run out, someone will have to make the binary assessment, which Mueller did not make, of whether they amount to prosecutable cases. As a historical matter, the report leaves me with little doubt that the president engaged in criminal obstruction of justice on a number of occasions.

The president also committed impeachable offenses.

Crimes and impeachable offenses are not the same thing, though they are overlapping categories. Some of the most obviously impeachable offenses described in the Mueller report are likely criminal as well. Some may not be. If I were a member of Congress, I would be thinking about which portions of the report describe, in my opinion, the most unacceptable abuses of power. A few stand out to me.

The first is the circumstances of, and run-up to, the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. While this fact pattern is complicated for criminal purposes, as a matter of impeachment, it’s very simple indeed. The president of the United States, seven days after taking office, demanded loyalty from his FBI director. Shortly thereafter, he isolated Comey in order to ask that he drop a sensitive FBI investigation in which Trump had a personal interest. The president then leaned on Comey to make public statements about his own status in the investigation. And when he couldn’t get Comey to do so, he recruited the deputy attorney general to create a pretext for Comey’s removal.

While there may be viable technical defenses against a criminal charge here, there simply is no plausible way to understand this fact pattern as a good-faith exercise of presidential power. It describes a frank abuse of power: a sustained demand for a wholly self-interested investigative outcome; a willingness to disrupt a crucial institution to get that outcome, to retaliate against an official who would not deliver it, and to set the entire apparatus of the White House to lying about the reason for the action; and the recruitment of senior Justice Department officials to create a pretextual paper trail to support it. I believed this was impeachable conduct at the time. The Mueller report reinforces that belief.

Ditto the effort to get Sessions to investigate Hillary Clinton. Mueller does not disentangle this effort from the attempt to get Sessions to reassert control of the Russia investigation. Let’s do so here: Even as he was trying to get Sessions to protect him from the FBI, Trump was also trying to induce Sessions to investigate his political opponents.

This is not obstruction of justice in any criminal sense. It’s rather the opposite of obstruction of justice; it’s the initiation of injustice. So I don’t think it’s plausibly sound in terms of criminal law. But it is molten-core impeachment territory. Consider: The president of the United States was trying to induce the attorney general of the United States to initiate a criminal investigation based on no known criminal predicate against a private citizen whom he happened to dislike. This was not rhetorical. It was not a joke. And if it is not unacceptable to Congress, then no member of Congress can say he or she was not warned when some future attorney general complies with a presidential request to launch an investigation against such a member of Congress.

A third example is the president’s public dance with Paul Manafort, in which he dangled the possibility of a pardon and praised Manafort’s bravery for not “flipping,” and in which his private counsel allegedly suggested that Manafort would be taken care of. Notably, Trump got what he wanted in this case. Manafort did not end up cooperating to Mueller’s satisfaction. Indeed, Mueller concluded that Manafort had breached his plea deal by failing to cooperate and by lying to investigators. So the reality here may well be that the president’s obstructive conduct did, in fact, obstruct the investigation. The president hinted that Manafort should not “flip” and that he would take care of him—and Manafort acted in a fashion consistent with his relying on those assurances. I think this activity, assuming it can be proved, is criminal.

It is also a grotesque abuse of power for impeachment purposes. The spectacle of the president of the United States publicly and repeatedly urging witnesses not to cooperate with federal law enforcement and entertaining the notion of using his Article II powers to relieve them of criminal jeopardy or consequences if they do not cooperate is one of the most singular abuses of the entire Trump presidency. Again, one has to ask of Congress what is unacceptable in a president’s interaction with an investigation if this conduct is tolerable?

In short, the question of the prudential wisdom of impeachment politically may be a hard one for members of Congress, but the impeachability of the conduct described by Mueller is not a close call. This is heartland impeachment material—the sort of conduct the impeachment clauses were written to address.

Trump was not complicit in the Russian social-media conspiracy.

Separating the wheat from the chaff is important, so let’s do so. While Trump has a great deal to answer for, Mueller unambiguously clears him—clears in the true sense of the word—of involvement in Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by means of the Internet Research Agency’s social-media campaign.

Yes, the IRA duped some Trump campaign figures into promoting the group’s material, but none of those Trump campaign figures appears to have done so deliberately. Mueller’s statement that the “investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operations” is a stronger one than the language he uses elsewhere to indicate that evidence is insufficient to prove something. Here he actually seems to be saying that the investigation did not produce evidence at all of knowing participation in the Russian scheme by U.S. persons. We should take that at face value.

The story the report tells is disturbing on its own terms, however. It is a story of failed immunity on the U.S. side to outside interference—and aggressive Russian exploitation of the absence of democratic antibodies to fight off such manipulation. The IRA was able to reach tens of millions of U.S. persons using its social-media accounts. It was able to trick prominent people into engaging with and promoting its dummy accounts. It was able to exploit social-media companies. And it was able to make a series of contacts with Trump campaign affiliates and to get those figures—plus Trump himself—to engage with and promote social-media content that was part of a hostile power’s covert efforts to influence the American electorate. Though not intentional or criminal on the U.S. side, this pattern shows a troubling degree of vulnerability on the part of the U.S. political system to outside influence campaigns.

The solution to this problem is not obvious. The social-media companies obviously have a role to play in better policing their platforms. But some of the solution has to come from individuals, particularly prominent individuals, who need to take more care about sharing on social media any content of uncertain provenance. That obviously includes the president and his family members and campaign staff. But the problem here is far broader than Trump. And the solution needs to be as well.

Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture.

No, Mueller does not appear to have developed evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was involved in the hacking operation itself. And no, the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy in the veritable blizzard of contacts between Trumpworld and the Russians. But this is an ugly story for Trump.

Here’s the key point: If there wasn’t collusion on the hacking, it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. Indeed, the Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers. Trump also personally engaged in discussions about coordinating public-relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails. At least one person associated with the campaign was in touch directly with the Guccifer 2.0 persona—which is to say with Russian military intelligence. And Donald Trump Jr. was directly in touch with WikiLeaks—from whom he obtained a password to a hacked database. There are reasons none of these incidents amount to crimes—good reasons, in my view, in most cases, viable judgment calls in others. But the picture it all paints of the president’s conduct is anything but exonerating.

Call it Keystone Kollusion.

On July 27, 2016, Trump in a speech publicly called for Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s missing server emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” The reference here was not to the hacking the GRU had done over the previous few months but to the hypothesized compromise of Clinton’s private email server some time earlier—an event that there is no particular reason to believe took place at all.

The GRU, like many Trump supporters, took Trump seriously, but not literally. “Within approximately five hours of Trump’s announcement,” Mueller writes, “GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office.” In other words, the GRU appears to have responded to Trump’s call for Russia to release a set of Clinton's emails the Russians likely never hacked by launching a new wave of attacks aimed at other emails.

Trump has since insisted that he was joking in that speech. But the public comments mirrored private orders. After the speech, “Trump asked individuals affiliated with his Campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails,” the report states. “Michael Flynn … recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.”

Two of the people contacted by Flynn were Barbara Ledeen and Peter Smith. Ledeen had been working on recovering the emails for a while already, Mueller reports. Smith, only weeks after Trump’s speech, sprang into action himself on the subject. Ledeen ultimately obtained emails that proved to be not authentic. Smith, for his part, “drafted multiple emails stating or intimating that he was in contact with Russian hackers”—though Mueller notes that the investigation “did not establish that Smith was in contact with Russian hackers or that Smith, Ledeen, or other individuals in touch with the Trump Campaign ultimately obtained the deleted Clinton emails.”

In other words, Trump wasn’t above dealing with Russian hackers to get Hillary Clinton’s emails. The reason there’s no foul here, legally speaking, is only that the whole thing was a wild conspiracy theory. The idea that the missing 30,000 emails had been retrieved was never more than conjecture, after all. The idea that they would be easily retrievable from the so-called dark web was a kind of fantasy. In other words, even as a real hacking operation was going on, Trump personally, his campaign, and his campaign followers were actively attempting to collude with a fake hacking operation over fake emails.

Then there are the more-than-100 pages detailing Russian contacts and links with the Trump campaign and business. Mueller looks at these through a legal lens; he’s a prosecutor, after all, looking to answer legal questions. But I found myself reading it through a very different lens: patriotism.  

Mueller concludes, after detailing the contacts, that “the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”

It is not hard to see how he came to the conclusion that charges for conspiracy would not be plausible based on the contacts Mueller describes. For starters, a number of the individual incidents that looked deeply suspicious when they first came to light do look more innocent after investigation. These include the change in the Republican Party’s platform on Ukraine at the Republican National Convention, for example, as well as Jeff Sessions and other campaign officials’ various encounters with the omnipresent former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. On these matters, Mueller does seem to have found that nothing untoward happened.

Even those incidents that don’t look innocent after investigation don’t look like criminal conspiracy either. So, for example, George Papadopoulos found out about the Russians having “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” but he does not appear to have reported this to the campaign—though he was trying to arrange a Trump-Putin meeting at the time. Even if he had reported it to the campaign, the Trump campaign’s being aware of Russian possession of hacked Clinton emails wouldn’t constitute a conspiracy—the campaign, after all, never did anything about it.

The Trump Tower meeting is one of the most damning single episodes discussed: The campaign’s senior staff took a meeting with Russian representatives who promised disparaging information on Clinton as part of the Russian government’s support of Trump. Yet even here, while the campaign showed eagerness to benefit from Russian activity, the meeting was unproductive and nothing came of it. Where exactly is the conspiracy supposed to be? I can think of a number of possible answers to this question, and Mueller entertained one related to campaign-finance violations, but I certainly can’t argue that an indictment is an obvious call.

So, too, the extended negotiations over Trump Tower Moscow. The investigation makes clear that Trump—who spent the campaign insisting he had “nothing to do with Russia”—was lying through his teeth the whole time. He was, in fact, seeking Russian presidential support for his business deal through June 2016. But it’s not illegal to have contacts with Russians, including Putin’s immediate staff, to try to build a building. And it’s not obvious how this sort of “collusion” with the Russian government could amount to coordination or conspiracy on concurrent Russian electoral interference.

At the same time, Mueller here is far more reticent than he is about the IRA operation. He does not clear the president or his campaign. There are, in my view, two major reasons for the difference between his conclusions on these matters and his conclusions about the IRA operation, for which he affirmatively finds no evidence of conspiracy. The first is the sheer volume of contacts, which is truly breathtaking. These contacts were taking place even as it was publicly revealed that the Russians had been behind the Democratic Party hacks, even as the releases of emails took place, even as the incumbent administration was publicly attributing the attacks to Russia, even as—through the transition—the outgoing administration was sanctioning Russia for those attacks. The brazen quality of meeting serially with an adversary power while it is attacking the country and lying about it constantly militates against a stronger conclusion that there is no evidence of conspiracy—at least not in the absence of solid answers to every question.

And not every question got a solid answer. The Mueller team was clearly left unsatisfied that it understood all of Carter Page’s activities while he was in Moscow in July 2016, for example. Similarly, the office reports in its discussion of the Trump Tower meeting that Donald Trump Jr. “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” This line is followed by a redaction for grand-jury information, raising the question of whether Trump Jr. asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or indicated an intent to do so.

And then there’s Paul Manafort. Mueller is candid that he was unable to determine why Manafort was having campaign polling data shared with his long-time employee, Konstantin Kilimnik. Mueller was also unable to determine what to make of repeated conversations between Kilimnik—who has alleged ties to Russian intelligence—and Manafort about a Ukrainian peace plan highly favorable to Russia. And while Mueller could not find evidence of Manafort’s passing the peace plan along to other people in the campaign, he notes that the office was unable “to gain access to all of Manafort’s electronic communications” because “messages were sent using encryption applications” and that Manafort lied to the office about the peace plan. As for the polling data, “the Office could not assess what Kilimink (or others he may have given it to) did with it.” So while the office did not establish coordination in this area, it was clearly left with residual suspicions—and with unanswered questions.

In other words, on the legal side, the evidence isn’t all that close to establishing coordination in the sense that conspiracy law would recognize, either on the hacking side or with respect to the contacts. But the positive enthusiasm for engaging Russian hackers over emails, the volume of contacts, the lies, and the open questions make it impossible to say no evidence of conspiracy exists.

The really interesting question here is not legal. It is historical and political: How should we understand the relationship between Trump and Russia? Put another way, what is the story these contacts tell if it’s not one of active coordination? They surely aren’t, in the aggregate, innocent. They aren’t normal business practice for a presidential campaign. What are they?

For what it’s worth, here’s what I see in the story Mueller has told on Trump engagement with the Russians over the hacking. I see a group of people for whom partisan polarization wholly and completely defeated patriotism. I see a group of people so completely convinced Hillary Clinton was the enemy that they were willing to make common cause with an actual adversary power who was attacking their country to defeat her.

To me, it matters whether the conduct violated the law only in the pedestrian sense of determining the available remedies for it—and in guiding whether and how we might have to change our laws to prevent such conduct in the future. I don’t know the right word for this pattern of conduct. It’s not collusion, though it may involve some measure of collusion. It’s not coordination or conspiracy. But in Clinton, Democrats, and liberals, the Trump campaign saw a sufficiently irreconcilable enemy that it looked at Vladimir Putin and saw a partner. That may not be a crime, but it is a very deep betrayal.

The counterintelligence dimensions of the entire affair remain a mystery.

Because the Mueller investigation was born out of a counterintelligence investigation, there has been an enduring impression that it had both criminal and counterintelligence elements. I have assumed this myself at times. How these two very different missions integrated within the Mueller probe has been much discussed. The Mueller report answers this question, and the answer is actually striking—and from my point of view alarming: The Mueller investigation was a criminal probe. Full stop.

It was not a counterintelligence probe. Mueller both says this directly and also describes how the counterintelligence equities were handled. Here’s how Mueller describes his investigation: “Like a U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Special Counsel’s Office considered a range of classified and unclassified information available to the FBI in the course of the Office’s Russia investigation, and the Office structured that work around evidence for possible use in prosecutions of federal crimes.” A counterintelligence investigation is not structured around evidence for possible use in prosecutions of federal crimes.

Mueller then answers the question of what happened to the counterintelligence components of the investigation: The FBI took responsibility for them. “From its inception,” Mueller writes, “the Office recognized that its investigation could identify foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information relevant to the FBI’s broader national security mission. FBI personnel who assisted the Office established procedures to identify and convey such information to the FBI.”

The special counsel’s office and the FBI Counterintelligence Division had regular meetings to facilitate this transfer of information. “For more than the past year,” Mueller goes on, “the FBI also embedded personnel at the Office who did not work on the Special Counsel’s investigation, but whose purpose was to review the results of the investigation and to send—in writing—summaries of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to FBIHQ and FBI Field Offices.” The report deals only, Mueller says, with “information necessary to account for the Special Counsel’s prosecution and declination decisions and to describe the investigation’s main factual results.”

In other words, the Mueller investigation was a criminal probe only. It had embedded FBI personnel sending back to the FBI material germane to the FBI’s counterintelligence mission. But Mueller does not appear to have taken on the counterintelligence investigative function himself.

This leaves me worried. After the blood-letting at the bureau that saw the entire senior leadership replaced precisely as it was engaged with counterintelligence questions involving Trumpworld and Russia, who at the bureau now is going to push such questions? The incentive structure at the FBI cannot favor senior leadership carrying the ball on this. It also cannot favor individual agents allowing themselves to get assigned to matters that would put them in the president’s cross-hairs.

So I worry about a counterintelligence gap. Mueller, the person with the independence to take this matter on, construed his role narrowly as a prosecutor and set up a one-way street for counterintelligence information to go back to the FBI. And the FBI, the entity with the mandate, has every incentive to play it cautious.

It would be the deepest of ironies if the Mueller investigation showed evidence that the president had committed crimes and had committed impeachable offenses, and if he had painted a remarkable historical portrait of the relationship between Trumpworld and the Russian government, but if at the same time, the core counterintelligence concerns that gave rise to it and that have haunted the Trump presidency from the beginning went unaddressed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ben-wittes-five-conclusions-mueller-report/588259/

Perceptions of Justice: The ICC Shouldn’t have to Justify meetings with Government Officials Not Wanted by the Court

Carrie McDougall joins JiC for this piece on our continuing conversation regarding the publication and dissemination of photos of the Prosecutor of the ICC and state leaders  Dr. McDougall is a Senior Lecturer at Melbourne Law School and was formerly a legal specialist at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in which capacity she led on Australia’s engagement with the ICC.

ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda meeting with (former) DRC President Joseph Kabila in New York, in 2017 (Photo: ICC)

In a thought-provoking post last week, Patryk Labudatook exception to a photo published by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on social media of ProsecutorFatou Bensouda with the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame.  Patryk suggested that the ICC needs a policy on non-essential contacts with what he termed ‘unsavoury personalities’, and any publicity given to such meetings.

Mark Kerstenpublished a reply in which he argued that there were probably good reasons for the meeting and that not publishing the photo would have been to the detriment of the Court.  At the same time, he argued that the ICC needs to do more to manage perceptions, suggesting that the best way of doing this would be to publish meeting read outs.

While I agree with much of what Mark wrote, in my view, there is still more to be said on the matter.

The ICC must meet with its critics

Both Partyk and Mark acknowledged that the ICC must meet with State representatives in order to bolster cooperation. In passing, Patryk also suggested that the opportunity might be used to encourage accession to the Rome Statute.  As important as they are, I suspect that neither cooperation nor accession were the main items on the agenda in the meeting with Kagame.

In the course of his post, Mark noted that the meeting might have been aimed at countering criticisms that the ICC is targeting Africa, which he kindly noted is something that I raised on Twitter in response to Patryk’s original post. This is a point that I believe deserves some elaboration.

Rwanda has been one of the ICC’s most vocal critics, and has been thedriving force behind the African Union’s hostile stance towards the Court. In this context, I suspect that the primary motivation for the meeting was to try to build a more constructive relationship. The Prosecutor has made good use of her status as a Gambian to engage in outreach on the continent, attempting to address misperceptions and encourage African leaders to give more thought to African victims, rather than focusing on alleged African perpetrators.  This is something we should commend. While others also have a role to play, the plain fact is that relations are unlikely to improve without a proactive effort on the Court’s part, regardless of the fact that, at least in my view, it is not to blame for the ire directed at it by detractors like Rwanda.

It is important to note that in engaging in such dialogue, the ICC is not off on a frolic of its own. The annual omnibus resolutionof the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) “emphasizes the need to pursue efforts aimed at intensifying dialogue with the African Union… and calls upon all relevant stakeholders to support strengthening the relationship between the Court and the African Union.”  As someone involved in the negotiation of this text, I say with some confidence that the reference to “the African Union” was not intended to be interpreted narrowly, but to encompass key members of the Union whose views impact on its relationship with the Court.  In other words, the Prosecutor did exactly what States Parties asked her to do.

I would in fact argue that such outreach should not be limited to African interlocutors. Bearing in mind the fundamental principles of both cooperation and complementarity that underpin the Rome Statute, I would argue that the ICC should aim to meet with the Heads of State and Government and relevant ministers of all States in order to promote accountability and discuss the role that the ICC can play – unless a specific individual is wanted by the Court, for reasons outlined below.

According to Patryk, meeting State officials with questionable reputations is one thing – publishing photos of such meetings is another. Mark has identified a range of reasons as to why the ICC might need to get ahead of Rwanda in publishing the photo. In making his arguments, Mark largely attributes defensive motives to the Court. I would go further and argue that it is in fact important for the ICC to document this type of outreach. A detailed examination of international diplomacy is beyond the scope of this post, but it can briefly be noted that the public demonstration of bridge-building efforts is a standard tool in the soothing of strained relations. 

Where would you draw the line?

Aside from the fact that I think that the Prosecutor’s meeting with Kagame was actually a good thing, I have two concerns with Patryk’s suggestion that the ICC needs a policy on non-essential contact with state representatives who are not wanted by the Court.

Applying the same policy approach as applied in respect of a person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued risks undermining the existing non-essential contact policy employed by the Court (as well as the UN and many States Parties). On behalf of Australia, I fought hard to secure ASP resolution language on non-essential contact. The intent of the policy is to protect the integrity of arrest warrants. To equate leaders with questionable human rights records with persons subject to an arrest warrant suggests both that the relevant offensive conduct, and the ‘cost’ of such a meeting, are of similar magnitude.  In relation to the first, I would argue that the prevailing views of the court of public opinion should not carry the same weight as an evidence-based decision of a Pre-Trial Chamber that there is a reasonable basis to believe that an individual has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.  As to the second, I have trouble accepting that the same legitimacy deficit is created – an arguable public perception problem just cannot be equated to disregard for an outstanding arrest warrant.

Another question raised by Patryk’s proposal is, where would you draw the line? Would a meeting with President Trump, President Putin, President Xi Jinping, or Aung San Suu Kyi trigger the policy’s application? What objective criteria would be applied to distinguish the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’? Most importantly, what would the political fallout be of a leader becoming aware (through confirmation by the Court or speculation based on the existence of a public policy) that they were considered too outré for a meeting with the ICC? In considering this question, it is important to bear in mind the hypersensitivities associated with diplomacy: lengthy negotiations can be conducted in order to avoid international incidents caused by the seating of guests in the incorrect order. Seen in this light, it can be appreciated how a snub from the ICC could be interpreted as the diplomatic equivalent of a slap in the face, which would only set the cause of justice backwards.

Public perceptions

Regardless of the merits of the solution he suggested, Patryk’s bottom line is that the Court has made a poor judgement. Mark gives the ICC more credit but suggests the Court should do more to manage public perceptions of its work and to this end should publish read outs or minutes of such meetings.  He says that such minutes ‘are regularly negotiated between states when their representatives meet for diplomatic tête-à-têtes.’

It is true that read outs of diplomaticmeetings are sometimes published.  But as someone who was a regular note-taker for ministerial meetings while posted to New York, I’d say that, more often than not, this is actually not the case; indeed, such minutes are usually highly classified documents.  When there is no ‘announceable’, it is standard practice to refer simply to such meetings as having been ‘productive’ – just as the ICC did in this case.  Especially where a fragile relationship is involved, one does not tend to disclose the content of such meetings: in the world of international relations, discretion is often needed to build trust and confidence.

More substantively, underlying both Patryk and Mark’s conclusions seems to be an assumption, or perhaps more accurately an assumption that victims will make an assumption, that the Prosecutor turned a blind eye to Kagame’s human rights record, and that the Court will suffer reputational damage as a result.

While I’m not suggesting that her record is perfect, in my view, in the broad, the current Prosecutor has demonstrated a commitment to her stated intention of following the evidence and speaking truth to power. I accept there will be differing views on this.  However, even if one is more critical of Bensouda’s record, what real evidence is there that the public impression (untainted by ‘fake news’ or anti-ICC bias) is that she was ‘hobnobbing’ for the sake of it, or has even conspired with an accused human rights violator?

The Prosecutor has been a vocal and ardent public proponent of accountability and almost always puts victims first in her public messaging.  Why would anyone see the photo of her and Kagame and assume that the meeting was about anything other than encouraging Rwanda to support the international criminal justice project in some shape or form?

Quite frankly, if a victim or a member of an affected community is upset by a photo of an ICC official and a State representative, I consider it unlikely that their concerns will be assuaged by a brief comment from the ICC assuring the public that the meeting in question was above board and was used to promote accountability.  If members of the public really are reacting this way, it points to a bigger trust deficit problem – one that I agree needs to be addressed.

Misinformation about the ICC is rife and has been deliberately deployed by the Court’s critics.  Countering this will require the Court – and its supporters – to continue to deepen and broaden their outreach – and I’d argue that States Parties should properly resource the Court to undertake this work.  Perhaps this should include clearer explanation of the diplomatic role required of the Court’s principals.  At the same time, some poor judgements made by the Prosecutor’s predecessor still haunt the Court, and the ICC’s reputation has not been helped by either its string of acquittals, or the delay in decisions about particular investigations.  There’s no shortcut to fixing the perception problem: it won’t be resolved by either a questionable policy on engagement with state officials or a requirement that the ICC spend precious time and resources defending meetings on a case-by-cases basis.  Building confidence in the credibility and legitimacy of the ICC will take results and it will take time.

Kopf: Footnote 239

As I told SHG sometime back, there is nothing sadder than an old judge trying desperately to remain relevant.

I come out of retirement, briefly, not endeavoring to remain relevant, but rather to complain about the use and characterization of one my past posts by the NACDL in its breathless report entitled, The Trial Penalty: The Sixth Amendment Right To Trial on the Verge of Extinction and How To Save It (Summer 2018).[i] I have no earthly understanding of why the NACDL ended with a footnote to one of my posts from Hercules and the umpire.

As I have written before on Simple Justice, I am not much concerned with the “vanishing federal criminal jury.” See Richard G. Kopf, Kopf: A Contrarian’s View of the Vanishing Federal Criminal Jury Trial (December 27, 2017). Indeed, I sometimes joke that jury trials are unconstitutional because no sane person would randomly select from the great unwashed 12 stiffs to make a decision that can significantly impact both the public and the defendant. Besides, criminal jury trials are almost always a waste of time. With few exceptions, federal criminal jury trials are the equivalent one long guilty plea where the defendant has rightly calculated that he or she has nothing to lose and is hoping to win the lottery. 

In a closely related vein, I am also not much concerned with the obsession of the NACDL about the so-called “trial penalty.”  As a normative matter, it makes perfect sense that people who fail to acknowledge their guilt should be treated more harshly than people who admit guilt. The question, of course, is how much harsher? The NACDL thinks “trial penalties” are too harsh and that they are applied unequally. OK, fine, the NACDL is entitled to its point of view. I’m OK with the status quo ‘cause most federal judges I know and respect are sensitive to the issues raised by the NACDL. Frankly, I am too bored with the subject to engage with the report writ large. I’ve heard and thought about that stuff before. It is old news.[ii]

But I want to bitch. That’s what old men do.

The last footnote in the report, footnote 239, cites to something I wrote.[iii]  I will first provide you with the context and then the footnote.

The Trial Penalty ends with what one expects from the closing argument of a certain segment of the criminal defense bar–that is, a rather badly reasoned appeal to emotion that does not meaningfully grapple with bad facts. Our subject this time is poor Christian Allmendinger. (My last name sucks too!)

Chris (I trust I am not being too familiar) and his partner Brent Oncale bilked people out of more than $50 million. Oncale cooperated and testified, and got 10 years later, reduced to 5 for cooperation. Allmendinger rolled the dice. He got hit with 45 years in prison.[iv]

And so, the NACDL writes, using Chris’s sad story very much as a conclusion, “locating a sentence ‘sufficient, but not greater than necessary’ can easily turn into an arbitrary task.239 In many cases, the excessive pull of the Guidelines prevents judges from meaningfully exercising their discretion under 3553(a).” The Trial Penalty, at p. 56.

Here is how footnote 239 is written:

It is possible[v] that judges find the 3553(a) factors complicated or even contradictory and so they opt to rely on the Guidelines range that has been calculated according to a defined and familiar formula. See “It’s Time To Rethink Or Junk Entirely 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),” HERCULES AND THE UMPIRE, Blog by Judge Richard George Kopf, District of Nebraska (entry posted July 27, 2014) (expressing frustration that the 3553(a) factors “provide no meaningful guidance to the sentencing judge”), available at https://herculesandtheumpire.com/2014/07/.[vi]

Id. at 78.

Why my Herc post is cited is beyond me. It does not support the conclusion for which it is cited. It is almost as if the writer needed a filler and threw a dart at the internet to find one. Let me be more specific.

Yes, sentencing can “easily turn into an arbitrary task,” but it has little to do with “trial penalties” or the “excessive pull of the Guidelines.” I do not find the 3553(a) “factors too complicated.” I am certainly dull, but I am not quite a moron.

Let me be plain: Section 3553(a) is even more nuts than the results of a Rorschach test interpreted by a chiropractor with meth mouth. It compiles all the various goals of sentencing that scholars have worked so hard to develop as separate and distinct principle-based theories, throws them into a statute, and tells us to act like Goldilocks, “Ahhh, this porridge is just right.”[vii] The task is not “too complicated,” it is impossible.[viii] The NACDL blames the Guidelines when it is the statute that Congress passed that is the villain. The NACDL blames judges for failing to use their discretion while forgetting that one can only exercise informed discretion when the sought-after result of the exercise is evident to the decision maker.

If Congress wants me to engage in common-law judging, fine, then junk section 3553(a) completely. Yet, like Dr. David Banner, the NACDL wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

If Congress wants retribution, merely tell me and, Sweet Baby Jesus, I will wield the guillotine.

If Congress wants me to concentrate on the offender’s life story, the probation officer and I can pretend to be social workers and do so with happy face emojis. (Although, to be frank [rather than jane], it is true that we would probably never really care.)

If Congress wants rehabilitation, then tell me and I will order RDAP and all the educational opportunities and vocational training that our massive federal deficit spending can supply.

If Congress wants incapacitation, tell me and life sentences will reign down upon those who are unspeakably vile even though the cause for their behavior is found in their genetics, the poverty in which they have been raised, the mental illnesses they suffer, or the sociopathic nature that propels them to prey upon the weak.[ix]

Rejecting the taunt hurled by José and his wife[x], I am not afraid to judge. I just want to know what the hell I am supposed to be judging. Applying section 3553(a) and the vaunted discretion of federal district judges, tell me, for example, how to sentence a very good man who has done a very bad thing? I dare you!

Now it is true that I rely upon the Guidelines and fairly heavily so. This is not because they are “calculated according to a defined and familiar formula”—the NACDL’s polite way of suggesting that judges like me lack a Yale education or are just plain lazy or cowardly. No, I rely upon the Guidelines for precisely the same reasons that the NACDL worries about “trial penalties” being unequally applied.

I rely upon the Guidelines because they slightly help to diminish, but certainly not entirely avoid, unwarranted sentencing disparity both between people in the same case and otherwise. Setting to one side the need to avoid sentencing disparity, the remainder of the section 3553(a) factors–because they are mixed together like the lunch ladies’ cafeteria offerings–amount to little more than free-floating anti-anxiety nostrums to be applied by woke judges as needed.

So, in summary, I have one piece of advice for the smart person who wrote and inserted footnote 239 into The Trial Penalty. In the future, fucking focus.

Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge (Nebraska)

[i] The Trial Penalty mixes apples and oranges. It writes about both federal and state law. The two are obviously not interchangeable, but the report confusingly conflates the two.

[ii] In fact, I agree with some, but certainly not all, of the recommendations set forth in The Trial Penalty (at pp. 59-60). For example, I would not impose an obstruction enhancement merely because a defendant testified but was found guilty.

[iii] SHG tipped me off to the report and the footnote. Coincidentally, Jeff Kay, a now retired AUSA who served as Chief of the Economic Crimes Unit in SDFL, sent me a link to the report on the same day. Great minds and all. Since I was napping, I probably would have missed it. 

[iv] Not noted in the NACDL report was the opinion by Chief Judge Traxler that affirmed the sentence and found the differences in sentences as between Allmendinger, Oncale and one other to be warranted. United States v. Alemendinger, 706 F. 3d 330 (4th Cir. 2013). In that opinion, the Court addressed the difference between Allmendinger and others:

Counsel maintained that Allmendinger and Oncale were similarly situated and should receive similar sentences, and counsel reiterated his argument that the loss found by the court was much larger than Allmendinger could reasonably have foreseen.

In response, the government argued that Allmendinger and Oncale actually were not similarly situated, contrasting Oncale’s prompt cooperation after he was approached by investigators with Allmendinger’s continued evasion and attempts to hide and spend his money, and his possible intention to flee. The government stressed that Allmendinger’s crimes had far-reaching impact, had “destroyed countless lives,” and thus warranted a very severe sentence in order to deter those who would consider committing similar crimes. J.A. 2403. The government also noted that Mackert, who was not an architect of the fraud and who ended up with only $250,000 from his participation in the scheme, was sentenced to almost 16 years.

. . .

Here, the district court heard extensive argument from Allmendinger and the government concerning the extent to which Allmendinger was similarly situated to his co-conspirator Oncale. The district court’s lengthy explanation for the sentence imposed left no doubt regarding the court’s reasons for selecting the particular sentence that it did. Indeed, the court specifically noted that it was considering unwarranted disparities both among defendants in general and among co-defendants within the case. We therefore conclude that the district court’s explanation satisfied the requisite standard.

Also not noted in the NACDL report, perhaps because the opinion may have come out after the report was released, Allmendinger’s section 2255 motion was successful. Appellate counsel on the direct appeal was found to be ineffective for failing to raise a “merger” argument that was nearly certain to result in reversal of the defendant’s money laundering convictions.  United States v. Allmendinger, No. 17-6447, 2018 WL 3117199, at *7 (4th Cir. June 26, 2018). So, Chris is almost certain to have his sentence reduced.

[v] It is also possible that monkeys will fly out of my butt when I summon them.

[vi] The more precise link is this one.

[vii] This is the “not more than necessary” pabulum found in section 3553(a) that is so laughably meaningless.

[viii] It is not only that some of the goals may be contradictory, but far more importantly, it is that the goals when mixed together become completely unmoored from their intellectual foundations.

[ix] See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 69 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming my imposition of a life sentence on the “gentle drug dealer” who, among other depraved activities, had his brother sodomize a young girl with motor oil to collect a drug debt.)

[x] This is an “inside baseball” reference for which I refuse to provide a citation.

Kopf: Footnote 239 republished via Simple Justice

National Anthem

In America, you do not have to stand and participate in the National Anthem. IN AMERICA, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STAND AND PARTICIPATE IN THE NATIONAL ANTHEM. This not only applies to the National Anthem, but any ‘American’ tradition as these actions (or lack thereof) are protected by Constitutional rights. Just so we are clear. 

It has been the controversial buzz around the NFL, and professional sports as a whole for the past year or so. Fueled by Colin Kaepernick’s much publicized kneeling during the National Anthem during the 2016 NFL season, protesting the tradition has become a contentious topic. Kaepernick decided to take a knee during the National Anthem as a response to police brutality and mistreatment against minorities that has inflamed the country over the past few years. His reasoning is that the system this country has been put in place to serve justice has not properly served minorities, and therefore he cannot support it, therefore he chooses not to support the National Anthem - a symbolic tradition of American unity during large event gatherings. His reasoning is that we are not unified under the justice system, and he used his platform - NFL games - as a way to express this. 

Colin Kaepernick 

First off, I understand why he used the National Anthem as his go-to protest. He is an NFL player, and the primary stage he is set on is the NFL gridiron. Eyes are on him both inside the stadium and on broadcast. Nothing about the 60-minute football game has to do with the deep social issues this country faces. Throwing a pass isn’t related to racial tension. Running for a first down has nothing to do with on litigation in police brutality cases. If Kaepernick was to wear undershirts, socks, or cleats that emphasized his message he would fined by the league and not many people would notice. If he were to speak out during post-game interviews he would be off topic as questions would relate to the game that was played and furthermore his audience would have significantly been reduced as not many casual fans pay attention to post-game interviews. On Twitter, you don’t get a visual and contextual tone. You also have to rely on retweets and likes to reach more an more audiences. He chose the National Anthem as it was closest related thing to the national system of justice, or injustice that he personally takes issue with. He chose the National Anthem as it is during a time where he is on his biggest platform and would reach the most people. Relating directly to this issue of police brutality and mistreatment by minorities, was it the best approach and individual citizen could take? No. However, he chose the National Anthem because he felt it was the best opportunity for people to see his expression of frustration and discontentment with the issue at hand. 

Secondly, I applaud the peace in his taking a knee over other forms of protest. How would it look if he had his headphones in during the National Anthem? How would it look if he where talking on the phone or to his colleagues? How would it look if he held a ‘Fuck America’ sign as the song played on, or flipped off the flag? A lot more egregious that’s for sure. He did none of these things. He quietly took a knee without any disruptions to his teammates or any others in the stadium. 

In conclusion, the best way to combat social injustice is to actively fight for social responsibility and change in communities. Kaepernick can volunteer for various organizations, donate to charity, hold town hall meetings, lobby for regime reconciliation, and even run for a position of authority if he chooses. These are all more effective than taking a knee during a game. However, that doesn’t mean his taking a knee is bad or ineffective either. As a professional athlete and celebrity figure his actions promote awareness, no matter how controversial. He’s going to have both supporters and detractors, but if the message he wants to send is important enough he’ll continue to do it and in the best way he feels he can.  

Racial Tension Takes the Stage

Here is an article highlighting how actions like the one Kaepernick took have caused a vehement backlash, including quite a bit of racial targeting. Many players around the NFL and across professional sports, as well as many fans have followed Kaepernick’s lead in protesting the National Anthem. It’s become a subject of much public speculation as to who will do what when we hear “Oh say can you see..” Make no mistake, this all ties to racial tension at it’s heart - a problem that has not dissipated since this country’s beginnings and has been reignited over the past decade given expanded media platforms. Racism is very much alive and comes in many forms. People are using these platforms to bring to light racial disparities and injustices. Relating to the police brutality cases, a rash of videos and incidents have depicted controversial situations with racial undertones in past few years that caught the world’s attention. Whether each situation and its subjects are right or wrong is up for debate, but the important thing to note is that there has never been this much exposure. Those from all sides are able to voice and even show their perspectives with the world. 

The Detractors

Many detractors of these actions suggests it’s disrespectful, especially if the person protesting is in any way benefiting from the very country they’re protesting. Some say it disrespects the men in uniform who serve or have serve this country. Those who have fought and died in wars, and those who put their lives on the line for us to live in the American society we do. I understand this. As a history nerd and someone who often challenges the past and current actions of this country, and one who feels it is wrong to ignore those actions, I have my qualms with what the flag represents as well. Still, I was born and raised in America. My education was American. My current career is with an American company and the check that’s deposited in my bank account is in American dollars. I have the utmost respect for those who have and are currently serving this country in the military and I am appreciative of their sacrifice, even if I don’t morally agree with some of the actions they are tasked with doing. I’ve benefited from this country, I’m currently benefiting from this country, and I am grateful for the luxuries and opportunities that have been afforded to me. Many of those with the chance to play in the NFL such as Kaepernick have been afforded much more luxuries and opportunities I have, and quite frankly almost all Americans. This, some say, should be reason enough to stand for the anthem. “Kaepernick should be grateful he’s getting paid millions by this country and stand” a lot of people say, despite his grievances with this country. Many people who stand for the anthem have their grievances as well. Many people who stand for the anthem understand this country isn’t and hasn’t been perfect. Many people who stand for the anthem find a reason to stand for it, and if they search hard enough I believe every person can find a reason to stand for it. 

For the record, I stand and would stand for the anthem. I don’t think this country is currently perfect, and its history has proven it has been even further from that perfection than the current state we have today. We have issues. We’ve had issues. There are many areas we aren’t great or the greatest. Much of our history is vile. We continue to systemically oppress factions of our population. However, I stand for the anthem out of my own personal appreciation for some of the great things this country has done, and most importantly the great opportunities I’ve been afforded. My American education, upbringing, and financial support has helped me realize both the country’s successes and failings. The same goes for everyone. We are all products of both this country’s successes and failings. I look at the National Anthem as a moment of respect for everyone present who are stuck in this mix of success and failings with me. We’re all in this together, so if they stand I stand. 

What Meaning Does It Have

That is my reasoning. This however leads me to my next point. The anthem, the flag, the country’s systems - they all have different meanings to different people. People have different experiences, understandings, and therefore different interpretations of what those symbols mean to them. People’s actions will eventually reflect how they feel about those symbols - and that is exactly what people who protest the anthem are doing. It’s foolish to expect the people standing next to me to stand for the flag for the exact same reasons I do. We have different experiences, understandings, and perspectives of what it means to us as individuals. Just as I believe we can all find a reason to stand for the flag, we can all find a reason to sit, or kneel, or talk, or not pay attention when the anthem is playing. For example, the anthem depicts an American Revolutionary battle that fought for American independence. However, this wasn’t independence for my ancestors or the majority of African Americans. Why should I or any African American personally stand for this anthem? The answer is the Constitution leaves that up to our own discretion based on what it means to us individually. And all of our Constitutional rights must be respected, regardless of how we use them given it is used peacefully. Kneeling or sitting during the national anthem fits into this category. 

Find your own meaning for the anthem and respond accordingly, but learn to respect and tolerate how others choose to respond. The men and women who serve and have served this country fought and sacrificed not for us to be coerced into a particular exercise of individual expressions, but for those expressions to be and remain free. It’s patriotic to stand for the anthem. It’s also an American right to sit or kneel. Everyone needs to understand this and respect individuals to express themselves in whichever way they choose, so long as it doesn’t disrupt anyone else. Either way, we’re still all in this together. But ask yourself what upsets you more: peaceful anthem protests or the situations that fueled them?  

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” - First Amendment

Effective Activism:

“Why are you here tonight?”- I took this photo from Wagner’s Instagram because it was one of the moments that made me think the most during the training. Why was I there? While, yes it was an extra credit opportunity, I was obviously there for something more. I was there because for so many years I have been complacent. Complacent in my words is resharing posts and articles on Facebook, doing service in the community, and attending marches here or there. But if that is what an activist looks like today, quite frankly I am afraid for the future of social movements. 

I attended this session in order to learn more about history and how I can use those tactics and apply them to my own life. The history of the United States in regards to social movements is focused largely around popular protest. From the Civil Rights Movement, to the Gay Liberation movement, protest is what gets people talking and on board. I don’t think people realize though how much work goes into marches and protests. The March on Washington for example, not something that happened overnight. The Women’s March, something also that took extensive planning and action from activists everywhere. 

The first session was called, “Developing a Strategy of Protest: Target, Demand, and Power” and one of the more powerful things that he said was to keep intersectionally on the forefront of whatever you do. In the past we have read about people saying intersectionally becomes a problem because it could divide a movement or disrupt the message. But intersectionally is something that today we cannot ignore when it comes to social movements and activisms. We have to show up for one another, whether the issue impacts us or not. While I am not an immigrant to the United States, many of my friends are, and even if they weren’t, it is my responsibility as someone who cares about social issues to show up. Many men showed up to the women’s marches because even though the issues weren’t impacting them, they were impacting their sisters, mothers, and they identified as a feminist. Another thing he said was, while we do not have the money a lot of the times, we have the people. With an intersectional approach, we are able to have more people and support each other.

The second session, “Into the Streets in Civil Resistance: Engagement, Mobilization, and Action”, was one that I wasn’t as big of a fan of. It was lead by Reverand Noelle Damico, and while her work with the Coalition of Immokalee’s Workers Campaign for Fair Food is extremely impressive, her message didn’t resonate with me as much. She emphasized that we must use the faith communities in helping us in our movements. And while the faith community might be wanting to help with something related to Worker’s Rights, I don’t see a solid majority of the Faith Community fighting for something like Women’s Rights, which is why I was upset by her overarching assumption that they would provide something positive. Being someone who has raised Catholic all of my life, I remember the first time when I was truly offended by something that I heard in church. When I got to be old enough to truly pay attention to what they were saying, I vividly remember them talking about abortion and Planned Parenthood in such a negative light. They talked about their protests at Planned Parenthood in the upcoming weeks, and passed around Pro-life boxes for people to raise money for the pro-life cause. I remember being shocked and so visibly upset by such hate, that I had to leave church and wait outside for my family. That was when I realized as someone who cares about social justices issues, that these places in my life didn’t align. While it is also problematic to assume that all religious groups wouldn’t be supportive of something like Pro-Choice and Pro-Life, I think Noelle could have talked about mobilization in a way that wasn’t centered around religious groups and her own motive.

The third session was called, “Telling the Story and Massaging the Message: How to Communicate an Unarmed Struggle”. This session was lead by someone who works at a Communication company, that helps people make their message clear. She said that an important part of communication of social movements, is that in your message you are giving people an action. If you are not giving people an action, yes you are educating them, but you are not encouraging them to do anymore than that. I understood a lot of what she was saying because being someone who studies communication and marketing, the way in which a social movement or even just a march is communicated and advertised is vital to its success, and potentially could be detrimental.

The last session was called, “How to Confront Violence, Coercion, and Arrest With Nonviolence: What You Need To Know” in which a woman from the NYCLU talked about what you needed to know regarding civil disobedience, protests, and marches in the context of NYC. She explained our rights, and what we should know and bring when we are taking to the streets. This session was extremely informative, because there were many things that the people around me (Nick and Paula) did not know as well. Simple things like not being able to use chalk, or not attaching wood or steel to a sign when protesting. There were many small things that if you weren’t educated on, you could take to the streets and possibly get yourself in a lot of trouble. As an activist, knowing your rights is so important, especially if anything were to get violent or if you were participating in civil disobedience. 

I don’t think a lot of people know the extent to which planning, organizing, training, etc. go into making political action not only effective, but for it to happen at all in the first place. I think overall that even though I could have gotten a lot of this information for other resources, I think being able to collaborate and talk with your neighbors really helped. Being able to answer, “why am I here”, and “what cause is most important to you” got you to start really thinking about your purpose and where you are standing at a time where the political climate is so extreme and intense. I think this session was a good starting point in understanding how to not only be a better activist, but it was done in a way will allow us to bring this information back to our friends and allow us to share the resources they provided to people around us who want to make a change as well. In conclusion, while not every session resonated with me, I was happy to just be in a room with hundreds of other people who shared the same sentiment and the same passion as me, and that was truly refreshing and remarkable.