Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

Rachel Siegel, Andrew Van Dam, and Laura Reiley of The Washington Post report on the largest rise in consumer prices in 30 years.

The growth in October prices reported Wednesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was driven by soaring energy prices and ongoing supply chain backlogs, such as those in the used-car market. Gasoline prices are up 49.6 percent from a year earlier, and higher energy costs are pushing up the prices of just about every other good, economists say, pinching an already strained supply chain.

A surge that began in narrow sectors now appears to be spreading throughout the economy, with the BLS noting “broad-based” higher prices propelled by not just energy and used cars, but also by shelter, food and new vehicles. Prices for medical care, household furnishing and operations, and recreation all increased in October.

Overall prices rose 0.9 percent from September to October, tying June for the biggest one-month increase since the Great Recession. Only a few categories saw prices fall last month, including airfare and alcohol.

The data underscores how inflation has emerged as a controversial political and economic issue during the pandemic era. For years, inflation remained tamely below the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent annual target and off politicians’ radar. But the clash of supply chain backlogs, labor shortages, and ongoing uncertainty amid a public health crisis has turned inflation into a crucial test for policymakers and economists — and it’s unclear when that will change.

Stephen Collinson of CNN reports on yet more political storm clouds over the horizon for President Joe Biden because of inflation.

The White House has sometimes been slow to respond to flashing red political warnings — for instance, over immigration. But there were clear signs of a shift in tone on Wednesday after officials spent months insisting that higher prices were merely a transitory byproduct of the pandemic. Biden first issued a statement saying he would work to bring prices down. Then in a trip to the Port of Baltimore to tout his newly passed bipartisan infrastructure bill, the President went out of the way to show he cared and understood the issue.

“Everything from a gallon of gas to a loaf of bread costs more, and it’s worrisome,” Biden said. “Many people remain unsettled about the economy and we all know why. They see higher prices, they go to the store or go online, they can’t find what they always want and when they want it.”

Referring to one of the big economic problems slowing the economy — a clogged up supply chain — the President did a good job in his speech explaining why a closed factory in Malaysia could make life more expensive in the US. But the political task ahead of him requires a relentless daily focus and repeated strong messaging that has not so far been a strength of the Biden White House.

Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post writes about the paradoxical nature of a speech Liz Cheney gave at a First Amendment Award ceremony at St Anselm College’s institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Given how few other elected Republicans are willing to take on the GOP, no one should be stingy in praising someone who displays the moral courage needed from her party. It is no easy thing to risk one’s career and the support of one’s “tribe” for principle.

Nevertheless, her remarks were flawed in two key respects. For starters, Cheney does such a good job of portraying Republicans as utterly unfit to hold power that one wonders why she wants voters to put them back in the House majority. “We need a Republican Party that is led by people who remember that the peaceful transfer of power is sacred,” she said. “We need Republican leaders who remember that fidelity to the Constitution, fidelity to the rule of law — those are the most conservative of conservative principles.”

Given that such a party does not presently exist and that those seeking to keep their seats have failed to live up to their constitutional obligation, dare we give them the reins of power? It’s a contradiction at the heart of her decision to remain a loyal Republican.

Peter Dreier writes for TalkingPointsMemo on the possible national implications of the results of municipal races across the country.

President Joe Biden’s declining approval rating — influenced in part by the Democrats’ inability to pass his popular legislative package because of opposition from Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) — has been pegged by pundits as a clear factor in the race for governor in Virginia, where Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin prevailed in a state that went for Biden last year with 54 percent of the vote.

The national political climate also shaped municipal races across the country. Two issues — crime and housing — galvanized voters, but in opposite directions. Centrist Democrats typically ran on law-and-order rhetoric and attacked their opponents as proponents of “defund the police,” an unpopular idea among every income and racial group. Calls to reign in police abuses and reform the biased criminal justice system captured wider appeal. Progressives made headway on housing issues, as most cities have faced fast-rising rents and widespread evictions, symptoms of out-of-control gentrification and the hardships facing renters during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

But Abdallah Fayyad of The Boston Globe wonders why we should pay much attention to  the “national implications” of municipal elections at all.

Though there’s an apparent appeal for observers to cherry-pick elections to demonstrate what ought to succeed electorally, the reality is that there’s only so much someone can learn from Wu’s win. After all, Wu, like Adams, won in an off-year municipal election and with low voter turnout — hardly the kind of election that can give anyone a sense of what’s possible in the broader electorate.

That’s why pundits and party insiders should stop trying to nationalize a winning strategy for Democrats. What worked for Adams in New York would not have worked for Wu in Boston. (And it didn’t for her opponent, Annissa Essaibi George.)

It’s true that it’s difficult for Democrats to deliver a coherent message at the national level when the party is so ideologically diverse that someone as conservative as Joe Manchin caucuses alongside democratic socialists. And so it may be tempting to believe that less disagreement within the party and its candidates — specifically by avoiding bold positions on the more polarizing issues like policing — might win over voters in the middle. But that’s not how democracy works. Progressives like US Representatives Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota all won reelection in landslides last year, and they ought to keep fighting loudly for the voters who sent them to Congress, no matter how moderate some conservative Democrats think the overall electorate is. Indeed, when only one of the two major parties is at least trying to respect the rules of democracy, it’s especially important for that party to embrace its ideological diversity rather than suppress it.

The next two stories deal with the issue of elected officials working second jobs. First, Heather Stewart of the Guardian reports on BoJo the Clown’s speech in Glasgow saying that while it’s OK for MP’s to work second jobs and that some MP’s have always done so, that MP’s also need to “follow the rules.”

Amid a flurry of claims about MPs’ lucrative second jobs and whether they create conflicts of interest, Johnson said in many cases the public believed this outside work “has actually strengthened our democracy”. He said for a hundred years MPs had also worked as “doctors or lawyers or soldiers or firefighters”.

But Johnson stressed that if such second jobs were to continue, “it is crucial that MPs follow the rules” by devoting themselves primarily to their constituents and avoiding “paid advocacy”.

“Anybody who breaks the rules, who engages in paid advocacy in the House of Commons, should be punished,” he said.

Parliament’s standards committee found Paterson had committed an “egregious” breach of the rules by repeatedly lobbying the government on behalf of two companies paying him more than £100,000 a year.

I mean, what else can you say after the House of Commons damn near revolted because The Clown tried to change the rules regarding the political lobbying scandal of MP Owen Paterson? The scandal resulted in Paterson’s resignation.

On this side of the pond, there’s an almost identical issue in Philadelphia that’s at the center of the bribery and corruption trial of Councilmember Bobby Henon. The Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Inquirer has long held a policy that no member of the Philadelphia City Council should hold employment outside their public service jobs.

The charges against Henon center on outside employment with a local union in addition to his job on Council. Taken together, his and other high-profile cases make clear that in order to ensure public accountability and to prevent any potential conflicts of interest, it is essential that City Council prohibit its members from holding second jobs.

While it isn’t illegal for City Council members to have more than one employer, that doesn’t make it ethical, a position this board has long held. Three other Council members currently hold outside jobs: Councilmember Derek Green is “of counsel” at the politically influential Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel law firm, which describes him as a practicing attorney. Councilmember Brian O’Neill is a retired counsel with Fox Rothschild, another well-connected law firm. Councilmember Allan Domb has been a well-known businessman in the city for decades. In addition, Council members David Oh and Isaiah Thomas both have ownership stakes in local small businesses.

Henon’s situation is somewhat distinct, as the main responsibilities of his role with the city’s powerful electricians union seems to have primarily involved lobbying on its behalf with his fellow Council members and in other quarters of city government. This is odd, given that on past disclosure forms, Henon lists his position with the union as simply “electrician.”

The question on the floor: should any elected official hold any type of second jobs, given the opportunities for ethical abuse and/or corruption inherent?

(FTR, it’s difficult for me to look at some of the salaries of city councilmembers in that chart at The Philadelphia Inquirer link and not, at the very least, see the need for some hold a second job in some municipalities)

Don Calloway pens an oped for The Washington Post on the importance of the protests taking place at Howard University.

These protests are significant because HBCUs produce a lion’s share of Black leadership and therefore a substantial presence within American leadership at large. In 2000, Andrew Gillum led Florida A&M University students in a massive march on the Florida Capitol to protest then-Gov. Jeb Bush’s higher education budget cuts. In 2001, as a student leader at Alabama A&M University, I myself led discussions around campus transport and facility quality. In 1992, Stacey Abrams led her Spelman College sisters in a protest on the steps of the Georgia Capitol in which they burned the state flag. In 1969, Samuel L. Jackson was expelled from Morehouse College for locking the board of trustees, including Martin Luther King Sr., in a building for two days — holding them physically hostage — in a battle over student views that the curriculum was too conservative.

Not only did each of the above protests materially succeed at the time, but also those who participated have taken the spirit of organized protest for a righteous cause into our professional lives.

Regardless of the issue, protest provides HBCU students the opportunity to organize disparate groups around a common cause and to execute in service of that cause. The protests have all the elements of both classical and modern issue campaigns, including messaging, oratory, polling, constituent mobilizing, presenting before governing authority and consensus-building. These elements foster specialized skills that alumni take into courtrooms, boardrooms and civic organizations after graduation.

Paul Egan of the Detroit Free Press reports on a federal judge approving a $626.25 million settlement for Flint residents due to the water crisis.

A major selling point of the settlement is its focus on those most impacted by the lead poisoning: those who were children at the time and whose development could be most adversely affected by the toxin. Nearly 80% of the payments would go to those who were under 18 at the time of the crisis.

But many are unhappy that Flint adults are unlikely to get more than $1,000 individually, unless they can show specific injuries.

Former Flint Mayor Karen Weaver drew unfavorable comparisons between the Flint settlement, to be shared among about 50,000 residents who are predominantly people of color, and other recent settlements impacting mostly white communities. She pointed to: MSU’s $500 million settlement with 332 women sexually abused by former sports doctor Larry Nassar; Penn State’s $109 million settlement with about 40 men molested by former football coach Jerry Sandusky, and USC’s $852 million settlement with about 710 women abused by a former campus gynecologist.

“I am here to tell you today that this is not justice for Flint,” Weaver, who was mayor from 2015 to 2019, said at the July fairness hearing. “We will not settle for the crumbs that have been set before us.”

Quin Zapoli, writing for the Michigan Daily, the student newspaper of The University of Michigan, says that if gerrymandering can’t outright be banned, then Democrats need to do some extreme gerrymanders in the states where they can do so.

Admittedly, gerrymandering in blue states is blatantly hypocritical, particularly while Democrats are decrying Republican gerrymandering efforts around the country. Continuing to abuse the redistricting process contradicts a critical part of the left’s voting rights agenda, too. Congressional Democrats have sponsored bills like H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which plainly bans gerrymandering. It would put all potential maps to an objective statistical test, striking any that give a party a statewide electoral advantage. The pared-down Freedom to Vote Act supported by the entirety of the Democratic caucus — even the stalwart centrists — contains similar measures to restrict gerrymandering. The Freedom to Vote Act has, unsurprisingly, stalled in the Senate. Democrats have offered to restrict gerrymandering through federal legislation, Republicans have refused to allow a vote, forcing Democrats to gerrymander or enter the 2022 midterms at a disadvantage.  

Of course, banning gerrymandering need not be tied to any electoral reform. Gerrymandering is wildly unpopular: 93% of Americans see it as a problem in U.S. elections. If Democrats are serious about their desire to end gerrymandering and Republicans truly want to avoid increasingly gerrymandered blue states, a simple act of Congress should please both. But refusing to gerrymander in the few states they still can is a political stunt which, however noble, will only hamper Democrats’ ability to legislate in the remainder of Joe Biden’s presidency. If they are able to win enough seats they could pass H.R. 1 and ban partisan gerrymandering, something Congressional Republicans have not yet proposed. Yes, action in Illinois and New York represents escalated Democratic gerrymandering compared to ten years ago, but it is necessary to match Republican efforts across the country. Instead of moderate gerrymandering in dozens of states, Democrats’ only option is extreme gerrymandering in a few blue states. It is not needless partisanship as much as a necessary counterbalance.

I had no idea that polls had shown that gerrymanders was that unpopular and even if you limit yourself to the 67% saying that gerrymandering is a major problem, that still meets the definition of “wildly unpopular.”

Jeffrey Barg, The Grammarian writes for The Philadelphia Inquirer and muses on the eventual fate of the word “meta.”

There’s a slightly newer word, meta, that is commonly mishandled, overused, and abused. It’s a stupid prefix-turned-standalone-word, rarely functioning on its own without an adverb (as in, “That’s so meta”). Now that Facebook has rebranded its parent company as Meta, could meta face the same fate as face book?

One can hope. But first, a look at history.

The Oxford English Dictionary pins the first citation of face book to 1974, in The Daily Princetonian. The end of the 20th century saw face books proliferate, but after the website Facebook arrived in 2004, it obliterated the lowercase face book. Today’s college first-years wouldn’t know what a physical face book is. The OED notes that lowercase face book’s usage is now among words that are “almost exclusively terms which are not part of normal discourse and would be unknown to most people.” A few of the most common (and most fabulous) words it puts in this category: absterge, ennead, scintillometer.

In other words, face book is dead. Long live Facebook.

Finally today, Tom Palaima and Al Martinich write for USA Today, asking that on this Veterans Day, we all try to walk a mile in a veteran’s shoes.

This Veterans Day, we are not involved in a major war for the first time in two decades. We should give thanks. But we also should take care to internalize what veterans who live and work among us have gone through and continue to go through.  

It’s unfortunate that we have not done what Iraq War veteran Phil Klay urged us to do seven years ago – to use our experiences of suffering to feel what service members have experienced.

All of us have suffered in our own lives. Our trauma may not be as deep or wide as those of veterans who have experienced the pain of soldiers and civilians harmed in war. But, as Klay emphasized, we can imagine and extrapolate from our own suffering to get a sense of what veterans endured.

If we take in what veterans are saying and how they say it, we can develop empathy through our common humanity. To deny that we can understand what they went through is to insulate ourselves from their suffering.  

Everyone have a great day!

This post was originally published on this site

In the news today: Conservative book-burning fever spreads. Republicans are looking to elect yet another unapologetic white nationalist extremist who promises to arrest the party’s enemies, and yet again Arizona is the state they think will vote to do it. And new reports and documents yet again confirm that Trump’s Republican administration had few qualms about breaking whatever rules they wanted to break.

Meanwhile, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial continues with … ick. Just ick. Here’s some of what you may have missed during a very busy news day:

• Kansas school district pulls 29 books off library shelves, including major award winners

• Newly revealed memo firing former Defense secretary reveals unsettling influence of Trump’s stooges

• Office of Special Counsel concludes that at least 13 Trump officials violated the Hatch Act

• GOP gubernatorial front-runner Kari Lake is the latest candidate aiming to be more Trump than Trump

• Kyle Rittenhouse forces out a tear, points the finger at his dead victim

Community Spotlight:

• Celebrating 100 Years of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

Also trending from the community:

• The consequences of The Great Acceleration has arrived—global food crisis in 2022

This post was originally published on this site

For someone who continually touts his winning bona fides, Donald Trump sure loses a lot. He lost his casinos, $1 billion in cash over a decade, the popular vote (twice), the 2020 election, the House, the Senate (thanks to his nonstop whining), two wives, most of his hair, and, on or about Jan. 6, his effing mind.

And as one of the most litigious presidents people in our nation’s history, he’s been pummeled into Flamin’ Hot Cheeto dust more times than any of us can remember.

Tuesday night, Trump was introduced to his alter ego Lumpy Loserman once again, as federal Judge Tanya Chutkan gave the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 the green light to access hundreds of pages of documents Trump had sought to protect. In her ruling, Chutkan stated, “His position that he may override the express will of the executive branch appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power exists in perpetuity. But Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.”

No, he’s not president, is he? Why? Say it with me, now: Because he’s a yuge loooooooooser.

Indeed, Axios has a short rundown on some of the Big Failure’s largest recent losses:

A top watchdog found that 13 senior Trump officials, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, violated ethics law and helped create “a taxpayer-funded campaign apparatus within the upper echelons of the executive branch.”

[…]

A second grand jury has been empaneled in New York’s criminal investigation of the Trump Organization (NBC News).

An Atlanta district attorney is moving toward convening her own grand jury in an investigation of Trump’s attempts to overturn the election in Georgia (N.Y. Times).

And that’s just a recent list.

Remember when Trump lost 59 election lawsuits, all attempting to change the 2020 election results?

That was awesome.

Remember when Trump claimed he never settles cases and so would never, ever settle with the plaintiffs suing him over his fake university?

“I don’t settle cases,” Trump claimed during the March 2016 Republican presidential debate. “I don’t do it because that’s why I don’t get sued very often, because I don’t settle, unlike a lot of other people.”

Yeah, he settled—and lost $25 million in the process. And actually, he settles a lot.

Remember when Trump sued Bill Maher for breach of contract after Maher joked that he’d contribute $5 million to charity if Trump could prove his father wasn’t an orangutan? He withdrew that one. 

Then there was Trump’s high-profile lawsuit against author Timothy O’Brien, who dared to write that Trump was worth less than Trump liked to claim he was. That one was tossed, though not before Trump sat for an uncomfortable deposition that poked numerous holes in his giant Jenga tower of lies. 

And those are just the tip of a very large, very filthy iceberg.

I get as frustrated as anyone when Trump wriggles out of situations that would cut other people off at the knees. Trump’s superpower is his shamelessness, and it’s been a shield that’s seemingly protected him more than once. But his luck may not last forever: He managed to bluster his way out of trouble when he was president, but he holds no public office now, and this idea that he’s somehow bulletproof is not borne out by history. (A Republican-controlled Senate was never going to convict Trump in his two impeachments. The court system, on the other hand, is not quite so friendly to lawless con artists.)

Indeed, his post-presidential legal peril is significant. The Manhattan district attorney is still waiting in the wings after having successfully won the right to look at Trump’s tax records, which he protects like Jeffrey Dahmer guarding a basement freezer.

Meanwhile, Scotland is looking into his golf courses, and as mentioned above, Fulton County, Georgia, DA Fani Willis is investigating that ridiculous call to Secretary of (the Peach) State Brad Raffensberger, among other Trumpian attempts to subvert democracy. New York Attorney General Letitia James is also still on the case; and who knows what goodies the Jan. 6 committee will eventually dig up? Sure seems like things aren’t going his way so far.

As Trump continues to go through the legal wringer—and as we wait, and wait, and wait some more for the wheels of justice to grind him into grainy, bitter-tasting Tang powder—we can seek solace in the fact that Trump is a longtime loser who only pretends to win.

Sure, he’s a slippery one, but the nets are closing in—and judging by his latest losing streak, Trump’s luck may finally be running out.

Fingers crossed, folks.

It made comedian Sarah Silverman say, “THIS IS FUCKING BRILLIANT,” and prompted author Stephen King to shout “Pulitzer Prize!!!” (on Twitter, that is). What is it? The viral letter that launched four hilarious Trump-trolling books. Get them all, including the finale, Goodbye, Asshat: 101 Farewell Letters to Donald Trump, at this link. Or, if you prefer a test drive, you can download the epilogue to Goodbye, Asshat for the low, low price of FREE.

This post was originally published on this site

High school can be a treacherous experience for many people, especially if you were in any way different from your peers. Teenagers (like, frankly, adults) can be cruel, exclusive, and often live with many complex emotions, traumas, and obstacles they don’t know how to express or seek help about. With all of that in mind, it’s no surprise that reports about school bullying and harassment are consistently concerning, especially when it comes to a notably vulnerable population: trans youth. 

Clay Sentell, a 16-year-old high schooler in North Carolina, says he was secretly recorded by bullies while using school bathrooms. Sentell spoke to The Shelby Star about his experience in the boys’ bathroom, where he says one video shared to Snapchat featured him washing his hands, while another was taken while he was in a bathroom stall at Burns High School. Now, Sentell and his mom want answers and accountability from the school. 

The high school junior told the outlet he felt like his privacy was “invaded” and felt “terrified” after a friend showed him one of the videos already shared on social media. 

“The way I dress doesn’t equal my gender identity,” Sentell explained. “I know a lot of people see those as hand in hand. [My clothes] are just how I express myself; it is how I want to be. The fact I am being recorded in the bathroom for it is insane.” Sentell is transgender and uses both she/her/hers and he/him/his pronouns. 

In speaking to Channel 9 News, Sentell said he asked the school to use the girls’ bathroom, but ultimately agreed to use a private bathroom near the school’s office. However, that bathroom was far away from his classes, so Sentell said he used the men’s room close by. That’s where peers recorded him. 

“It’s just who I am,” Sentell said about his identity and presentation. “It’s how I express myself.”

According to Sentell’s mother, Annie Sentell, students were playing a virtual “tag” by sharing videos of her son. “It’s almost like I got one of him, so now tag you are it, kind of thing, I think,” she told the outlet. 

Since the discovery of these videos, the Sentell family has protested outside of the school. Sentell, his mother, and his sister, Abby, stood in front of the school on Friday, holding signs calling for changes from the school administration. According to Sentell’s mother, the impetus for the protest was the administration telling her she’d have to wait almost a week to meet with them, which she felt was too long given the circumstances.

From there, however, Sentell’s mother said the school principal called her and described the family’s signs as “distracting,” and Sentell’s mother has since decided to keep Clay at home. According to Channel 9, Sentell’s mother is looking into options for legal action against the school and alternatives for her child’s education.

And Clay? He said he’s still going to “love” the people that bullied him and that he’s going to pray for them to be more “open” and “accepting.” 

Literal years’ worth of research shows that LGBTQ+ youth—and especially trans youth—report disproportionately high rates of bullying, harassment, and even physical and sexual violence from peers. Trans youth are especially likely to become homeless and leave school without a diploma. Being essentially forced out of school can create a domino effect in a world that’s already hostile to trans folks—harder to get a job, for example, or to qualify for an apartment or house, or to have the financial resources to access affirming medical care.

All of this is part of why it’s so bizarre and damaging that Republicans are hyper-focused on sports, for example, when trans youth are so deeply marginalized and vulnerable. It’s cruel, it’s traumatic, and on the least emotional level, it’s an enormous waste of time and resources. Then again, that description sums up the Republican party pretty damn well. 

Sign the petition: Demand the Senate pass the Equality Act and protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination.

This post was originally published on this site

Those wondering why no jurisdiction has actually brought criminal charges against Donald Trump and his minions need to remember that when done properly, a criminal investigation is supposed to take time. A good prosecutor is supposed to build a Mount Everest-sized trove of evidence against a defendant—and do so in a way that the defendant’s claim of innocence is slowly and painstakingly strangled. Such a thorough investigation is certainly the only way to bring down a former president who maintains a cult-like following.

It looks like one of the many prosecutors investigating Trump is poised to begin the next phase of her strangulation. Namely, Fani Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia—home to almost all of Atlanta. The New York Times reports that Willis is about to empanel a special grand jury to investigate election interference by Trump and his deceitful buddies. Of course, the most infamous part of that interference is Trump’s attempt to bully Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger into helping him “find 11,780 votes” that would overturn Joe Biden’s lead in Georgia.

This is the biggest sign that Willis’ investigation, which began in February, is ramping up to a level that would be perilous for Trump.

That Willis is taking this case to a special grand jury should tell you something about how seriously she’s taking this investigation—and its potential import.

Instead of impaneling a special grand jury, Ms. Willis could submit evidence to one of two grand juries currently sitting in Fulton County, a longtime Democratic stronghold that encompasses much of Atlanta. But the county has a vast backlog of more than 10,000 potential criminal cases that have yet to be considered by a grand jury — a result of logistical complications from the coronavirus pandemic and, Ms. Willis has argued, inaction by her predecessor, Paul Howard, whom she replaced in January.

By contrast, a special grand jury, which by Georgia statute would include 16 to 23 members, could focus solely on the potential case against Mr. Trump and his allies. Ms. Willis is likely to soon take the step, according to a person with direct knowledge of the deliberations, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the decision is not final. Though such a jury could issue subpoenas, Ms. Willis would need to return to a regular grand jury to seek criminal indictments.

That grand jury would have plenty of evidence to consider besides Trump’s attempt to shake down Raffensperger. Before that fateful call, Trump also tried to push Raffensperger’s chief investigator into finding evidence of “dishonesty” in Georgia. He also tried to get Byung Pak, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, which covers Atlanta, to push lies about voter fraud in Georgia. Pak told the House Jan. 6 committee that he resigned rather than go along with the scheme. 

Additionally, Trump may have talked himself into further legal peril at a rally in September. He told the crowd that he tried to press none other than Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to resolve the “election-integrity problem” in his state, possibly by calling a special election.

Last month, a bipartisan group of legal experts wrote an analysis of the case for the Brookings Institution. They concluded that Trump’s actions put him “at substantial risk” for a host of state charges—including racketeering, solicitation of election fraud, and conspiracy to commit election fraud.

They also noted that Trump’s comments in September could make it far easier to prove he intended to get lawmakers to join him in an attempt to steal an election he didn’t win. One of the authors, former Obama White House ethics counsel Norm Eisen, said that Trump’s conversation with Kemp was evidence that he intended to get Kemp to join him on this fishing expedition; as Eisen put it, Trump’s comments “offered the prosecution free admissions about the content of that exchange.”

Willis already gave a loud indication of where she’s going with this case when she tapped John Floyd, the man who literally wrote the book on prosecuting a state racketeering case, to assist in the investigation. That amounted to capital letters announcing that she was seriously considering hitting Trump with the legal equivalent of napalm. Georgia’s version of RICO makes false statements to state officials a predicate act.

That prospect alone should have Trump, along with everyone else in on that now-infamous call to Raffensperger, crapping themselves. If they weren’t then, they definitely should be now that it looks like Willis believes she has enough to call in a grand jury whose specific task will be to assist her with her investigation. 

This post was originally published on this site

Newsmax host Eric Bolling has found a home on the bleeding edge of right-wing reality television. Bolling left Fox News in disgrace after an investigation revealed he was sending unsolicited graphic photos of male genitalia and text messages to female employees. Good times! Since then, Bolling has joined fellow unhinged right-wing personality Grant Stinchfield in berating everyone not conservative enough to drink the fascist Kool-Aid Trump and the GOP are pushing these days.

What is the “bleeding edge” of conservatism these days? Big Bird from Sesame Street is a communist and Big Bird is trying to trick your kids into getting vaccinated against COVID-19. Sen. Ted Cruz has been on the frontlines of this new “culture war” and Eric Bolling used his Tuesday show to point out that he has always known that the Muppets and other Jim Henson creations were secret commies. Don’t believe an adult man would say that on video while not performing on a comedy sketch show?

Check it out.

Bolling first went through the Sesame Street campaign to promote COVID-19 vaccinations for kids, including an “interview” appearance on CNN. Bolling was boiling!* Kapow! He began by showing the vaccine promotion clip, saying “Big Bird from Sesame Street, indoctrinating our 5-year-olds…”

Coming back from the clip, where Bolling fumed over the use of a teddy bear as a comfort tool for a child getting a shot, he proceeded to seethe, explaining that “then the giant pigeon took to Twitter to announce to everyone how it felt getting the shot.” But lest you believe this is a new thing for the educational show’s puppets, Eric Bolling is here to remind you that Sesame Street has always been a bastion of feel-good commie sentiment.

ERIC BOLLING: Not the first time these little felt communists tried to infect the minds of our youngest and most vulnerable children, a decade ago, way back in 2011, I called out Kermit, that cute little green monster commie.

That’s verbatim. How did he call out Kermit the Frog? It seems that the 2011 Muppet film starring Academy Award winner Chris Cooper as Tex Richman, the villain of the piece, really freaked Bolling out. Bolling believed that Kermit and his friends should have been happy and impressed by the sociopathic fictional oil man trying to displace the Muppets so he can get at the oil under their studios. Instead, they treated him like a villain, proving once and for all that the message being sent to kids is that rich people are bad. Bolling’s view is that any person who has become rich is an important and impressive person who has worked harder than everybody else.

Don’t believe me? Bolling explains his problem with the Muppets: “Well here’s what happened, the Muppets were blaming [an] oil baron for closing down the studio. That’s cute, you little oppressive Muppets! They didn’t even try to hide their disdain for success by naming the guy Tex Richman. Eh? But I took them to task.”

And boy did he. He proceeded to show an appearance on Fox News’ The Five, where he took a Kermit puppet and demanded he debate him about the Muppets’ “anti-capitalist” leanings. He then continued his decade-long battle with the Muppets, showing a clip of Miss Piggy holding a press conference talking about how silly Bolling was—in 2011.

Back to 2021 and Eric Bolling: “Guess what? The invite’s still open Ms. Piggy, if you or your emasculated frog boyfriend, Kermit, ever wanted to join this desk, it’s free. So yeah, at first I thought they were mere ideologues and now I think they’re just stuck on stupid.”

I don’t have the words.

*Trademarking that joke!

This post was originally published on this site

After Republican Glenn Youngkin won the Virginia governor’s race, everywhere you looked you’d see media coverage suggesting that a key reason was parental frustration over school closures and mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. That analysis of Youngkin’s win has translated to a dire warning to Democrats that angry suburban parents will turn against them en masse over public health restrictions in schools. But is it accurate? A new poll points to no.

The new installment of the Axios/Ipsos Coronavirus Index finds that most parents are actually happy with how their local schools have handled the pandemic. Overall, 71% of adults and 75% of parents gave their local schools a positive rating on balancing health and safety with other priorities. Among parents, 22% said schools had done “a very good job,” and 53% said schools had done “a somewhat good job.”

Democrats were the most positive about schools, with 78% positive views, while 71% of independents and 68% of Republicans (which is a lot!) said schools had done a very or somewhat good job. Interestingly, that means that schools got overall higher marks than governors or local governments—but they were less likely to be rated as having done a very good rather than somewhat good job than were governors. 

The fact that non-parents were slightly more likely to have a negative view of how schools have handled the pandemic, and somewhat less likely to have a strongly favorable view, is suggestive: Has Republican propaganda about how terribly schools and especially teachers unions have treated children landed more strongly with the people who aren’t experiencing it close up?

This is a national poll. As such, it doesn’t speak directly to whether the widespread claims about the role of school closures in Youngkin’s win are correct. A significant number of parents in Virginia may have been angry about this issue and changed their votes because of it. But what it does mean is that Virginia can’t be extrapolated to the nation as a whole.

Decisions about school closures and mask mandates have happened mainly at the state and local level, which means that people—or at least parents who have directly experienced it—are responding to dramatically different things in this poll. In some cases, parents say their schools handled the pandemic well by having mask mandates and closures. In others, they’re saying that what schools did right was stay open and not require masks. So we can’t look at this poll and say that one policy is the most popular. We can look at it and say that there is no widespread rage about school closures across the nation. Just 9% of parents and 7% of non-parents say their schools did a very poor job. Could that provide the tipping point in a very close election? Sure. But it’s not something that should be launching a thousand alarmist trend pieces.

This post was originally published on this site

As Republicans use their positions of power and influence to stomp down on vulnerable trans youth, families and allies are sticking up for some of the most marginalized children and teenagers in our nation. As Republican governors sign anti-trans bills into law, allowing for discrimination against trans young people, some of those very young people are fighting back in the court of law. Daily Kos recently covered, for example, the openly trans teenager in Indiana who is suing for the chance to compete on the boys’ golf team at school.

Another example comes to us out of western Indiana, where two openly trans high schoolers are suing their school district. According to the federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the district denied the students the use of the correct bathroom and locker rooms because of their gender identity, and teachers were not directed to use the correct names and pronouns for the boys, who are freshmen at the school, as reported by the Associated Press.

The lawsuit against Vigo County School School Corp. wants to require staff members at the school to use the correct pronouns for the students (in this case, male) and their names. It also seeks to mandate that the proper names and pronouns are reflected in school publications, like the student yearbook.

Ken Falk, who serves as the legal director of the  ACLU Indiana, told local outlet WTHI that the two freshmen live with gender dysphoria, a common condition people live with when their gender identity does not match their gender assigned at birth. 

“They are about ready to begin male hormones,” Falk added. “Which will make them appear even more male than they do now, and they must be treated as young men.” Falk argued that one way to help support a person and ease their gender dysphoria is to allow them to live, as much as possible, in alignment with their gender identity—which makes perfect sense. The two students involved in the suit have been prescribed hormonal therapy under their physician’s care and have been using male pronouns and names since elementary school.

The ACLU is arguing that the district is violating the students’ equal rights protections under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title XI by denying them appropriate bathroom access. In the short team, the ACLU seeks a preliminary injunction, which would allow the students basic dignity until a final decision is made. As of now, the district has several weeks to reply.

It should go without saying why it is so important for trans youth to have their names and pronouns respected, especially in a school or community setting. Being called by the incorrect name (sometimes referred to as a “deadname”) can be traumatic and disorienting. It can also “out” the person as trans to classmates or peers, which can lead to potentially dangerous situations.

The same goes for bathrooms and locker rooms—being forced to use the incorrect bathroom could very quickly “out” a person, potentially leading to harassment, abuse, or bullying. To avoid these sorts of situations, trans youth (and even adults) will sometimes avoid activities that require locker rooms or avoid using the bathroom at all, which, again, is fundamentally unfair, but can also be bad for one’s physical health. 

Sign the petition: Demand the Senate pass the Equality Act and protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination.