Lily Salter's Blog, page 1020

Being Blunt: When the News Becomes the News: A Playbook for Recovering

Journalists aren’t the people they used to be. With greater frequency they are the focus of reporting as much as they are doing the reporting. “It’s a disturbing trend,” says John Goodman, a former publicist for ABC’s World News Tonight and current owner of John Goodman Public Relations based in New York. “News reporters and anchors are supposed to present the news, not become it.” In February, NBC suspended anchor Brian Williams for claiming falsely that he had been in a helicopter that had been fired on during a 2003 Iraq assignment. CBS’ 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan took a leave of absence for filing an erroneous report on the attack on an American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. ESPN and Colin Cowherd parted ways after the blowhard radio personality made disparaging remarks about Dominican baseball players. The Starz Network comedy Blunt Talk amps up the theme of famed journalist as flawed individuals – albeit more for off-screen than on-camera misjudgments. Patrick Stewart plays Walter Blunt, an opinionated news show host who snorts cocaine and gets caught drunk driving when he’s not driving ratings. Blunt’s loyal team, including network producers and his trusty manservant Harry, rally around him with an absurdist sense of mission, defending, readying and even spooning the human wrecking ball. Blunt’s antics may make audiences alternatively laugh or cringe, but as is the case with all skillful humor, the show touches a broad nerve – in this case about celebrity-driven culture. What is an organization willing to do to keep a star, ahem, high in the media sky? Clearly, a fair amount. Williams and Logan have returned. Cowherd was just hired by ESPN rival Fox Sports to weigh in on stories much as he’d done before. The media celebrities’ ranks are filled with other comeback stories. But what does this entail? Experts say redemption requires an acknowledgement of past sins but ability to move beyond them. It means employing the right resources and patience, both by company and star. Perhaps most of all it means the ability to smile at a situation, to smile at oneself. Consider Goodman’s steps below as a healing remedy from all manner of misbehavior. Look Into It If you’re star makes headlines for the wrong reason, don’t be passive. Create your own Investigation. NBC examined how and why Williams made the false statements. That should be policy in every crisis situation, Goodman says. But such investigations have to exhibit a willingness to address uncomfortable truths. Williams showed a tendency to paint the truth. “There isn’t a boilerplate way to handle a crisis,” he says. “You have to understand the full breadth of the problem before you can address a solution.” Be Honest, Say You’re Sorry If there was wrongdoing, admit it, and don’t be shy about offering it publicly,Goodman says. “The worst thing you can do is sit quietly,” he says. “You have to be upfront about the problem.” However, ensure your mea culpas are genuine. When Williams apologized, he seemed less than contrite. Statements like, “I made a mistake in recalling the events 12 years ago,” made it seem as though he was making light of the situation. Explain What You’ll Do How will you keep this mistake from repeating? When crisis hits, you have to reassure the public that this kind of issue won’t happen again. Explain what changes you plan to make, including punishment. Williams was suspended and then demoted to MSNBC breaking news anchor, a supporting role. He is no longer the face of the NBC evening news program. Prepare For Fallout From lost ratings to public backlash, be ready to address unpleasant consequences for months – or more. NBC has remained a centerpiece of discussion about deteriorating standards in network journalism. The once widely respected Williams continues to be a late night comedy show punch-line. Rebuild Your Reputation With the scandal in the rear view mirror, it’s time to look ahead. “Williams will need to get up every morning and make a commitment to be honest in every detail of every story he tells from this point forward,” Goodman says. If a scandal-stricken celebrity can “keep their nose clean” they may earn forgiveness and rebuild their reputation, Goodman says. Learn From The Scandal Use the scandal to become a better person. Some media experts that Williams could could become involved in a veterans’ cause. However, you don’t want to turn a kind gesture into a media circus, Goodman says. Parading news crews out to cover Williams helping an injured solider would probably be considered tone deaf. Giving back is about finding forgiveness, not reclaiming ratings. Be Patient Handling a public relations nightmare requires patience. Work through the problem on a daily basis, stay calm, and the situation is likely to improve, Goodman says. The new STARZ Original Series “Blunt Talk,” created by Jonathan Ames and Executive Produced by Seth McFarlane, stars Patrick Stewart as a British import intent on conquering the world of American cable news. Don’t miss the premiere of the half-hour scripted comedy, Saturday, August 22 at 9P only on STARZJournalists aren’t the people they used to be. With greater frequency they are the focus of reporting as much as they are doing the reporting. “It’s a disturbing trend,” says John Goodman, a former publicist for ABC’s World News Tonight and current owner of John Goodman Public Relations based in New York. “News reporters and anchors are supposed to present the news, not become it.” In February, NBC suspended anchor Brian Williams for claiming falsely that he had been in a helicopter that had been fired on during a 2003 Iraq assignment. CBS’ 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan took a leave of absence for filing an erroneous report on the attack on an American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. ESPN and Colin Cowherd parted ways after the blowhard radio personality made disparaging remarks about Dominican baseball players. The Starz Network comedy Blunt Talk amps up the theme of famed journalist as flawed individuals – albeit more for off-screen than on-camera misjudgments. Patrick Stewart plays Walter Blunt, an opinionated news show host who snorts cocaine and gets caught drunk driving when he’s not driving ratings. Blunt’s loyal team, including network producers and his trusty manservant Harry, rally around him with an absurdist sense of mission, defending, readying and even spooning the human wrecking ball. Blunt’s antics may make audiences alternatively laugh or cringe, but as is the case with all skillful humor, the show touches a broad nerve – in this case about celebrity-driven culture. What is an organization willing to do to keep a star, ahem, high in the media sky? Clearly, a fair amount. Williams and Logan have returned. Cowherd was just hired by ESPN rival Fox Sports to weigh in on stories much as he’d done before. The media celebrities’ ranks are filled with other comeback stories. But what does this entail? Experts say redemption requires an acknowledgement of past sins but ability to move beyond them. It means employing the right resources and patience, both by company and star. Perhaps most of all it means the ability to smile at a situation, to smile at oneself. Consider Goodman’s steps below as a healing remedy from all manner of misbehavior. Look Into It If you’re star makes headlines for the wrong reason, don’t be passive. Create your own Investigation. NBC examined how and why Williams made the false statements. That should be policy in every crisis situation, Goodman says. But such investigations have to exhibit a willingness to address uncomfortable truths. Williams showed a tendency to paint the truth. “There isn’t a boilerplate way to handle a crisis,” he says. “You have to understand the full breadth of the problem before you can address a solution.” Be Honest, Say You’re Sorry If there was wrongdoing, admit it, and don’t be shy about offering it publicly,Goodman says. “The worst thing you can do is sit quietly,” he says. “You have to be upfront about the problem.” However, ensure your mea culpas are genuine. When Williams apologized, he seemed less than contrite. Statements like, “I made a mistake in recalling the events 12 years ago,” made it seem as though he was making light of the situation. Explain What You’ll Do How will you keep this mistake from repeating? When crisis hits, you have to reassure the public that this kind of issue won’t happen again. Explain what changes you plan to make, including punishment. Williams was suspended and then demoted to MSNBC breaking news anchor, a supporting role. He is no longer the face of the NBC evening news program. Prepare For Fallout From lost ratings to public backlash, be ready to address unpleasant consequences for months – or more. NBC has remained a centerpiece of discussion about deteriorating standards in network journalism. The once widely respected Williams continues to be a late night comedy show punch-line. Rebuild Your Reputation With the scandal in the rear view mirror, it’s time to look ahead. “Williams will need to get up every morning and make a commitment to be honest in every detail of every story he tells from this point forward,” Goodman says. If a scandal-stricken celebrity can “keep their nose clean” they may earn forgiveness and rebuild their reputation, Goodman says. Learn From The Scandal Use the scandal to become a better person. Some media experts that Williams could could become involved in a veterans’ cause. However, you don’t want to turn a kind gesture into a media circus, Goodman says. Parading news crews out to cover Williams helping an injured solider would probably be considered tone deaf. Giving back is about finding forgiveness, not reclaiming ratings. Be Patient Handling a public relations nightmare requires patience. Work through the problem on a daily basis, stay calm, and the situation is likely to improve, Goodman says. The new STARZ Original Series “Blunt Talk,” created by Jonathan Ames and Executive Produced by Seth McFarlane, stars Patrick Stewart as a British import intent on conquering the world of American cable news. Don’t miss the premiere of the half-hour scripted comedy, Saturday, August 22 at 9P only on STARZJournalists aren’t the people they used to be. With greater frequency they are the focus of reporting as much as they are doing the reporting. “It’s a disturbing trend,” says John Goodman, a former publicist for ABC’s World News Tonight and current owner of John Goodman Public Relations based in New York. “News reporters and anchors are supposed to present the news, not become it.” In February, NBC suspended anchor Brian Williams for claiming falsely that he had been in a helicopter that had been fired on during a 2003 Iraq assignment. CBS’ 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan took a leave of absence for filing an erroneous report on the attack on an American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. ESPN and Colin Cowherd parted ways after the blowhard radio personality made disparaging remarks about Dominican baseball players. The Starz Network comedy Blunt Talk amps up the theme of famed journalist as flawed individuals – albeit more for off-screen than on-camera misjudgments. Patrick Stewart plays Walter Blunt, an opinionated news show host who snorts cocaine and gets caught drunk driving when he’s not driving ratings. Blunt’s loyal team, including network producers and his trusty manservant Harry, rally around him with an absurdist sense of mission, defending, readying and even spooning the human wrecking ball. Blunt’s antics may make audiences alternatively laugh or cringe, but as is the case with all skillful humor, the show touches a broad nerve – in this case about celebrity-driven culture. What is an organization willing to do to keep a star, ahem, high in the media sky? Clearly, a fair amount. Williams and Logan have returned. Cowherd was just hired by ESPN rival Fox Sports to weigh in on stories much as he’d done before. The media celebrities’ ranks are filled with other comeback stories. But what does this entail? Experts say redemption requires an acknowledgement of past sins but ability to move beyond them. It means employing the right resources and patience, both by company and star. Perhaps most of all it means the ability to smile at a situation, to smile at oneself. Consider Goodman’s steps below as a healing remedy from all manner of misbehavior. Look Into It If you’re star makes headlines for the wrong reason, don’t be passive. Create your own Investigation. NBC examined how and why Williams made the false statements. That should be policy in every crisis situation, Goodman says. But such investigations have to exhibit a willingness to address uncomfortable truths. Williams showed a tendency to paint the truth. “There isn’t a boilerplate way to handle a crisis,” he says. “You have to understand the full breadth of the problem before you can address a solution.” Be Honest, Say You’re Sorry If there was wrongdoing, admit it, and don’t be shy about offering it publicly,Goodman says. “The worst thing you can do is sit quietly,” he says. “You have to be upfront about the problem.” However, ensure your mea culpas are genuine. When Williams apologized, he seemed less than contrite. Statements like, “I made a mistake in recalling the events 12 years ago,” made it seem as though he was making light of the situation. Explain What You’ll Do How will you keep this mistake from repeating? When crisis hits, you have to reassure the public that this kind of issue won’t happen again. Explain what changes you plan to make, including punishment. Williams was suspended and then demoted to MSNBC breaking news anchor, a supporting role. He is no longer the face of the NBC evening news program. Prepare For Fallout From lost ratings to public backlash, be ready to address unpleasant consequences for months – or more. NBC has remained a centerpiece of discussion about deteriorating standards in network journalism. The once widely respected Williams continues to be a late night comedy show punch-line. Rebuild Your Reputation With the scandal in the rear view mirror, it’s time to look ahead. “Williams will need to get up every morning and make a commitment to be honest in every detail of every story he tells from this point forward,” Goodman says. If a scandal-stricken celebrity can “keep their nose clean” they may earn forgiveness and rebuild their reputation, Goodman says. Learn From The Scandal Use the scandal to become a better person. Some media experts that Williams could could become involved in a veterans’ cause. However, you don’t want to turn a kind gesture into a media circus, Goodman says. Parading news crews out to cover Williams helping an injured solider would probably be considered tone deaf. Giving back is about finding forgiveness, not reclaiming ratings. Be Patient Handling a public relations nightmare requires patience. Work through the problem on a daily basis, stay calm, and the situation is likely to improve, Goodman says. The new STARZ Original Series “Blunt Talk,” created by Jonathan Ames and Executive Produced by Seth McFarlane, stars Patrick Stewart as a British import intent on conquering the world of American cable news. Don’t miss the premiere of the half-hour scripted comedy, Saturday, August 22 at 9P only on STARZ

View more on Lily Salter's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 14, 2015 11:45

Chicago conservative “envious” of Hurricane Katrina in the most appalling op-ed of the year

The Chicago Tribune's Kristen McQueary wrote an op-ed in which she claimed that the operative emotion one should feel as we approach the tenth anniversary of Katrina isn't despair over the thousands of easily preventable deaths, nor anguish at the lives and communities torn about, but envy because one of the greatest natural disasters in American history allowed the city to bust the teachers' unions and overhaul city hall. "Hurricane Katrina gave a great American city a rebirth," she wrote, conveniently ignoring the fact that 1,833 -- most of whom were poor and people of color -- paid for this civic rebirth with their lives. The toxic logic of white privilege on display here is staggering, as she characterizes the very real destruction of historical communities, as well as entire cultures, as "what it took to hit the reset button." Or, as she tweeted: [embedtweet id="631938344314798086"] McQueary provided a laundry list of conservative goals that the city met after it had been battered so badly it barely function as a city anymore: "[a] new mayor slashed the city budget, forced unpaid furloughs, cut positions, detonated labor contracts[,]" making "New Orleans' City Hall leaner and more efficient." It never occurred to her that if your ideology requires thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced in order to be enacted, the problem likely isn't the city -- it's your ideology. Putting aside that McQueary's vision of Chicago as a mansion on the hill requires the eradication of many of its African-American residents, the most disturbing aspect of her editorial is that she imagines herself to be one of those residents, stranded on a rooftop waving this very op-ed like a bed-sheet in the hopes of being rescued. "I can relate, metaphorically, to the residents of New Orleans climbing onto their rooftops and begging for help and waving their arms and lurching toward rescue helicopters." She did, literally, write that. But she went one step further, arguing that her plight is more desperate than those in New Orleans because "here, no one responds to the SOS messages painted boldly in the sky." Besides the fact that that final line makes absolutely no sense -- New Orleans residents weren't hiring biplanes to alert authorities as to their whereabouts via skywriting -- the problem with McQueary's editorial is that it exists, which points to a failure of judgment on her part, as well as that of every member of the editorial board who read and signed off on her egregious "hot take." McQueary has since tried to walk back that heat: [embedtweet id="631947498358112256"] But she's unlikely to find any sympathetic ears for her vile thoughts. Before setting them to paper, she apparently made lovely caprese salad, and suffice it to say, the world would be a demonstrably better place if she'd just eaten it and called it day instead of insulting the memory of a defiantly undrowned and its dead.The Chicago Tribune's Kristen McQueary wrote an op-ed in which she claimed that the operative emotion one should feel as we approach the tenth anniversary of Katrina isn't despair over the thousands of easily preventable deaths, nor anguish at the lives and communities torn about, but envy because one of the greatest natural disasters in American history allowed the city to bust the teachers' unions and overhaul city hall. "Hurricane Katrina gave a great American city a rebirth," she wrote, conveniently ignoring the fact that 1,833 -- most of whom were poor and people of color -- paid for this civic rebirth with their lives. The toxic logic of white privilege on display here is staggering, as she characterizes the very real destruction of historical communities, as well as entire cultures, as "what it took to hit the reset button." Or, as she tweeted: [embedtweet id="631938344314798086"] McQueary provided a laundry list of conservative goals that the city met after it had been battered so badly it barely function as a city anymore: "[a] new mayor slashed the city budget, forced unpaid furloughs, cut positions, detonated labor contracts[,]" making "New Orleans' City Hall leaner and more efficient." It never occurred to her that if your ideology requires thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced in order to be enacted, the problem likely isn't the city -- it's your ideology. Putting aside that McQueary's vision of Chicago as a mansion on the hill requires the eradication of many of its African-American residents, the most disturbing aspect of her editorial is that she imagines herself to be one of those residents, stranded on a rooftop waving this very op-ed like a bed-sheet in the hopes of being rescued. "I can relate, metaphorically, to the residents of New Orleans climbing onto their rooftops and begging for help and waving their arms and lurching toward rescue helicopters." She did, literally, write that. But she went one step further, arguing that her plight is more desperate than those in New Orleans because "here, no one responds to the SOS messages painted boldly in the sky." Besides the fact that that final line makes absolutely no sense -- New Orleans residents weren't hiring biplanes to alert authorities as to their whereabouts via skywriting -- the problem with McQueary's editorial is that it exists, which points to a failure of judgment on her part, as well as that of every member of the editorial board who read and signed off on her egregious "hot take." McQueary has since tried to walk back that heat: [embedtweet id="631947498358112256"] But she's unlikely to find any sympathetic ears for her vile thoughts. Before setting them to paper, she apparently made lovely caprese salad, and suffice it to say, the world would be a demonstrably better place if she'd just eaten it and called it day instead of insulting the memory of a defiantly undrowned and its dead.The Chicago Tribune's Kristen McQueary wrote an op-ed in which she claimed that the operative emotion one should feel as we approach the tenth anniversary of Katrina isn't despair over the thousands of easily preventable deaths, nor anguish at the lives and communities torn about, but envy because one of the greatest natural disasters in American history allowed the city to bust the teachers' unions and overhaul city hall. "Hurricane Katrina gave a great American city a rebirth," she wrote, conveniently ignoring the fact that 1,833 -- most of whom were poor and people of color -- paid for this civic rebirth with their lives. The toxic logic of white privilege on display here is staggering, as she characterizes the very real destruction of historical communities, as well as entire cultures, as "what it took to hit the reset button." Or, as she tweeted: [embedtweet id="631938344314798086"] McQueary provided a laundry list of conservative goals that the city met after it had been battered so badly it barely function as a city anymore: "[a] new mayor slashed the city budget, forced unpaid furloughs, cut positions, detonated labor contracts[,]" making "New Orleans' City Hall leaner and more efficient." It never occurred to her that if your ideology requires thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced in order to be enacted, the problem likely isn't the city -- it's your ideology. Putting aside that McQueary's vision of Chicago as a mansion on the hill requires the eradication of many of its African-American residents, the most disturbing aspect of her editorial is that she imagines herself to be one of those residents, stranded on a rooftop waving this very op-ed like a bed-sheet in the hopes of being rescued. "I can relate, metaphorically, to the residents of New Orleans climbing onto their rooftops and begging for help and waving their arms and lurching toward rescue helicopters." She did, literally, write that. But she went one step further, arguing that her plight is more desperate than those in New Orleans because "here, no one responds to the SOS messages painted boldly in the sky." Besides the fact that that final line makes absolutely no sense -- New Orleans residents weren't hiring biplanes to alert authorities as to their whereabouts via skywriting -- the problem with McQueary's editorial is that it exists, which points to a failure of judgment on her part, as well as that of every member of the editorial board who read and signed off on her egregious "hot take." McQueary has since tried to walk back that heat: [embedtweet id="631947498358112256"] But she's unlikely to find any sympathetic ears for her vile thoughts. Before setting them to paper, she apparently made lovely caprese salad, and suffice it to say, the world would be a demonstrably better place if she'd just eaten it and called it day instead of insulting the memory of a defiantly undrowned and its dead.The Chicago Tribune's Kristen McQueary wrote an op-ed in which she claimed that the operative emotion one should feel as we approach the tenth anniversary of Katrina isn't despair over the thousands of easily preventable deaths, nor anguish at the lives and communities torn about, but envy because one of the greatest natural disasters in American history allowed the city to bust the teachers' unions and overhaul city hall. "Hurricane Katrina gave a great American city a rebirth," she wrote, conveniently ignoring the fact that 1,833 -- most of whom were poor and people of color -- paid for this civic rebirth with their lives. The toxic logic of white privilege on display here is staggering, as she characterizes the very real destruction of historical communities, as well as entire cultures, as "what it took to hit the reset button." Or, as she tweeted: [embedtweet id="631938344314798086"] McQueary provided a laundry list of conservative goals that the city met after it had been battered so badly it barely function as a city anymore: "[a] new mayor slashed the city budget, forced unpaid furloughs, cut positions, detonated labor contracts[,]" making "New Orleans' City Hall leaner and more efficient." It never occurred to her that if your ideology requires thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced in order to be enacted, the problem likely isn't the city -- it's your ideology. Putting aside that McQueary's vision of Chicago as a mansion on the hill requires the eradication of many of its African-American residents, the most disturbing aspect of her editorial is that she imagines herself to be one of those residents, stranded on a rooftop waving this very op-ed like a bed-sheet in the hopes of being rescued. "I can relate, metaphorically, to the residents of New Orleans climbing onto their rooftops and begging for help and waving their arms and lurching toward rescue helicopters." She did, literally, write that. But she went one step further, arguing that her plight is more desperate than those in New Orleans because "here, no one responds to the SOS messages painted boldly in the sky." Besides the fact that that final line makes absolutely no sense -- New Orleans residents weren't hiring biplanes to alert authorities as to their whereabouts via skywriting -- the problem with McQueary's editorial is that it exists, which points to a failure of judgment on her part, as well as that of every member of the editorial board who read and signed off on her egregious "hot take." McQueary has since tried to walk back that heat: [embedtweet id="631947498358112256"] But she's unlikely to find any sympathetic ears for her vile thoughts. Before setting them to paper, she apparently made lovely caprese salad, and suffice it to say, the world would be a demonstrably better place if she'd just eaten it and called it day instead of insulting the memory of a defiantly undrowned and its dead.

View more on Lily Salter's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 14, 2015 05:52

Paul Krugman explains the looming economic crisis that “bodes ill for the world as a whole”

View more on Lily Salter's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 14, 2015 05:07

“Even less representative” than cops: Why prosecutors’ offices also need major reform

View more on Lily Salter's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 14, 2015 05:00

Donald Trump, mad king of the extremists: What his surging popularity reveals about the GOP’s most dangerous strategy

On Tuesday, heavily armed members of the right-wing organization “Oath Keepers,” which reportedly has about 30,000 members and is made up of former military personnel, police officers and first responders, showed up to the uneasy streets of Ferguson. They claimed to be protecting a reporter from Alex Jones’ InfoWars.com (although InfoWars denies involvement with the group), while seemingly trying to educate black residents about their constitutional rights, as seen in these strangely cordial conversations. Whether the intentions of these armed white men were sincere, as Andrew O’Hehir concludes in his excellent piece on the subject, is up to debate -- but they were clearly delusional if they expected a warm greeting walking into a black neighborhood -- and one where systemic racism is rampant -- with semi-automatic rifles. With all of their knowledge of the Constitution, it is hard to believe these men would be ignorant of America's long and dark history of vigilante violence, which has been routinely perpetrated by white men against people of color and left wing radicals fighting oppression over the past two centuries. Indeed, the most famous of all vigilante groups in the United States was the Ku Klux Klan, which was dedicated to using violence and fear (i.e. terrorism) to keep African Americans oppressed and impoverished in the South. This particular group of militia men, dedicated to defending the “Constitution (their rigid interpretation, I assume) against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” previously came to the defense of infamous Nevada rancher, Cliven Bundy, who got into a standoff with the federal government over unpaid cattle grazing fees on federally owned land. After being praised by the right wing media, Bundy ended up showing just how much of a bigoted anachronism he was in an interview with the New York Times:

“[African Americans are] basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

This disgustingly racist view is particularly ironic when it is taken into account that Bundy has been receiving subsidy from the government for two decades as a welfare rancher who hasn’t paid what he owes -- a measly $1.35 per month for each cow, to maintain the public land he grazes on. “Oath Keepers” is just one organization among many other right wing extremist groups and movements currently growing, and alarming the government. Take, for example, the “sovereign citizen” movement, which has been estimated to have up to 300,000 believers (although there is no central organization). Sovereign citizens are more or less conservative extremists who have taken their ideology one step further than the most dogmatic of libertarians. They do not recognize federal or state governments, and only abide by their own interpretation of common laws -- which is convenient for anyone who doesn’t want to pay any taxes. Over the years, self-described sovereign citizens have gotten into gunfights with police officers, and are considered a major threat by the FBI. According to a survey that New York Times conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum, out of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent list anti-government extremism as a top terrorist threats in their jurisdiction, compared to just 39 percent for Islamic extremism. Right wing extremist groups range from white supremacy, nationalism, nativism, and anti-government extremism like the Sovereign Citizen movement. This increase of rightwing extremism in America poses the question of whether these aggressively reactionary movements are actually gaining traction in the political mainstream. Longtime war reporter and columnist Chris Hedges believes that a popular and radical movement is coming in the United States, but whether it will be based on progressive values, as we see with the Sanders’ campaign, or reactionary dogmatism, as we see with organizations like Oath Keepers or individuals like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, is a question that remains unanswered. In his new book, “Wages of Rebellion,” Hedges writes of the reactionary passions we currently see in the United States, and what they could lead to if unchecked:

“Left unchecked, the hatred for radical Islam will transform itself into a hatred for Muslims. The hatred for undocumented workers will become a hatred for Mexicans and Central Americans. The hatred for those not defined by this largely white movement as American patriots will become a hatred for African Americans. The hatred for liberals will morph into a hatred for all democratic institutions, from universities to government agencies to the press. Beleaguered whites, battered by a stagnant and flagging economy, are retreating, especially in the South, into a mythical self-glorification built around the Confederacy. This retreat resembles the absurdist national and ethnic myths that characterized the former Yugoslavia when it unraveled.”

The form of populism that we have seen Donald Trump embrace, a kind of nationalist nativism, promising to “make America great again” by keeping the brown people out and bringing jobs back to white America, has obviously gained traction. Trump is the antithesis of a career politician. He is openly sexist and xenophobic, but does not have to worry about losing campaign donations from his inflammatory comments. He does not talk like an anti-government rhetorician, but instead embraces the passions of the rightwing base -- whether it be xenophobia, nationalism, or anti-intellectualism -- while also promising to use his strength as president to crack down on all of society's perceived ills. And here lies a major contradiction with this man, who talks endlessly about the concerns of conservatives, yet promises to address them with the strength of the federal government and executive office -- something which conservatives are supposed to oppose. When given a choice, it seems that followers of the extreme right are willing to use the strength of the federal government, as long as it is addressing their concerns (e.g. national security, illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage). Of course, not all conservatives have embraced Trump, and many see through his demagoguery -- but the people (at least a current plurality of GOP voters) have been enamored by his strongman shtick. Trump is just one person, and may very well fade away in the months to come -- but it is becoming clear that the right wing has increasingly retreated into a “mythical self-glorification,” as Hedges put it. Trump and his followers want to “make America great again.” But what does this mean? No doubt, Trump would say cutting our debt and bringing back jobs from China and Mexico, which is something most Americans would agree on. But the overwhelming rhetoric against immigration, foreign nations, and diplomacy (and diplomats) does point to a kind of retreat from reality into a hyper-nationalist mythology of American exceptionalism. Conservatives seem to be craving a strong personality like Trump, who can come into office and restore traditional values and America’s global supremacy with his superhuman business know-how. This similarly happened in the early 20th century, when strongmen like Mussolini and Hitler rose to power with a promise to restore national supremacy, while creating scapegoats for their problems. Trump wants to restore America’s greatness, and is going after immigrants and foreign nations to provoke much of white America. Again, there’s a good, perhaps even overwhelming, chance that Trump will eventually fade, but what about this growing reactionary energy? The surge of rightwing terrorism and extremist groups doesn’t seem to be fading, while the Republican party has become increasingly extremist over the past decade. When adding up the percentages of GOP primary candidates with 5 percent or more in the polls, it is found that 70 percent of GOP voters favor rightwing extremists who are anti-abortion, anti-government, anti-immigration, and even authoritarian (as seen with Trump). While progressivism has risen from its shallow grave over the past decade, so has reactionary populism of the right. It would be naive to think that society cannot turn back on the progress that has been fought for over time, which it has in the case of unionism and worker rights since the ‘80s. This is what the increasingly extremist right wing wants: to turn back time; and without a strong progressive movement standing in its way, this could all too easily happen.

View more on Lily Salter's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 14, 2015 04:59

Welcome to internment nation: The hideous truth that rightwing xenophobes & cowardly Dems won’t admit

Currently, the Obama administration is asking a federal judge to reconsider her ruling calling for the release thousands of immigrant mothers and their children caught crossing the Southern border. These women and children are now being held without charges in immigration detention centers in Texas. The Justice Department lawyers filed a 60-page response to Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to argue that family detention facilities run by the Department of Homeland Security are necessary to deter illegal immigration. In her recent ruling, Judge Gee found that the practice of detaining immigrant mothers and families violated a court settlement from 1997 involving children in the United States illegally, which requires that they be held in the “least restrictive” conditions possible. Last week, nearly every member of House Democratic Caucus signed a letter urging the administration to comply with Judge Gee’s ruling. Spearheaded by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a former immigration attorney who is the ranking member on a House subcommittee overseeing the policy, the letter includes a statement from Dr. Luis Zayas, Dean of the School of Social Work at the University of Texas. Based on his 39 years of experience, Dr. Zayas found that the children at Karnes Detention Center in Texas are “facing some of the most adverse childhood conditions of any children I have ever interviewed or evaluated.” House Democrats called for the administration to end this horror, stating “It is long past time to end family detention. In light of this recent federal court ruling, we urge you take all necessary and appropriate steps to bring the Department’s practices in line with the settlement agreement and the recent court ruling.” Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif.) visited the Karnes and Dilley detention centers and reported back what she saw, saying,

“I was one of the eight who visited the Karnes and Dilley detention center. And when I saw the Dilley detention center, I was so shocked at how isolated and barren it was. The first thing I thought was that they looked so much like the Japanese-American internment camps of World War II. I saw the sterile barracks, the muddy dirt pathways, the mass institutionalized cafeteria, and the guards everywhere. And I was shocked and so very moved by the desperate pleas of hundreds of mothers who came out to say, 'Release me, I am not a criminal,' and who scratched out picket signs that were written on their pillowcases and bedsheets.”

It’s the women who are telling us what’s happening inside. Two of the largest centers that are detaining immigrant mothers and children are located in Texas — in Dilley and in Karnes County. The Dilley facility holds 2,400 people and the Karnes County center can hold up to 532 people. This Monday, five immigrant women held in facilities with their children filed court papers seeking damages from the U.S. government for what they are arguing is psychological and physical harm as a result of being detained. One woman reported that the experience of detention was so intense, that her 8-year-old daughter attempted to breast-feed again. Another young mother, having passed the “credible fear” interview required of all asylum-seekers, was held for an additional 28 days. When she sought attention for a broken finger she was allegedly told to "drink more water.” According to the court papers, her son was later rushed to the hospital after "a virus apparently had gone untreated for a dangerously long time.” We have a long -- and ongoing -- history in this country of rounding up people we consider to be a threat, and holding them without due process. Representative Chu rightly invoked the interment of 120,000 Japanese Americans, as there are important lessons we might learn from that terrible moment in American History. These stories are not so different, after all, from the stories of Japanese Americans interned during WWII. Mary Tsukamoto, survivor of a Japanese American internment camp, recalled the sight she saw upon arriving,

“We saw all these people behind the fence, looking out, hanging onto the wire, and looking out because they were anxious to know who was coming in. But I will never forget the shocking feeling that human beings were behind this fence like animals [crying]. And we were going to also lose our freedom and walk inside of that gate and find ourselves…cooped up there…when the gates were shut, we knew that we had lost something that was very precious; that we were no longer free."

In 1943 when the interment of Japanese Americans (many of whom were U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents) began, similar arguments were made. The federal government argued then, as it is arguing now, that these people were being held without due process because of the threat they potentially posed. Many of the immigrants being held in detention centers today are from countries in Central America, fleeing horrific violence and seeking asylum here in the U.S. Many politicians and officials find it just to detain these women and children without due process, including those who have passed the tests required to prove that they would be in life threatening danger if sent back to their home countries. They claim that their ability to keep these women and children incarcerated is important to deterring others who might also seek asylum here. Republicans,meanwhile, are pushing the Obama administration to keep their family detention practices as they are. Last week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia argued that detaining immigrant mothers and children who cross the border illegally was an effective way to ensure they show up for their immigration court hearings. Now, when a federal court has determined their actions unjust, they are fighting to preserve the right to keep these women and children incarcerated indefinitely, and in deplorable conditions. Which American value is at play in detaining women and children fleeing violence and trauma, without due process or adequate medical care? We have a long legacy of incarcerating people who are not criminals. And an ongoing practice of incarcerating millions people whose only crime is poverty. The President himself as admitted as much. The women and children in these detention centers are not criminals. In this case they are women and children seeking asylum in a nation that falsely advertised itself as a safe haven. These are the folks that Donald Trump, currently leading the GOP presidential primary, along with many in his party, wants us to fear. That ratcheting of that fear is a longtime tactic to stoke anxiety and fear about our borders and security. As if the threat to our freedom hasn’t been inside the gates all along. Eesha Pandit is a writer and activist based in Houston, TX. You can follow her on twitter at @EeshaP, and find out more about her work at eeshapandit.com.

View more on Lily Salter's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 14, 2015 04:58

The laughable hypocrisy of the GOP’s Trump backlash

Donald Trump is a misogynist. This has been indisputable for decades, but many Republican leaders are finally starting to agree there might be something, you know, bigoted about Trump’s eagerness to use every sexist trope in the book to attack women he takes issue with.

Specifically, Republicans are "offended" that Donald Trump made a gross crack about Fox News host Megyn Kelly after Kelly dared ask him some tough questions during Thursday night’s Republican primary debate.

Conservative posturing about the evils of misogyny is sheer opportunism; that is hardly in dispute. Trump has been a pig as long as he’s been in the public eye, calling Rosie O’Donnell a “fat pig,” saying women from Gail Collins to Arianna Huffington are ugly because they disagree with him, and suggesting Anne Hathaway is a golddigger. That his hateful attitude toward women suddenly offends Republicans has little to do with sincere objections to misogyny and everything to do with the fact that Republican leadership wants Trump to end his stunt race now, before his antics do any further damage to the Republican brand.

But while Republican leaders have started to express disgust about Trump’s misogyny, Trump denies the charge, claiming, “I cherish women. I want to help women."

That Trump pulls this card is hardly a surprise. You’ll have more luck finding a talking dog than a misogynist who openly cops to hating women. The dictionary may define misogyny as “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women” but it’s usually a little more complex than that.

Your average misogynist, like Trump, often claims -- may even believe -- that he loves women. But that supposed love comes with a caveat, which is that he expects a woman to be subservient and know her place. If a woman steps out of line by disagreeing with the misogynist, rejecting his instructions on how to live her life, or behaving or dressing in a way he doesn’t like, that’s when the anger and hatred come pouring out.

Misogyny is more about male entitlement than anything else. It’s a direct result of men feeling entitled to women’s obedience, submission, silence, fawning adoration, or some combination of all of these. When the misogynist claims he loves women, he means women who are deferential to him and his desires. Incidentally, this also explains why there are so many female misogynists — women who have absorbed the message that women should be deferential to men and attack any women who disagree.

This is why it’s such an eye-rolling moment when sexist politicians or public figures push back against criticism by citing their love for their wives or daughters. No one is surprised that a sexist man thinks well of his doting wife. The question is how he feels about women who defy his instructions on what to believe and how to live and how to talk to men.

When a conservative like Erick Erickson defends Megyn Kelly while lobbing sexist vitriol at feminists, he’s not actually doing anything different than what Trump is doing. Like Trump, Erickson either puts women on pedestals or believes they are disgusting tramps to be spat upon. Like Trump, Erickson believes that the way to tell which woman is good or bad depends on whether she’s deferential to him. The only point of contention here is how to categorize Megyn Kelly. Since Erickson agrees with her, he wants to give her pedestal status. Since Trump disagrees with her, he wants to give her gutter status. But both men firmly agree that actually respecting women as equals, instead of objectifying them as either trophies or trash, is completely out of the question.

All of which is why none of this appears to be hurting Trump in the polls. Trump’s conservative critics aren’t really denouncing the practice of trying to put disobedient women in their place by telling them they are fat, ugly, slutty or should be ashamed of themselves for having female body functions. The only real point of contention is whether or not Megyn Kelly should be subject to the same treatment that any other woman who crosses an angry, sexist man will get. Since there’s no broader principle at stake, it all just looks like a pissing match between Trump and people who want someone else to get the Republican nomination. And it looks that way because that’s all it is.

Trump supporters aren't stupid. They grasp the incoherence of the Republican mainstream opinion. If sexism is an acceptable weapon to use against liberal women who speak out against you, then why is it suddenly not okay when the disobedient woman is a conservative? Most of Trump’s supporters don’t like it when feminists and liberals tell them not to call women bitches and sluts when they feel like it, so it’s not surprising that they’re not going to listen to conservatives to cut it out just because this particular woman works for Fox News.

This feud may end up hurting Trump in the polls, but it won’t be because he’s a misogynist. It’s clear that neither his supporters nor his conservative detractors give a fig about that, and as soon as this is all over, most will join back together to keep lobbing the same nasty insults at feminists and women in Democratic leadership. So this really comes down to a popularity contest between Trump and Kelly. Will Kelly's not inconsequential fan base in the conservative movement outgun the loud and proud Trump constituency? The answer is still unknown, but even if the Trump machine collapses, genuine conservative outrage over sexism will have played no part in it.