Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 178
February 1, 2018
After Aziz Ansari, here���s how we can make sex fun again
(Credit: oleg66 via iStock/Salon)
Talking about sex can be hard. If the Aziz Ansari debate has taught us anything, it���s that many men and women lack the language to comfortably communicate what they want and don���t want from a sexual encounter. Until now, conversations around consent have been largely delegated to liberal college campuses, in the domain of young activists, and have been a subject of much mockery among those on the right. Aziz Ansari���s case gives us a chance to change that. There really is a way to make consent something ordinary men and women actually want to practice in their own lives. No one wants to be responsible for the worst night of somebody’s life, after all.
People are understandably uneasy about discussing consent alongside the current wave of allegations of sexual misconduct and assault. For years, conservatives have mocked consent advocates and rolled their collective eyes at ���yes mean yes��� laws. Many people who agree that Harvey Weinstein is a villain are skeptical about Ansari (and the two cases are admittedly very different). Even left-leaning mainstream media has gotten in the game now: the New York Times published an op-ed calling the Aziz Ansari episode ���bad sex,��� and the Washington Post has written that the #MeToo movement ���should give one pause.���
Putting aside the important conversations about what kinds of allegations will hold up in a court of law, it���s a good time to remember that talking about sex shouldn���t be so bleak. Asking for consent isn’t supposed to feel weird or unnatural. Activists promoting consent frequently claim it can make sex better. Nicole Mazzeo, founder of Pleasure Pie, a Boston-based activist group that promotes sex positivity, agrees that being asked ���Do you want to do this?��� during sex is a turn-on. ���Sometimes I forget to ask myself what I want, so that increases my enjoyment,��� she says.
Sex, according to Mazzeo, ���needs to be mutual, enthusiastic. When you���re being sexual with someone, everyone should be excited about it and should want it. Sometimes that���s just not there.���
Speaking of the Babe article about Aziz Ansari, Mazzeo says, ���What made me cringe was that Grace tried to say no without really saying no, because I could relate so much to that. I wished she���d been more comfortable saying no.”
At the same time, she believes Ansari was in the wrong. ���It���s hard to imagine that he was certain she was saying yes.���
Mazzeo agreed it’s strange that in many stories like Grace���s, women often put their concern for the man���s feelings over their own physical wellbeing. Women can have a difficult time saying no. ���Often women are socialized to be accomodating and polite,��� Mazzeo points out. ���A lot of it is politeness and fear that the other person will be hurt by your rejection.���
She, like many consent activists, believe it���s especially important for women to learn they can take ownership of their sexual experiences and not think of themselves as being acted upon during sex. ���There���s this idea that women aren���t supposed to like or want sex, that men are supposed to be the gatekeepers to sex.���
Practicing consent is a way for women to reclaim their sexual power.�����As a woman, it can be hard to get to a place where you feel like a fully active participant in sex, and not prioritize the desires of another over your own desires. But everyone going into sex should prioritize everyone���s desires equally. If it seems like your partner isn���t as engaged, don���t think of it as the type of sex you���re trying to have.���
We can all learn a lot from the young leaders of the consent movement. Groups like Party With Consent have been hosting consent workshops at campuses for years. “Students struggle with coercion versus consent,” founder Jonathan Kalin told the Guardian. “Our program poses questions like: ‘If I asked you to have sex 20 times, and on the 21st time you agreed to stop me annoying you, is that consent?'”
As a man working to promote consent, Kalin has a keen understanding of why it’s so difficult for men to talk frankly about consensual sex. “Understanding sex is central to our masculinity, up there with athletic ability and financial success,” Kalin told AlterNet. “If you’re masculine enough it’s something that you just ‘get.'” Kalin says many men want sex communication to “look effortless like we often see in movies. Our education system and media has done very little to promote what healthy sexual consent is supposed to look like for young men.” Also to blame:��“the years of male-gaze pornography he has consumed.”
A common thread among the consent community is that consent should be fun and sex-positive. Asking for consent certainly helps prevent miscommunications ��� that may lead to allegations of assault in a worst-case scenario ��� but many consent activists would rather focus on the more upbeat aspects of consent, like the ways it can make people more comfortable with their bodies and help them enjoy sex more. As sex educator Emma McGowan writes in Bustle, ���No one likes the idea of having to stop making out and say, ‘Can I kiss? Are you OK with my hand on your leg? Do you like when I touch your hair?’ like some automaton every time something new is introduced. Nothing about that model is appealing.���
Luckily, there are other, less uncomfortable ways. Another consent group, the Consensual Project, has published an awesome list of no-fuss ways that people can bring consent practices��into their own lives. These methods aren���t formal or rigid; they focus on making sex fun and comfortable for both parties. Those who think of consent as a constant repetition of ���Is this okay?��� in the middle of a hookup may be pleased to read the Consensual Project���s list of open-ended questions:
What are you into?
What would you like?
What���s turning you on right now?
What about X turns you on?
The group writes, “Further, if you ask yes-or-no questions and you���re that much more likely to receive yes-or-no answers. For example, instead of always asking, ‘Do you want me to (touching motion) your (body part)?’ try out ‘Where do you want my hands?’ Be prepared to enjoy unexpected answers!”
They also suggest creative activities like writing an erotic letter to get more comfortable talking about what you want during sex:
“What is a love letter? It���s pretty self explanatory. It���s an opportunity to creatively envision your next hookup. You can explore the mood, the environment, the wardrobe, or anything and everything you can imagine. That way, when it comes time for your next hookup, you���ll be more equipped to express what you want. It’s real fun and you don���t have to be a major in literature to do it.”
Some takeaways: men, asking for consent doesn���t have to be emasculating or overly formal. And women, getting comfortable with speaking up during sex can make sex even better. ���It will be awkward at first, but you get used to it and it makes sex better in the long run,��� Mazzeo says.
Mazzeo, for one, feels optimistic about the future. ���I really hope that having a spotlight on this stuff will help us move forward into a place where we have more agreements about what consent means. I think we���re moving in a positive direction.���
January 31, 2018
Trump is engaged in a slow motion Saturday Night Massacre
Donald Trump; James Comey; Andrew McCabe (Credit: AP/Evan Vucci/Alex Brandon/Jacquelyn Martin)
Trump and his minions started lying about Russia the minute the subject came up. The reason they lied was to prevent anyone from knowing what they had done with Russians during the presidential campaign of 2016 and the transition that followed. They wanted to keep their contacts with Russians a secret because they knew what they had done was illegal, and they knew they were already under investigation. They began obstructing that investigation even before it was known to the public. They began with a blizzard of lies. We saw the lies morph from ���we did not meet with any Russians,��� to ���maybe, we met with some Russians but all we talked about were issues like adoption,��� to ���okay, there were contacts with Russians about the campaign, but there was no collusion,��� to ���oh, by the way, there was no obstruction!��� Then they began firing anyone who got too close to the truth.
What we have been witnessing since early in 2017 is a slow motion Saturday night massacre, the modern equivalent of the night Richard Nixon fired Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an attempt to stop the investigation of the crime of the Watergate break-in and the subsequent cover-up. This time the crime is far more serious: the theft of the presidential election of 2016. But the cover-up is the same old lying, firing, and obstruction of justice.
The first article of impeachment brought by the House of Representatives against Richard Nixon on July 27, 1974 held that he had ���prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.��� It listed multiple ways Nixon and his people had done this. The Congress held that they had made ���false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;��� they had withheld ���relevant and material evidence or information;��� they had caused witnesses to give ���false or misleading statements;��� they had interfered ���with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;��� they had ���misused the Central Intelligence Agency;��� and they had made ���false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.���
Let���s have a look back at what Donald Trump and his people have done over the last year or so and see if we can find the same kind of lies and firings and obstruction of justice that the Congress charged Nixon with.
On January 10, 2017, ten days before Trump took the oath of office, the lying began. Jeff Sessions, Trump���s nominee for Attorney General lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he denied that he had had any contacts with Russians during the campaign or knew of anyone who did. ��Trump sent out a tweet calling the Steele dossier (which was published by Buzzfeed that day) ���fake news.���
On January 11, Trump tweeted, ���I have nothing to do with Russia.���
On January 13, Sean Spicer, newly named White House spokesman, went before the press and lied about the five phone calls between National Security Adviser nominee Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on December 29, telling the press the calls had concerned only ���logistical information.���
On January 15, Trump told the Times of London ���we should trust Putin��� and called the Steele dossier ���false.��� Vice President-elect Mike Pence, asked about the calls between Flynn and Kislyak, said they were not about sanctions. He then went on Fox News Sunday and denied that there had been any contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians.
On January 18, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner lied on his application for a top secret security clearance by omitting his meetings with Russians during the campaign and transition, including the meeting at Trump Tower in June and his meetings with Kislyak and Putin pal and head of VEB bank Sergey Gorkov at Trump Tower during the transition.
On January 23, at his first official White House press briefing, Sean Spicer said Flynn had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak.
On January 24, Michael Flynn lied to the FBI when he denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak on December 29.
On January 26, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates informed the White House that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversation with Kislyak and told them he had made himself subject to Russian blackmail. The White House at this moment knew that the National Security Adviser had given ���false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States,��� in the words of the first article of impeachment of Richard Nixon.
On January 27, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russians during the campaign.
Also on January 27, Trump invited FBI Director James Comey to the White House for dinner and asked for his ���loyalty,��� inferring that his acquiescence to this request would be necessary for him to stay on as FBI director.
On January 30, Trump fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, the official who had informed him that his National Security Adviser had lied to the FBI. Knowing that Michael Flynn had committed a felony, the President nevertheless kept him on the job.
On February 8, Flynn lied in an interview with the Washington Post when he denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak.
On February 10, Trump lied when he told reporters he was ���unaware��� of Flynn���s discussions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Trump had been told on January 24 about Flynn���s contacts with Kislyak by Sally Yates.
On February 13, Michael Flynn resigned as National Security Adviser, setting a record for the shortest term in that job in American history.
On February 14, Sean Spicer denied that anyone in the Trump campaign had had any contacts with Russians.
Also on Februay 14, Trump held FBI Director Comey behind in the Oval Office after Sessions and Pence and others left the room and sought to protect Michael Flynn by telling Comey he wanted the FBI Director to ���let Flynn go.���
On February 15, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus called Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe (fired this week from his job at the FBI) and asked him to ��deny there had been contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. McCabe ��refused to lie for the White House.
Also on February 15, the White House reached out to ���senior members of the intelligence community and Congress��� in an attempt to rebut reports about Russian contacts by the Trump campaign. Senior intelligence officials made calls to reporters dismissing the Russia contacts as ���inconsequential��� according to the Washington Post. Senator Richard Burr and Congressman Devin Nunes, heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees, were also asked by the White House to declare news reports about Trump campaign contacts with Russians as ���false.���
On February 16, in his first major news conference as President, Donald Trump lied to the American people when he denounced stories about contacts between his campaign and Russians as ���fake news.��� He was asked repeatedly if anyone in his campaign had any contacts with Russians. Trump, knowing that Flynn had been in contact repeatedly with Kislyak, lied again saying, ���No, nobody that I know of.���
On February 19, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus went on the Sunday talk shows and lied when he called news reports about Russia contacts ���complete garbage.��� Also, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski denied on the ABC News program ���This Week��� that there had been contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians.���
On February 28, the House Judiciary Committee, in a party line vote, killed a motion calling for President Trump to provide documents about the connections between his campaign and Russians.
On March 1, Attorney General Sessions issued a new statement about his contacts with Russians, admitting that he had met with Russians, but that he had ���never met with any Russian officials to discuss any issues of the campaign.����� This was the formal introduction of stage two of the lying, going from ���no contacts with Russians��� to ���no contacts with Russians about the campaign.���
On March 2, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, ��yielding to Department of Justice rules that barred his leadership of the investigation.
Also on March 2, former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page went on MSNBC and confirmed that he had met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which he had previously denied. A report in USA Today also revealed that another campaign aide, J.D. Gordon, had met with Kislyak during the Republican National Convention.
Also on March 2, the New York Times reported that during the transition, a meeting took place in Trump Tower between Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Michael Flynn.
On March 3, a camera outside the Oval Office captured Trump erupting in a display of anger over revelations in the press about the Russia connections. Present at the meeting were Reince Priebus, Stephen K. Bannon, White House counsel Don McGahn, press secretary��Sean Spicer, White House communications director Mike Dubke, Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, according to sources cited by ABC News.
On March 4, seeking to distract attention from the Russia story, Trump tweeted at 6:35 a.m. from Mar-a-Lago that ���Obama had my wires tapped in Trump Tower.���
On March 20, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, FBI Director James Comey said there was no evidence that the Obama administration had ���tapped��� Trump���s phones. He volunteered the information that the FBI had been conducting a criminal and counter-intelligence investigation of the Trump campaign and its contacts with Russians for the last nine months.
Within days of Comey���s testimony, Trump called Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Director of the National Security Agency Admiral Michael Rogers and asked both men to publicly deny that there had been any evidence of collusion with Russians by the Trump campaign during the election. Both men refused.
On March 22, House Intelligence Committee chief Devin Nunes went on his infamous White House snipe hunt, producing false reports that the Obama White House had illegally ���unmasked��� the identities of Trump campaign officials during surveillance of Russians in 2016.
Also on March 22, at a meeting with senior national security officials in the Oval Office, Trump asked everyone to leave except DIA Director Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. He then asked both men to intervene with FBI Director James Comey and get him to ���back off��� the Russia investigation, thus interfering ���with the conduct of investigations of the Department of Justice of the United States and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,��� in the words of the first article of impeachment of Richard Nixon.
On March 30, Trump called FBI Director Comey in his FBI office and asked him to ���lift the cloud��� of the Russia investigation, yet another attempt to interfere with the FBI investigation.
On April 5, Russian Ambassador Kislyak met with Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner and other top Trump administration officials at a VIP reception before Trump���s foreign policy address at the Mayflower Hotel. Right after this meeting, Trump called the ���Russia story,��� which was about meetings between his people and Russians, a ���total hoax.���
On April 6, Devin Nunes recused himself from the Russia investigation by his own committee.
On April 10, Trump again called Comey and asked him what had been done to ���get out��� information that he was not under investigation. He told Comey ���the cloud��� of the Russia investigation is getting in the way of him doing his job.
On April 29, on his 100th day in office, Trump went on CBS News ���Face the Nation��� and said ���The concept of Russia with respect to us is a total phony story.���
On May 3, Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and confirmed that it was Russia that hacked the files of the DNC and refused to say that Trump was not under investigation. According to reports the next day, when Trump heard this, he was enraged.
On May 5, one of Session���s aides at the Justice Department asked a staff member on one of the committees investigating the Trump/Russia connections if they had ���dirt��� on Comey.
On the weekend of May 6-7, Trump met with aides at his Bedminster New Jersey golf resort and produced a letter justifying firing Comey.
On Monday, May 8, Trump met with senior White House officials including Vice President Pence and White House Counsel Don McGahn in an attempt to come up with a justification to fire Comey. Later that day, McGahn arranged for Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to meet with Trump in the Oval Office. They agree to produce a letter justifying the firing of Comey.
On Tuesday, May 9, Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, explaining that he was fired because of the way he handled Hillary Clinton���s emails.
On May 10, at a meeting in the Oval Office, Trump told Russian Ambassador Kislyak he fired Comey, explaining that ���I faced great pressure because of Russia. ��That���s taken off.���
On May 11, asked by NBC News anchor Lester Holt why he fired Comey, Trump answered ���Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it. ��And in fact, when I decided to do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.���
More lies and more firings were to come, most recently that of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the man who took over the Russia investigation after Comey was fired. Now there are reports that the next neck on the block is that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the man who appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to be in charge of the Russia investigation. There is rampant speculation that Mueller himself will be next.
Trump and senior members of his administration, all the way from the White House spokesman to the Attorney General to the Vice President of the United States, have engaged in a blizzard of lies and misleading statements to law enforcement investigators, congressional committees, and the press and the American people in furtherance of a continuing campaign of obstruction of justice of the Russia investigation. They have lied and obstructed justice to cover up what they have done for one reason: because lying and obstructing is potentially less of a crime than what they are covering up, which is the theft of the presidential election of 2016 in conjunction with forces of a foreign power hostile to the interests of the country, namely Russia.
It���s been a slow motion massacre of justice. The only question now is who will be left standing when it���s over: Donald Trump or the rule of law in the United States of America.
“It feels like the future of comedy and entertainment”: The magic of “2 Dope Queens”
Jessica Williams and Phoebe Robinson in "2 Dope Queens" (Credit: HBO/Mindy Tucker)
Every moment with Jessica Willliams and Phoebe Robinson, better known as the 2 Dope Queens, feels like hanging out with your closest friends. The mark of any successful performer is their ability to make people feel an intimate familiarity with them, of course, but the Queens take it to another level.
���It’s cool to be noticed in the airport when I have slight B.O. flying home to Cleveland and I���m like, ���My apologies,��� Robinson remarked, out of nowhere.
������Slight��� is so specific,��� Williams replied, leading Robinson to explain, ���I���m a sweat-er. I sweat a lot.���
Williams refused to let it go. ���I feel blessed,��� she said. ���I honestly feel blessed not to sweat. I am. It’s just not an issue. Also, it’s my one thing that I feel like I can brag about where it’s like, ���I don’t sweat that much. Aso, I have big nail beds. And so that’s it. Anyway. Please continue.���
This is how the 2 Dope Queens kicked off a recent interview with Salon.
We share this because we care, but also to demonstrate the convivial warm chemistry that makes Williams and Robinson���s dynamic appeal to millions podcast listeners. Because it only takes a few moments with the pair to suss out what it is that makes them so dope: Not only are Williams and Robinson quick-witted comedians, they also love to warmly affirm the best traits of their guests and, by proxy, their audience.
���I just love when our fans are like I feel like you guys are my best friends and I feel like when I’m with you guys I feel like I’m hanging out with my girlfriends,��� Williams explained. ��And it’s like hell yeah, that’s like one of the reasons why we started to do this podcast and it really is one of the best things ever to get recognized for that specifically.���
On Friday at 11:30 p.m., Williams and Robinson bring the magic of ���2 Dope Queens��� to HBO, which has granted them four comedy specials directed by Tig Notaro. And if the specials surface memories of ���Def Comedy Jam��� or ���Queens of Comedy,��� that���s intentional.
���We wanted this show to be something that highlights women, queer people, people of color, and have that be a celebration because those voices aren’t represented enough in the comedy landscape,��� Robinson said.
Part stand-up showcase and part talk show, each episode ���2 Dope Queens��� takes place on a stage designed to resemble the borough���s coolest rooftop hangout. ��Individual hours are built around specific themes, with the Queens taking on ���New York��� in week one, followed by ���Hair,��� ���Hot Peen��� and ���Black Nerds,��� but Williams��� and Robinson���s shared gift of riffing gives each episode a freewheeling comedy that infects everyone involved.
And what would a New York rooftop party be without a few extraordinary guests? Williams��� former boss at ���The Daily Show,��� Jon Stewart, pops in for the opening installment. ���Divorce��� star Sarah Jessica Parker drops by in week two, with Tituss Burgess and Uzo Aduba swinging by for the subsequent outings.
Celebrity cameos are by no means a new addition to ���2 Dope Queens���; the podcast has featured the likes of Kevin Bacon (with whom Robinson appeared in the Amazon series ���I Love Dick���), LeVar Burton, Marc Maron, Vanessa Bayer and Jon Hamm.
Even so, Robinson admitted that neither she or Williams had any idea that the podcast they launched in 2016 would transform into an HBO special so quickly. ���But I think that us having a show, and Issa Rae having ���Insecure,��� and [Donald Glover] having ���Atlanta,��� and Mindy Kaling not only having her own show but now producing other shows, it really feels like there is a shift where the landscape is starting to become more diverse. I think that is the greatest thing.���
The ���2 Dope Queens��� specials are the latest example of Williams��� and Robinsons��� growing fame. Not long from now, in fact, people may think of these four hours as something of a countdown to launch: Williams���s and Robinson���s careers are on the verge of taking off in a very big way.
Beyond her work as a former senior correspondent on ���The Daily Show,��� the half-hour���s youngest ever, Williams starred in ���The Incredible Jessica James��� and is set to appear in ���Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.��� She���s also set to produce and star in her own Showtime pilot.
Robinson also has a Netflix movie due out this year, ���Ibiza,��� in which she co-stars with Vanessa Bayer and Gillian Jacobs and is developing her best-selling ���You Can’t Touch My Hair (And Other Things I Still Have to Explain)��� into a TV project.
Aside from ���2 Dope Queens,��� Robinson also toplines another podcast, ���Sooo Many White Guys,��� which she co-produces with ���Broad City��� star Ilana Glazer, which launched in 2016.
The stars��� ���2 Dope Queens��� relationship actually started 2015, when they met at one of Robinson���s stand-up shows.
Out of that emerged a live comedy show named after Robinson���s blog ���Blaria LIVE!��� which evolved into their current brand while maintaining the duo���s original objective to showcase up-and-coming performers from underrepresented demographics, specific LGBTQ comedians and people of color. And their live stage format blossomed into a podcast hit, with 48 episodes ���2 Dope Queens��� preceding their HBO specials, recorded in October and November at Brooklyn’s Kings Theatre.
Robinson said the difference between what they do on ���2 Dope Queens��� and other interview shows is that the conversations featured don���t feel like celebrities promoting projects. ���Someone like Sarah Jessica Parker who’s been interviewed millions of times, I think she really enjoyed that we made it not feel like a ���stuff��� situation,��� she said. ��We just taught her about black hair. I don’t think she’s ever been in a situation where someone was like, “What do you know about black hair?” And she’s like, ���I don’t know that much but I would love to learn.������
That, she said, makes the cameo component of ���2 Dope Queens��� ��and ���organic companion piece to the stand up comics who come on and they are just killing it joke after joke. All these different things check all the boxes on a variety show comedy special.”
Combining that experience with the specials��� filming in the Kings Theatre, Willliams added, made it feel like they finally arrived. ���That’s such a big part of our show that we tape it in Brooklyn because that’s where we both live. It was just really nice to be home.���
Especially at this moment in time. Citing the presales success of ���Black Panther��� and the outstanding box-office of the 2017 summer blockbuster ���Girls Trip,��� Robinson said, ���it’s kind of forcing people to be like you can’t ignore us any longer. You can’t turn away.���
���And even when you look at our audience that we’ve built together it’s such a mixed bag,��� Williams added ���We have beautiful cocoa Khaleesis, we have white guys, we have Latinas, we have members of the LGBTQ community. It’s so awesome when we walk out onstage and we get to see all walks of life reflected back at us. It feels like the future of comedy and entertainment. The future looks bright.���
���A new day is on the horizon, as Oprah says,��� Robinson declared, tossing in, ���My best friend Oprah. Sorry, Gayle. I’m actually her best friend.���
���You should fact check that and make sure,��� Williams added.
���Never been to Oprah’s house,��� Robinson continued, ���but we are best friends.���*
Williams concludes, ���I love that the footnote of this article is going to be like Oprah’s team did not confirm this comment.���
Who knows? As these ladies have proven, a lot can change in a year or two.
*However, at present, Oprah���s team did not confirm this comment.
Antifa vs. Milo Yiannopoulos: Who won?
People protesting controversial Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, February 1, 2017 in Berkeley, California. (Credit: Getty/Elijah Nouvelage)
A year has passed since black-clad anti-fascists smashed windows and launched fireworks to shut down right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos��� scheduled speech at the University of California, Berkeley, on February 1, 2017. Unsurprisingly, pundits immediately condemned these ���masked hoodlums who arrived from off-campus��� for denigrating Yiannopoulos��� ���freedom of speech.��� The year of conflict on campus that ensued around speakers like Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer and Charles Murray provoked fascinating debates about speech rights that tap into our most deeply held principles. But pundits also objected to the ���no-platforming��� of Yiannopoulos for another reason: that ���such actions turbo-charge his fame.���
Berkeley witnessed ���self-defeating violence��� that was a ���gift��� to Yiannopoulos, according to The Chicago Tribune. A��column in The New Yorker argued the protest was ���a tactical error��� that ���served his ultimate interests.��� ���Milo Yiannopoulos feeds on your violent protests,��� The Daily Beast claimed, because they allowed him to cultivate his ���image as a victim of liberal intolerance.��� Ultimately, ���resorting to violence is particularly stupid,��� The Telegraph asserted, because it plays into Yiannopoulos��� ���oh-so-obvious trolling.���
As surely as the sun rises in the east, smashing windows to shut down a self-described ���provocateur��� was allegedly destined to propel Milo Yiannopoulos into the media stratosphere. But did it? A year is a reasonable enough sample size to start assessing the real effects of the Berkeley protest and the accuracy of pundit predictions.
The media frenzy that followed on the heels of the Berkeley protest seemed to confirm the assumption that bonfires benefitted Yiannopoulos. Pre-orders of his book “Dangerous” skyrocketed and Bill Maher fawned over him on “Real Time.” Overnight, Milo Yiannopoulos had become a household name.
Yiannopoulos��� fortunes started to change a little over two weeks later, however, when a video surfaced showing him making pro-pedophilia remarks. Immediately this revelation caused Simon & Schuster to terminate his lucrative book deal, the conservative conference��CPAC to cancel his��planned speech��at��its annual event��and hard-right news site Breitbart to urge his resignation from his editorial post. Though this fiasco was largely self-inflicted, the timing of the release of this 2016 video shortly after the Berkeley protest suggests that enhanced scrutiny accompanied his newfound fame. As the self-described ���supervillain of the internet��� was about to be welcomed into the conservative mainstream at CPAC, the conservative ���Reagan Battalion��� site unearthed his pedophilia comments. Yiannopoulos seems to have flown too close to the sun. Despite the media predictions that militant protest would ���only help��� his brand soar, it became painfully obvious that not all publicity is good publicity when you have skeletons in the closet.
More skeletons were unearthed when Buzzfeed published an expos�� revealing Yiannopoulos��� links to prominent white nationalists and neo-Nazis. As the months fell off the 2017 calendar, Yiannopoulos was denounced by his former mentor Steve Bannon, defunded by the right-wing Mercer family and booted out of his role as a weekly contributor for The Daily Caller after one column. (The Daily Caller editor who brought him on was fired as well.) Even his own lawyers abandoned him in his suit against Simon & Schuster for terminating his book contract.
The impact of the Berkeley demonstration and other anti-Milo protests is most obvious when we examine the trajectory of Yiannopoulos���s speaking engagements. From February 2016 through the infamous Berkeley incident on February 1, 2017, Yiannopoulos scheduled approximately 61 public speaking appearances (most for his ���Dangerous Faggot Tour���). Of those 61, twelve were shut down by protesters or cancelled by administrators for security concerns. Notable examples other than Berkeley included Black Lives Matter protesters who confronted Yiannopoulos at DePaul University in May 2016 (a planned return to DePaul in September was cancelled by the administration) and students and allies at UC Davis who successfully blocked the entrance to an event Yiannopoulos had scheduled with Martin Shkreli in January 2017. Another seven of his talks were cancelled for logistical reasons. At least five of the��42 that occurred were interrupted in one way or another: Rutgers students smeared themselves with fake blood, UCLA students attempted to block the entrance to the event, and University of Minnesota, Twin Cities students interrupted him with air horns.
How did the media spectacle of bonfires and fireworks at Berkeley affect Yiannopoulos���s ability to organize future speaking engagements? Robert Schlesinger, writing in��U.S. News & World Report, was confident back in February 2017 that the actions of ���the masked vigilantes��. . . no doubt guaranteed another dozen speaking engagements��� for Yiannopoulos. Actually, he failed to deliver even that modest number of public talks over the next year. Though Yiannopoulos attempted to schedule about 16 public talks between February 2, 2017 and February 1, 2018, six of those planned talks were cancelled at universities like San Diego State or private venues like the Patio Theater in Chicago because of a mix of popular pressure and ���security��� concerns. The United Liberty Coalition attempted to bring Yiannopoulos to Phoenix, but they gave up after they were rejected by 62 different venues. Eight of his talks, including all seven in Australia, were listed as occurring in a ���secret location��� to deter protesters. One of the only openly advertised events Yiannopoulos managed to organize was the woeful ���Free Speech Week��� at Berkeley in September 2017, which collapsed into a 20-minute talk in front of an audience of 50-100.
This dramatic decline in his public appearances over the past year is directly correlated with the precedent set in February 2017 at Berkeley. Love it or hate it, images of targeted property destruction in northern California provided a powerful incentive for venues to avoid potential headaches.
Reasonable people will disagree about the influence of the Berkeley protest on Yiannopoulos��� plummet. What is not debatable, however, is that media predictions about the inevitable ascent of Milo Yiannopoulos after getting shut down in Berkeley were wrong. A year later, already banned from Twitter, Yiannopoulos now has no access to media platforms like Breitbart and the Daily Caller, no publisher for his books, no mega-donors to bankroll him and dwindling opportunities for public speaking. In an age of social media and 24-hour cable news cycles, Yiannopoulos is already old news. The short-lived nature of his stardom is even evident on Google Trends which shows that after spiking in early 2017, the frequency of subsequent Google searches for his name have plunged to 2016 levels.
Yet, this discussion misses the most crucial aspect of protests at Berkeley, Rutgers, DePaul, UCLA and other campuses. Pundits asked how protests would affect Milo Yiannopoulos��� public profile. They failed to ask more important questions: How do Yiannopoulos��� events and the rhetoric he spews endanger those he targets, and how can they fight back? How these protests affect Yiannopoulos (or other��far-right figures like Richard Spencer or Ann Coulter) is interesting; how they affect resistance to the far right is essential. Lost in such debates is the astounding��mobilization over recent years of a broad anti-racist movement encompassing Black Lives Matter groups, labor unions, faith communities, immigrants��� rights coalitions, anti-fascist networks, feminist collectives and LGBTQ organizations that will not just ignore attempts to make white supremacy great again. We must situate the property destruction at Berkeley, heckling at UMASS Amherst, the air horns at Minnesota, the blockade at UC Davis, and other acts of disruption within this process of movement-building to understand their full effect.
Strategic and tactical debates rage within these circles, as they do in all movements. But by smashing windows rather than allowing Yiannopoulos to out undocumented students, as Berkeley officials he was about to do, by dousing oneself in fake blood rather than let him promote rape culture, by barricading the entrance to his event rather than give him an opportunity to verbally attack a transgender student (as he had at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee), these students and their allies prioritized the safety of those under attack and expanded the range of tactics available to resist the far right.
More fundamental than the tactical repertoire, however, is a shared understanding that it is dangerous to allow the��far right to normalize racism, xenophobia and homophobia (for even the openly gay Yiannopoulos penned an article title ���Gay Rights have made us Dumber, It���s Time to Get Back in the Closet���). If we truly believe that Black Lives Matter, then we cannot accept the discursive legitimacy of anti-black racism that argues otherwise. If we are committed to taking seriously those who have spoken out to say #MeToo, then we cannot shrug off the anti-feminist promotion of patriarchal values as a simple difference of opinion. We may disagree about how to resist, but resist we must.
This requires expanding our view beyond the capriciousness of celebrity. As long as there is demand for outlandish misogyny or Islamophobia, the next Milo will step up to bask in the spotlight. Protest is not just about influencing an intended target, but building power.
Would shutting down Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley in February 2017 propel him into stardom? A year later we can see that pundits offered us the wrong answer. Yet, if we focus on resistance, we can also see that they were asking the wrong question.
Missouri Attorney General blames human trafficking on 1960s sexual revolution
Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (Credit: Getty/Michael B. Thomas)
Josh Hawley, attorney general for the state of Missouri and reportedly a ���top Republican��� prospect for the November state Senate race����according to the Kansas City Star, is��facing scrutiny��for strange statements��he made regarding sex trafficking.
Hawley, a Republican��and a��vehement supporter of Donald Trump ��� as a��glance at his Twitter��timeline reveals ��� reportedly said that sex trafficking, his office���s new area of focus,��was a result of the 1960s sexual revolution. The Kansas City Star reported on the shocking claim after obtaining audio of the attorney general���s speech at an event hosted by the��Missouri Renewal Project, a religious organization.
Here���s what Hawley��said, according to The Star:
���We have a human trafficking crisis in our state and in this city and in our country because people are willing to purchase women, young women, and treat them like commodities. There is a market for it. Why is there? Because our culture has completely lost its way. The sexual revolution has led to exploitation of women on a scale that we would never have imagined, never have imagined,���
���We must … deliver a message to our culture that the false gospel of ���anything goes��� ends in this road of slavery. It ends in the slavery and the exploitation of the most vulnerable among us. It ends in the slavery and exploitation of young women.���
Human trafficking is indeed an issue in the state of Missouri. According to statistics published by the National Human Trafficking Hotline, Missouri had the 16th highest reported human trafficking cases reported. However,��it seems preposterous to link sex trafficking to��what Hawley refers to as ���the sexual revolution.”��Hawley���s conspiratorial, hyper-conservative remarks are disconcerting, to say the least.
The umbrella term “human trafficking”��refers not just to��sex trafficking,��but also��labor trafficking and child soldiery, according to the Freedom First Federation. Thus, to make the claim that��human trafficking is related to the sexual revolution is simply not true.
According to the Freedom First Federation there are many causes��of human trafficking ��� including��poverty, economic inequality, war and political upheaval, and marginalization.
The Blue Campaign, a collaborative anti���human trafficking initiative led by the Department of Homeland Security, says that��human trafficking is generally economically motivated, and often occurs because it is a ���highly profitable crime.�����If Hawley were truly interested in��understanding the origins of��human trafficking, he could go online and look at the Department of Homeland Security’s website��that��debunks�����myths and misconceptions�����about human trafficking.
New report classifies US as a ���flawed democracy”
Democracy Spring and Democracy Awakening protesters rally in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on April 18, 2016 (Credit: Reuters/Joshua Roberts)
Just as��Donald Trump delivered his first State of the Union address on Tuesday night ��� in which he claimed that we had entered a ���new moment for America��� �����a consortium of prominent analysts��and economists studying democracies around the world ranked the United States��as a ���flawed democracy,��� a step below “full democracy,” for the second year in a row.��Could this be the ���new��� America Trump is��referring to?
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a��unit��under the aegis of The Economist magazine, released its annual Democracy Index report��today,��which��seeks to understand and measure��the state of democracy around the world.��Every country on Earth is��rated on a 0 to 10 scale,��which is itself��based on ���indicators��� from five categories: electoral process/pluralism, civil liberties, government functionality, political participation, and political culture.
In the EIU report, the U.S. received an overall score of 7.98, ranking second in the ���flawed democracy��� category,��tied with Italy. South Korea ranked slightly higher in the same category, and Japan ranked third with a 7.88 index. Countries that ranked in the top five (out of 19) ���full��� democracies included��Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand and Denmark.
As the report explains, nearly 49.3 percent of the world���s population live in a democracy ���of some sort,��� but only 4.5 percent live in a ���full democracy.��� In 2015, the US was demoted from a ���full democracy��� to a “flawed” one. The��decline reflected a fall ���in popular confidence in the functioning of public institutions, a trend that predated ��� and aided ��� the election of Donald Trump,��� according to the report.
The remaining countries that��are not classified as a ���full democracy��� or ���flawed democracy��� are either ���authoritarian��� or ���hybrid regimes.���
It is of course concerning that America, the so-called leader of the free world, is struggling to preserve its democratic foundation. The EIU study points to an increase in ���illiberal democracy��� and ���new authoritarianism��� as to one reason why democracy is struggling on a global level. Another reason is the steep divide between political parties ��� and surprisingly, those who strongly oppose Trump.
���In this way, some opponents of Brexit and Trump have presented voters (and supporters of populist parties in general) as the threat to democracy today. The popular reaction to an economic and political system which many voters feel has left them behind is presented as the cause of democracy���s ailments rather than a consequence of them,��� the study states.
Another report published this January, by the US-based think tank Freedom House, came to a similar conclusion. According to the Freedom House report, democracy faces��its ���most serious crisis in decades.” The United States, the report said, was��partly to blame for the global crisis because it�� ���retreated from its traditional role as both a champion and an exemplar of democracy.���
Trump���s continuous outrageous claims ��� often made on Twitter �����are particularly unhelpful to the tenets of democracy.��As Brian Klaas, author of ���The Despot���s Accomplice: How the West is Aiding and Abetting the Decline of Democracy,��� wrote in the Washington Post, “democracy will not function if Americans cannot be sure that the president���s claims are at least grounded in evidence-based reality.���
“How can democracy function when people can���t take the president literally?��� Klaas asked.
On a positive note, the country of the Gambia in West Africa was promoted in the report, moving up from ���authoritarian regime��� to a ���hybrid regime,” after dictator Yahya Jammeh’s 22-year��reign came to an end.
Alex Jones said the GOP Amtrak crash was a “kamikaze” attack, because of course he did
Alex Jones on" Infowars" (Credit: YouTube/The Alex Jones Channel)
On Wednesday,��Alex Jones claimed��that an��incident in which a��train carrying GOP lawmakers��crashed into a truck��earlier that day����was not simply an accident that claimed one life. Rather, he said it was a “kamikaze” attack and evidence that the U.S. is currently in the midst of a “civil war”.
Earlier Wednesday, an Amtrak train carrying several key Republican lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, on their way to their annual policy retreat in West Virginia crashed into a garbage truck. The New York Times reported��that the White House says at least one person ��� apparently the driver of the truck ��� was killed during the��collision and another was seriously injured. The Republican lawmakers and staffers were reportedly unharmed.
According��to an Amtrak spokesman, at 11:20 a.m. in Crozet, Virginia, near Charlottesville, the train hit the truck on the tracks and that “Two members of the train���s crew and two passengers were transported to a hospital with minor injuries,” the Times reported.
But Jones’ description of the crash varied considerably from Amtrak’s. “A truck kamikaze rammed it, a cement truck, a big truck, a dump truck kamikaze rammed it. And Paul Ryan was on board,” he said on “The Alex Jones Show” today. “There���s one dead. A bunch of people injured. But what���s the odds of this? No, this is a message, you better believe it.”
With his��typical flair,��Jones predicted that some��will dispute his claims, which, to be fair, is exactly what is happening here. To counter, he��mentioned other conspiracy theories he’s��broadcast in the past that were, in his mind, proven correct.��“And they���re going to spin it and try to, ‘Oh, it���s no big deal, everything���s fine.’ ‘Oh,��[the Las Vegas mass shooting]��isn���t Islamic.’ Of course it���s come out it has. ‘Oh, there���s not multiple shooters,” he said. “This is a serious message, very serious message that we can get you anywhere you are.”
He connected the Amtrak crash to the lone shooter who fired at lawmakers during a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia in July. “You go to your baseball practice, we���re going to shoot you,” he said. “We���re going to come after your family. Rammed the front of the train, killing the driver and derailing part of the train. I mean, this is amazing.”
Jones continued:
So this country is in a civil war. You can believe this was on purpose. I mean, I���d say 98 percent chance. This is unbelievable.
You had two miles away in Washington Antifa meeting with videos and police raids saying they were going to derail trains at that exact place and derailing a train a month before, but nobody ��� it wasn���t a passenger train. And then they go, ‘Oh, the driver admits that he missed the speed limit and just went ahead and went too fast around there.’ Yeah, whatever. I mean, this is getting ridiculous.
It is unclear exactly what Jones is referring to here. There was indeed an accidental derailment in Washington D.C. earlier this month, but there is no news of Antifa meetings or police raids. It’s notable that this isn’t the first conspiracy theory Jones has proffered about a rail accident in recent months.
Jerome Corsi, head of Washington D.C. News Bureau for Jones and his website Info Wars, tweeted the same theory.
RIGHT, Amtrak trains ALWAYS run into DUMP TRUCKS, especially right after #QAnon #Qanon8chan warns about FALSE FLAGS https://t.co/UVYA65Pai2 @realDonaldTrump DEEP STATE STRIKES BACK #ReleaseTheMemo pic.twitter.com/CHoS5EQ1s1
— Jerome Corsi (@jerome_corsi) January 31, 2018
Just yesterday, Jones claimed that members of the “deep state” were plotting to set off a nuclear weapon in Washington D.C. and engage in other “hanky panky” in order to prevent the release of Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-CA) memo to the FISA court about Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. A few weeks before, Jones promised to expose��some unknown Oprah Winfrey “skeletons” and lobby against her as a candidate for presidency in 2020, a campaign she has repeatedly said she has no interest in launching.
See the segment below via Media Matters for America:
Harley-Davidson plans to close Kansas City plant, announces layoffs
(Credit: Getty/Patrik Stollarz)
Iconic American motorcycle company Harley Davidson announced on Tuesday that it will be��shuttering a Kansas City plant, a��decision��that will reportedly��result in layoffs for��800 employees. The move was announced in a press release��that positioned��it��as a ���consolidation��� with a Pennsylvania plant.
“The decision to consolidate our final assembly plants was made after very careful consideration of our manufacturing footprint and the appropriate capacity given the current business environment. Our Kansas City assembly operations will leave a legacy of safety, quality, collaboration and manufacturing leadership,”�� Matt Levatich, Harley Davidson president and chief executive officer, said in the statement.
It is unsurprising that��this news didn���t make it into Donald Trump���s rosy State of the Union Address on Tuesday night,��in which the president��issued effusive self-praise for his policies��while drawing a correlation between his presidency and economic growth ��� particularly within the manufacturing sector.
���Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone,��� Trump said. ���This, in fact, is our new American moment. There has never been a better time to start living the American dream.���
As the New York Times explained, these numbers are accurate, but the context is misleading. An estimated 169,000 jobs a month have been added since the 2016 election, but prior to that, there were months when 185,000 jobs were added per month, indicating a slight slowdown since Trump took office.
Harley Davidson, a made-in-the-USA company ��� and one that is trying to build a global customer base��beyond American soil ��� doesn’t appear to be��reaping the��benefits from Trump’s�� “new American moment.”
“Our actions to address the current environment through disciplined supply and cost management position us well as we drive to achieve our long-term objectives to build the next generation of Harley-Davidson riders globally,” Levatich said in the statement.
Local Kansas City news outlet��Fox4KC��reported that��employees of the plant were ���dumbfounded��� when the news broke.
“Where is my next job? What am I going to do benefits-wise? I have three kids and a single mom. So right now I���m going to go home, eat my breakfast and then we���ll go look for another job,” Dominique Alstrok, who works at the plant, told Fox4KC.
The news is��politically relevant inasmuch as��President Trump has publicly positioned himself as an ally to Harley-Davidson, Indeed, in Feb. 2017,��Trump said��he met with Levatich:
At our meeting, I asked them, how are you doing, how is business?�� They said that it���s good.�� I asked them further, how are you doing with other countries, mainly international sales?�� They told me ��� without even complaining, because they have been so mistreated for so long that they���ve become used to it ��� that it���s very hard to do business with other countries because they tax our goods at such a high rate.
In June, Harley Davidson���s CEO told FOX Business Network���s Maria Bartiromo that Trump���s move to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership��impacted��the company, as��Levatich believed the trade deal would have helped his company.
���The whole trade environment can���t be taken in isolated cases and so it���s a very complex issue��� TPP was in negotiation for almost a decade before it was unfortunately turned down. That would have helped us a lot,��� Levatich said.
There’s something fishy about Hillary Clinton’s apology for protecting an accused sexual harasser
Hillary Clinton (Credit: Getty/Jamie McCarthy)
On Tuesday night, 15 minutes ahead of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, Hillary Clinton said she should have fired a top aide from her 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of sexual harassment��by a subordinate female staffer instead of allowing him to continue to work for her.
“The most important work of my life has been to support and empower women,” Clinton wrote in a lengthy Facebook post. “So I very much understand the question I���m being asked as to why I let an employee on my 2008 campaign keep his job despite his inappropriate workplace behavior.”
She added, “The short answer is this: If I had it to do again, I wouldn���t.”
Just under a week ago, it was reported by The New York Times that Clinton had covered for her top aide who was also her faith-based adviser,��Burns Strider, who was “accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate” but kept on the campaign at Clinton’s request.
“In the end, I decided to demote him, docking his pay; separate him from the woman; assign her to work directly for my then-deputy-campaign manager; put in place technical barriers to his emailing her; and require that he seek counseling,” Clinton wrote. “He would also be warned that any subsequent harassment of any kind toward anyone would result in immediate.”
She added, “I did this because I didn���t think firing him was the best solution to the problem.”
“He needed to be punished, change his behavior, and understand why his actions were wrong,” she continued. “The young woman needed to be able to thrive and feel safe. I thought both could happen without him losing his job. I believed the punishment was severe and the message to him unambiguous.”
Strider was accused of sexual harassment once more at a job five years later with the super PAC “Correct the Record” run by Clinton ally, David Brock, the Times reported.
“I recognize that the situation on my 2008 campaign was unusual in that a woman complained to a woman who brought the issue to a woman who was the ultimate decision maker,” Clinton wrote. “There was no man in the chain of command. The boss was a woman. Does a woman have a responsibility to come down even harder on the perpetrator? I don���t know.”
She added, “But I do believe that a woman boss has an extra responsibility to look out for the women who work for her, and to better understand how issues like these can affect them.”
Though Clinton’s lengthy post came at a ��� let’s face it ��� rather peculiar time considering it was quickly washed away by coverage of Trump’s address, and the subsequent fallout. The timing feels more like a weekend news dump, something offered amid a torrent of other distracted activity with the hopes of it being swept away be larger, more urgent coverage. There’s no proof of that, of course, but this is exactly how it comes off.
It also comes at a peculiar moment in time for women.��Many prominent liberal women, beginning in Hollywood, recent months championed the #MeToo movement and sought to��expose men who have abused their power in the workplace and��political or social circles in recent in months.
And, yet, some of those very same women have been caught making excuses for men they love or admire. Clinton, who has been criticized��widely by both the left and right for continuing to employ Strider,��is perhaps the most prominent example of this trend. It’s something that has severely compromised her overall credibility in regards to the #MeToo movement and feeds into the longstanding impression that, as a liberal, she engages in��doublespeak and lacks a certain progressive commitment.
Given the manner of its release, this��apology, while written well at times, will do��little to combat those perceptions about her.
California���s other drought: A major earthquake is overdue
FILE - In this Aug. 24, 2014 file photo, a cracked section of roadway is shown in the Carneros district of Napa, Calif., following an earthquake. Emerging data on last month��s Northern California earthquake is explaining why the city of Napa suffered so much of the damage. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File) (Credit: AP)
California’s other drought: A major earthquake is overdue
California earthquakes are a geologic inevitability. The state straddles the North American and Pacific tectonic plates and is crisscrossed by the San Andreas and other active fault systems. The magnitude 7.9 earthquake that struck off Alaska���s Kodiak Island on Jan. 23, 2018 was just the latest reminder of major seismic activity along the Pacific Rim.
Tragic quakes that occurred in 2017 near the Iran-Iraq border and in central Mexico, with magnitudes of 7.3 and 7.1, respectively, are well within the range of earthquake sizes that have a high likelihood of occurring in highly populated parts of California during the next few decades.
The earthquake situation in California is actually more dire than people who aren���t seismologists like myself may realize. Although many Californians can recount experiencing an earthquake, most have never personally experienced a strong one. For major events, with magnitudes of 7 or greater, California is actually in an earthquake drought. Multiple segments of the expansive San Andreas Fault system are now sufficiently stressed to produce large and damaging events.
The good news is that earthquake readiness is part of the state���s culture, and earthquake science is advancing ��� including much improved simulations of large quake effects and development of an early warning system for the Pacific coast.
The last big one
California occupies a central place in the history of seismology. The April 18, 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 7.8) was pivotal to both earthquake hazard awareness and the development of earthquake science ��� including the fundamental insight that earthquakes arise from faults that abruptly rupture and slip. The San Andreas Fault slipped by as much as 20 feet (six meters) in this earthquake.
Although ground-shaking damage was severe in many places along the nearly 310-mile (500-kilometer) fault rupture, much of San Francisco was actually destroyed by the subsequent fire, due to the large number of ignition points and a breakdown in emergency services. That scenario continues to haunt earthquake response planners. Consider what might happen if a major earthquake were to strike Los Angeles during fire season.
When a major earthquake occurs anywhere on the planet, modern global seismographic networks and rapid response protocols now enable scientists, emergency responders and the public to assess it quickly ��� typically, within tens of minutes or less ��� including location, magnitude, ground motion and estimated casualties and property losses. And by studying the buildup of stresses along mapped faults, past earthquake history, and other data and modeling, we can forecast likelihoods and magnitudes of earthquakes over long time periods in California and elsewhere.
However, the interplay of stresses and faults in the Earth is dauntingly chaotic. And even with continuing advances in basic research and ever-improving data, laboratory and theoretical studies, there are no known reliable and universal precursory phenomena to suggest that the time, location and size of individual large earthquakes can be predicted.
Major earthquakes thus typically occur with no immediate warning whatsoever, and mitigating risks requires sustained readiness and resource commitments. This can pose serious challenges, since cities and nations may thrive for many decades or longer without experiencing major earthquakes.
California���s earthquake drought
The 1906 San Francisco earthquake was the last quake greater than magnitude 7 to occur on the San Andreas Fault system. The inexorable motions of plate tectonics mean that every year, strands of the fault system accumulate stresses that correspond to a seismic slip of millimeters to centimeters. Eventually, these stresses will be released suddenly in earthquakes.
But the central-southern stretch of the San Andreas Fault has not slipped since 1857, and the southernmost segment may not have ruptured since 1680. The highly urbanized Hayward Fault in the East Bay region has not generated a major earthquake since 1868.
Reflecting this deficit, the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast estimates that there is a 93 percent probability of a 7.0 or larger earthquake occurring in the Golden State region by 2045, with the highest probabilities occurring along the San Andreas Fault system.
Perspective view of California���s major faults, showing forecast probabilities estimated by the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast. The color bar shows the estimated percent likelihood of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake during the next 30 years, as of 2014. Note that nearly the entire San Andreas Fault system is red on the likelihood scale due to the deficit of large earthquakes during and prior to the past century.
USGS
Can California do more?
California���s population has grown more than 20-fold since the 1906 earthquake and currently is close to 40 million. Many residents and all state emergency managers are widely engaged in earthquake readiness and planning. These preparations are among the most advanced in the world.
For the general public, preparations include participating in drills like the Great California Shakeout, held annually since 2008, and preparing for earthquakes and other natural hazards with home and car disaster kits and a family disaster plan.
No California earthquake since the 1933 Long Beach event (6.4) has killed more than 100 people. Quakes in 1971 (San Fernando, 6.7); 1989 (Loma Prieta; 6.9); 1994 (Northridge; 6.7); and 2014 (South Napa; 6.0) each caused more than US$1 billion in property damage, but fatalities in each event were, remarkably, dozens or less. Strong and proactive implementation of seismically informed building codes and other preparations and emergency planning in California saved scores of lives in these medium-sized earthquakes. Any of them could have been disastrous in less-prepared nations.
Nonetheless, California���s infrastructure, response planning and general preparedness will doubtlessly be tested when the inevitable and long-delayed ���big ones��� occur along the San Andreas Fault system. Ultimate damage and casualty levels are hard to project, and hinge on the severity of associated hazards such as landslides and fires.
Several nations and regions now have or are developing earthquake early warning systems, which use early detected ground motion near a quake���s origin to alert more distant populations before strong seismic shaking arrives. This permits rapid responses that can reduce infrastructure damage. Such systems provide warning times of up to tens of seconds in the most favorable circumstances, but the notice will likely be shorter than this for many California earthquakes.
Early warning systems are operational now in Japan, Taiwan, Mexico and Romania. Systems in California and the Pacific Northwest are presently under development with early versions in operation. Earthquake early warning is by no means a panacea for saving lives and property, but it represents a significant step toward improving earthquake safety and awareness along the West Coast.
Managing earthquake risk requires a resilient system of social awareness, education and communications, coupled with effective short- and long-term responses and implemented within an optimally safe built environment. As California prepares for large earthquakes after a hiatus of more than a century, the clock is ticking.
Richard Aster, Professor of Geophysics, Colorado State University
