Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 79

In hospitals, a little bit of rudeness can be a very big deal

Shutterstock

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

When someone makes a nasty quip, cuts us off in traffic, ignores our suggestions or takes credit for our work, we get mad, sad and even angry. Rudeness, even just little, can really hurt. We know these reactions can be harmful, both to ourselves and those around us, but recent research suggests that the emotional reactions we have to rudeness tell only half of the story. There are cognitive effects we are not even aware of. In fact, this is what I study — how experiencing rudeness can damage performance by affecting our thinking and decision-making.

For example, in a study, my colleagues and I found that when people experience rudeness, they unknowingly become biased toward rude interpretations of social interactions. In other words, when we experience rudeness, we tend to think others are being rude to us as we go forward.

Rudeness has also been shown to draw cognitive resources away from individuals, causing them to perform worse and make more mistakes: for example, not remembering details of a conversation.

If you are writing up a report or making a hamburger for dinner, the costs of mistakes are inconvenient. Imagine if you are a doctor working on an infant in a NICU? Suddenly, the costs of simple mistakes caused by rudeness become much bigger. Shockingly, this is exactly what we found in a new study — rudeness causes medical teams to perform worse, and ultimately this could have huge costs for patients.

Disruptive behaviors in medical settings

When researchers think about ways to improve the performance of doctors and nurses, they typically focus their studies on procedures, devices, and medicines that can improve the ways we treat illness and injury. But there is more to good performance than better procedures or better devices.

Recently, researchers have started to explore what they call disruptive behaviors — behaviors that make it harder for people to work together or communicate — in medical settings. Often these studies focus on negative interactions between doctors and nurses.

Sometimes referred to as disruptive physicians, doctors who treat nurses poorly can cause nurses to become stressed about their jobs and have lower job satisfaction. There is some evidence that disruptive physicians can harm the performance of those around them. But can they really harm patients? That is what we wanted to find out.

Often disruptive behaviors involve major negative interactions, like screaming at a nurse or harshly insulting a colleague. However, other research suggests that simple incivility can have very harmful effects. So, in addition to exploring whether disruptive behaviors can harm medical team performance, we also sought to explore whether an encounter as minor as incivility could be disruptive.

Disruptive docs make their colleagues perform worse

To find out if and how rude physicians harmed patients, we conducted an experiment in a simulated neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The experiment involved 24 medical teams (one doctor, two nurses on each team) in Israel that completed a simulation where they had to correctly diagnose a newborn whose condition was declining rapidly.

In the simulation, the baby in the NICU had necrotizing entrocolitis (NEC), an inflammation in the intestines, which can lead to tissue death. NEC is rapidly progressing condition that can quickly result in death if not treated quickly. Teams were not told of the infant’s condition prior to the simulation — they had to diagnose the condition themselves.

We chose NEC for the simulation because it progresses so fast, and the proper treatment requires quick and accurate diagnosis and treatment. The effects of rudeness in this type of setting would be readily detectable.

Before the simulation started, the teams received a welcome message from an experienced physician who was watching the procedure. In half of the teams, during this welcome message, the doctor said that he had not been very impressed with the performance of medical professionals in the country in which this experiment was taking place, thus offering a very slight bit of incivility prior to the start of the experiment. After the medical teams had completed the simulation, we had three independent judges (who didn’t know we were studying the effect of incivility) rate the performance of the doctors and nurses.

The results were staggering and frightening. The groups that were exposed to the rude comment did far worse in the simulation. A simple insult from a third party virtually destroyed the performance of the participants. Both their diagnostic skills and their performance suffered dramatically — meaning not only did they have a harder time figuring out what to do, but that even when they knew what to do, they had a harder time doing it.

A small slight can be a pretty big deal

This study shows that the consequences of simple negative social interactions can be catastrophic. Most people’s attitude toward rudeness is that it’s not that big a deal and people will “get over it.” More and more, researchers are finding that this isn’t true — this study shows that in certain contexts the consequences of rudeness can be deadly.

This is especially troublesome due to the fact that these behaviors are very common — a 2010 study suggested that nearly two-thirds of operating room staff had witnessed these behaviors in the OR, and more than half said they had been on the receiving end of these types of behaviors.

However, this conclusion is not limited to doctors. Imagine a similar situation for truck drivers — simply being cut off by a driver can cause a deadly accident down the road. Maybe you should think twice before you weave around that semi next time you’re driving to the beach.

Trevor Foulk, Doctoral Student, University of Florida

Top Trending
Check out what's trending in the news right now.

Something is fishy about NBC’s sexual harassment probe

AP/Evan Agostini

Something isn’t adding up in NBC's investigation into the 

Indeed, NBC officials and Ann Curry, who was Lauer's co-anchor on “Today" from June 2011 to June 2012, have conflicting reports on what it means to be part of a formal investigation. On Wednesday, NBC finished its probe into the allegations, announcing that management had received no complaints about Lauer’s alleged misconduct prior to Nov. 27, 2017 — the week Lauer was fired.

"We found no evidence indicating that any NBC News or Today Show leadership, News HR or others in positions of authority in the News Division received any complaints about Lauer's workplace behavior prior to November 27, 2017," the report states.

"All four women who came forward confirmed that they did not tell their direct manager or anyone else in a position of authority about their sexual encounters with Lauer," it adds. "Current and former members of NBC News and Today Show leadership, as well as News HR, stated that they had never received a complaint about inappropriate workplace behavior by Lauer, and we did not find any contrary evidence."

As noted by the New York Times, NBC News didn’t hire an outside firm to conduct its investigation into the allegations — suggesting a possible conflict of interest. The probe was reportedly led by the general counsel of NBC Universal, Kimberley Harris. This too prompted criticism; in response, an NBC spokesperson issued a statement to the Times to clarify.

“Proskauer Rose and Davis Polk both reviewed the report and gave their stamp of approval on the methodology and findings and recommendations for next steps,” said Hilary Smith, the senior vice president of corporate communications at NBC Universal.

Yet according to the Times, lawyers from these firms were merely consulted — they did not actually sit in on interviews with NBC employees.

Curry was quoted by the Washington Post in April, explaining that she had approached two members of NBC’s management after a female staffer told her she was “sexually harassed physically" by Lauer.

“A woman approached me and asked me tearfully if I could help her,” Curry said. “She was afraid of losing her job. ... I believed her.”

NBC’s legal team told the New York Times on Wednesday that Curry had a “discussion” with the network’s investigators, and added that “members of NBC News and ‘Today’ show leadership at the time with whom we spoke denied having any such conversation with Curry.”

Curry responded via a statement to the New York Times saying: “I have not participated in any formal investigation by NBC on sexual harassment.”

The disconnect between Curry's story and the NBC version is disconcerting, stories, particularly as more NBC anchors face allegations of sexual harassment. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post by Linda Vester, who has accused NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw of sexual misconduct, asked NBC to stop fighting the #MeToo movement “within its own walls." She was referring to a letter that circulated in support of Brokaw, signed by more than 60 women in the media industry.

“I ask NBC Universal to retain an outside investigator to look into sexual harassment and any coverup of sexual harassment at NBC News,” Vester added.

 

Hari Kondabolu, beyond “The Problem with Apu”: His comedy special cuts, but kindly

Netflix

Currently there are more scripted comedies in Nielsen’s top 10 most popular series than scripted dramas. Twice as many in fact: CBS’ “The Big Bang Theory,” “Young Sheldon” and ABC’s “Roseanne” are in first, third and fourth place respectively, with CBS’ “Mom” ranking ninth.

Among network dramas, only “NCIS” (second place) and “Bull” (fifth) attract enough viewers to be this company; the remaining slots are occupied by reality competition series and “60 Minutes.”

Rarely has a week passed in which at least one or two CBS shows don’t pop up at the top of the TV ratings, but I don’t believe this recent popularity of broadcast half-hours is a coincidence.  We’re living in times where existence feels particularly precarious, when political decisions impacting millions appear to be made with less of a concern for global stability than to serve the vainglory of a thin-skinned celebrity.

Levity feels like a desperately needed commodity these days, and the variety plied by broadcast television serves as a gentle palliative, a half-hour great escape seized by millions every week. This is a more commonly sought-out medicine than the specific pressure-valve release afforded by stand-up, relief typified by ruthless incisions and bloodletting with little to no consideration given to whether the audience might be offended.

Somewhere on the scale between the take-no-prisoners school of Michelle Wolf and the crowd-pleasing humor slung by sitcom producers like Chuck Lorre sits “Hari Kondabolu: Warn Your Relatives,” currently streaming on Netflix.

In the same way that Kondabolu stated his case in his truTV documentary “The Problem with Apu” with a poise only slightly tinged with frustration, the conversational approach Kondabolu employs in “Warn Your Relatives” has an equable ease that reaches out to everyone in the room.

Granted, this is a lot easier when the room in question holds about 800 people, the size of the audience at Seattle’s Neptune Theater, where the special was filmed.

“As you can imagine, Seattle, my stand-up isn’t for everybody,” he declares, quickly adding, “which is why it’s good!”

This comes after a 9/11 joke, which shouldn’t work as well as it does 17 years later except for the point that all of us have been stuck in the shadow of that horror ever since. Especially Muslims and anyone Americans confuse with Muslims, mainly people of South Asians descent and Sikhs, for whom a walk through a TSA maze is rarely easy.

This gag lands because like much of “Warn Your Relatives,” it whittles universal annoyances down to the specific anxieties Kondabolu and other people of color have to deal with. A situational tale about a woman holding up the line at the airport eventually swings back to the irritation of being profiled due to, say, the simple laziness of choosing to travel unshaven.

Kondabolu’s “Warn Your Relatives” set is strongest when he digs into his personal foibles, his family stories, insecurities about his career and opportunities that have gone awry. Being not quite famous is the pupal stage for many almost-famous comedians, so in that respect this performance follows a pattern set by many that have gone before it.

By no means is that a crime, although the extent to which a person may find a story about his failure to launch via a film starring David Oyelowo depends on one’s patience for edge-case Hollywood stories. Passages leaning on the comedy of comedy itself seem similarly insiderish, constructed mainly to appease comedy nerds. One risky sequence replays the same set-up several times with different punchlines and fades out midway through. And just as it appears as if Kondabolu could charm his way out of the tailspin he takes the cheap way out, resorting to simulated masturbation.

Kondabolu’s much stronger when he weaves together material from the wreckage created by the current administration, including a takedown of alt-right sensitivities and the wearying habit of his fans fact checking him over meaningless trivia.

“Remember the good old days when we thought Joe Biden was a loose cannon? Ugh,” he says. “Things are so bad . . . everything feels like the end of a Kurt Vonnegut novel!”

We shouldn’t be as comfortable with these topics as Kondabalu makes them seem, but then again, that’s the point of “Warn Your Relatives.” The new normal is not at all normal. If politics plays heavily within its 67-minute run time, that’s excusable. Besides, we also get a few amazing bits about his mother that illustrates how much funnier she is than her son.

But even when mixing memorable accounts of absurd interactions with potshots at the right wing and strange facts about, say, mangoes, Kondabolu doesn’t attack so much as commiserate. His imitation of Middle America’s bland palate is especially entertaining, peppered by quips like, “If you use the phrase ‘ethnic food,’ you probably don’t know too many ethnics.”

Plainly Kondabolu is unafraid of coldcocking a few spit-takes out of his audience, though he proceeds and follows each hit with an intellectually astute caress, disarming you even as he winds up.

Patient may be the best way to describe up his comedy style; he wears the calm of a man who has been forced to process a lot of idiocy in his life with Herculean forbearance because he has no alternative. Brown skin doesn’t allow for angry displays lest a person be confused for a terrorist.

This isn’t necessarily a unique claim to fame, though to paraphrase one of his bits (which in turn cribs a line from A Tribe Called Quest) Kondabolu has mastered the art of being vexed and fuming while remaining entirely approachable. You can’t undersell that level of skill when it comes to humor not merely about race in America, but humor that cuts into the insidious of brand racism, sexism, homophobia and the dangerous tribalism darkening the current climate.

“I know what you’re thinking right now,” he says at one point. “Hari Kondabolu, why are you not more famous?’”

Maybe one day soon that question won’t be a punchline, and Kondabolu will join the ranks of other Asian stars in popular series. Hopefully he doesn’t have to sacrifice his sharpening edge in doing so; times like these beg for kindness even as it cuts.

Salon Talks: Kamau Bell
W. Kamau Bell, who featured Hari Kondabolu on FXX's "Totally Biased," discusses his CNN series "United Shades of America."

Lava, ash flows, mudslides and nasty gases: Good reasons to respect volcanoes

AP Photo/Salvatore Allegra

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Volcanoes are beautiful and awe-inspiring, but the ongoing eruption of Kilauea on Hawaii’s Big Island is showing how dangerous these events can be. So far this event has destroyed dozens of homes and displaced hundreds of people, but no deaths or serious injuries have been reported. Other volcanic eruptions have had deadlier impacts.

As a volcano scientist, I’m very aware of deadly volcanic eruptions can be, even the “nonexplosive” kind we’re seeing in Hawaii now. Since A.D. 1500, volcanic eruptions have killed more than 278,000 people.

Today there are 1,508 active volcanoes around the world. Each year, some 50 to 60 of them erupt. Around 800 million people live within volcanic risk zones. Volcanologists study and monitor volcanoes so that we can try to forecast future eruptions and predict how widely the damage could reach.

When mountains explode

Volcanic eruptions can be broadly divided into two types: explosive and nonexplosive. Explosive eruptions occur when magma, which is molten rock in the ground, contains gas. These eruptions are so energetic that the magma is pulverized into small rock particles, called volcanic ash.

Explosive eruptions are responsible for the highest number of volcanic-related deaths. These events can distribute volcanic ash hundreds of miles from the volcano, causing billions of dollars in air travel disruption, water supply pollution and damage to power lines, structures and machinery. Krakatoa in the Pacific (1883) and Mount St. Helens in Washington state (1980) are examples of explosive eruptions.

The most dangerous features of these events are volcanic ash flows — swift, ground-hugging avalanches of searing hot gas, ash and rock that destroy everything in their path. Ash flows produced during the A.D. 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Italy entombed the towns of Herculaneum and Pompeii. In 1902, ash flows from the eruption of Mount Pelee on the Caribbean island of Martinique killed more than 29,000 people.

Lava flows and fountains

Nonexplosive eruptions occur when little to no gas is contained within the magma. These events produce small fire fountains and lava flows, such as those currently erupting from Kilauea.

Nonexplosive eruptions tend to be less deadly than explosive eruptions, but can still cause great disruption and destruction. Eruptions at Hawaiian-style volcanoes can occur at the summit or along the flanks. New eruptions typically begin with the opening of a fissure, or long crack, that spews molten lava into the air and sometimes forms lava flows.

As reports from Hawaii are showing, lava tends to flow rather slowly. Typically it is easy to outrun a lava flow but impossible to stop or divert it. People can escape, but homes and property are vulnerable.

Both explosive and nonexplosive eruptions release volcanic gases, producing a hazardous blend called volcanic fog, or VOG. VOG contains aerosols – fine particles created when sulfur dioxide reacts with moisture in the air. It can cause health problems, damage crops and pollute water supplies.

These particles have global consequences when eruptions eject them into the stratosphere, where they block sunlight, cooling Earth’s climate. This effect can cause widespread crop failure and famine and is responsible for many historic volcanic-related deaths. For example, the 1815 explosive eruption of Tambora in Indonesia caused 92,000 starvation-related deaths.

Snow-capped volcanoes, such as those in the Cascades and Alaska, can produce mudflows, or lahars. These hazards form when ice and snow melt during an eruption, or ash is washed loose from the surface by heavy rain.

Mudflows have tremendous energy and can travel up to 60 miles per hour down river valleys. They are capable of destroying bridges, structures, and anything else in their path. A mudflow from the 1985 eruption of Nevado del Ruiz in Colombia killed 25,000 people.

Getting ready for the next eruption

By studying past and current eruptions, volcanologists constantly refine our ability to predict and mitigate the hazards and risk associated with volcanic activity. But people who live within range of volcanic hazards also can minimize their risk.

All residents of these zones should develop household plans for evacuating or sheltering in place and prepare emergency kits with first aid supplies, essential medicines, food and water. Events like the Kilauea eruption are reminders that preparing before natural disasters can make communities more resilient when these events strike.

Brittany Brand, Assistant Professor of Geosciences, Boise State University

Top Trending
Check out what's trending in the news right now.

Joe Scarborough implicated Mike Pence in the coverup of potential Russia collusion by Team Trump

This article originally appeared on Raw Story

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough implicated Vice President Mike Pence in the coverup of potential Russia collusion by the Trump campaign.

The vice president told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that special counsel Robert Mueller should end his yearlong investigation into President Donald Trump and his associates that has resulted in five guilty pleas and 19 indictments.

“Our administration has been fully cooperating with the special counsel, and we’ll continue to,” Pence told Mitchell. “What I think is that it’s been about a year since this investigation began. Our administration has provided more than a million documents. We’ve fully cooperated in it, and in the interest of the country, I think it’s time to wrap it up.”

“I would very respectfully encourage the special counsel and his team to bring their work to completion,” the vice president added.

The “Morning Joe” host said Pence’s comments raised serious questions about his own potential legal jeopardy in the probe.

“I think it is a fair time to start asking this question: What did Mike Pence know and when did he know it?” Scarborough said. “Mike Pence is an honorable man, Mike Pence says that Gen. (Michael) Flynn lied to him. Really? Did he? Is this the way Mike Pence wants this investigation to begin and then end prematurely before we get the truth to all the questions?”

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition period that Pence oversaw, and Scarborough said new evidence continues to be revealed in the Mueller probe.

“We’re finding out now that Russian oligarchs may have had money funneled to them by Michael Cohen,” Scarborough said. “The Southern District of New York is getting deep into this. We’re going to find out what Mike Pence knew and when Mike Pence knew it, about for instance that meeting that Don Jr. set up. Did Mike Pence know anything about Donald Trump lying when he brought everybody together talking about the purpose of that meeting?”

Scarborough cast doubt on Pence’s continuous claims of ignorance to what appears to be wrongdoing by his running mate and his campaign associates.

“I mean, Mike Pence has been claiming that he was just out in the dark and that he was just this clueless, hapless Indiana hoosier that Donald Trump and the rest of the White House said nothing to,” Scarborough said. “But you’ve just got to start asking yourself, if Mike Pence wants to kill an investigation that is pursuing how the Russians tried to undermine American democracy in 2016, my gosh, makes me sad to say this, Mike, but I guess we have to start asking the question why does Mike Pence want to kill this investigation? What did Mike Pence though about Gen. Flynn? Was he lied to or is Mike Pence the one who has been lying to us all this time?”

Top Trending
Check out what's trending in the news right now.

Do “haters” deserve our compassion? Sally Kohn says yes — and it’s complicated

Paul Takeuchi

It’s easy to hate — well, hate. Especially these days, when so much violence is committed in the name of hatred, and so many policies (and lack of policies) coming from our government appear to validate these acts of violence.

How can we possibly find compassion for the hateful? Should we find compassion for those who hate?

Yes, says Sally Kohn, author of "The Opposite of Hate: A Field Guide To Repairing Our Humanity". She says we need to find compassion for those who hate because we all are those who hate — it’s hardwired into the human brain.

“The fear or avoidance of the ‘other’ . . . is the hardware,” Sally told me in our recent conversation at the Bay Area Book Festival. “Like, when you go and you pick up a blank computer. That's just the hardware. Who we hate is the software — that's what's encoded into our minds by our history and our habits. There's not some little part of the amygdala that makes us racist or some synapse that makes us hate Republicans or hate Democrats or Islamophobic — that doesn't exist. That is what society has encoded into us, which means it can also be unlearnt.”

Kohn argues that if we keep on hating the haters, the cycle of hate will never end.

“We need to create opportunities and welcome people to learn and change,” she said. “As opposed to condemning them to always be that which we say we don't want them to be, and yet we don't give opportunities for them to not be.”

Sally Kohn has had her own recent experience overcoming the condemnations of others. After her book was released, Aminatou Sow (co-host of podcast "Call Your Girlfriend") and Ijeoma Oluo (author of "So You Want To Talk About Race" and a recent Inflection Point guest) spoke up on social media to point out some problematic moments in Kohn’s retelling of their words, both in person and on Twitter.

Sow says that Kohn mis-quoted her — and did so without her permission, at that. And Oluo objects to the way Kohn used her tweets, saying they were taken out of their original context to service the stereotypical binary narrative of “good” black women versus “angry” black women.

For the first few weeks of the book’s release, people were talking more about Kohn’s appropriation of Sow's and Oluo’s words and the role of whiteness in journalistic integrity than the overall content of the book itself. Kohn has since made a public apology and her publisher will be removing the section referencing Sow in future editions.

Kohn recognizes that she still has a lot of work to do.

“As a white woman, I didn't see the problematic ways in which I was representing their views, their voices and creating this perceived tension between them — and that wasn't my intent," she said. "But intent isn't as important as impact, and all I can do is continue to apologize and hopefully learn and do better.”

Kohn’s journey as a community organizer-turned political commentator-turned author has been a twisting journey full of paradoxes.

She started her TV career as a liberal commentator on Fox News, for example.

“My work as an organizer and my work in the media has always been about trying to be in those spaces that often we as progressives — as leftists — are not,” Sally told me. “And having conversations that don't shut down avenues for change, but hopefully open up avenues for change.”

Listen to our conversation:

And working at Fox, considered by many to be the heart of the conservative propaganda machine, helped Sally to come to a conclusion about her own role within the hatred cycle.

“When I went to go work at Fox, honestly I thought they would all be hateful monsters. I . . . expected they would be just hateful in every way — mean to me personally, nasty, homophobic vitriol,” she confessed. “And I walked in and got to know people on air, off air, viewers . . . and realized that they were complicated people who were in many ways nice, caring, compassionate — we could find things we agreed on. And at the same time I realized — OK, wait a second: I hate them. I came in with all these stereotypes and generalizations and 360-degree, non-negotiable notions of who they were.”

Kohn carried this lesson about her own capacity for hatred, despite her well-meaning liberal ideology, into her research for book.

The answers she came up with were . . . well, complicated.

For her book, Sally Kohn talked to a former neo-Nazi who became a Buddhist by way of a rave, survivors of the Rwandan genocide and a Palestinian convicted of terrorism, all to understand what drove their hate and what changed their hearts. The common thread for their transformation was their ability to have compassion for their enemies — real and perceived.

But what if you have been oppressed for so long that you don’t feel it’s up to you to find that connection? When there’s an unequal power dynamic, whose job is it to reach out? And does one day of diversity training really work?

Spoiler alert: We did not end hatred in the space of our live talk at the Bay Area Book Festival. But perhaps listening to our conversation will inspire you to turn down the hate in your own life, and find room for more compassion — even for someone with whom you deeply disagree.

Hear more stories of how women rise up on "Inflection Point" on Apple Podcasts, RadioPublic, Stitcher and NPROne. And come on over to The Inflection Point Society, our Facebook group of everyday activists who seek to make extraordinary change through small, daily actions.

Salon Talks: Sally Kohn of CNN
Sally Kohn sits down with Amanda Marcotte to talk politics, anger and hate.

Oliver North vows to “counterpunch” Parkland students, complains NRA is victim of “civil terrorism”

AP/Sue Ogrocki/Getty/Nicholas Kamm

Oliver North, the disgraced Regan administration staffer turned right-wing commentator who was recently tapped to lead the NRA, is already off to a running start at his new gig — smearing anti-gun activists like the Parkland high school protesters as criminals.

"There are people running in fear from what happened down in Parkland thinking that the NRA is on its heels — it’s not. What we have to do is assure them that being associated with the NRA is a good thing for their re-election chances. It’s a positive thing," North told The Washington Times in an interview published on Friday. His comment about "what happened down in Parkland" refers not only to the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day but to the mass protest movement being led by many of the survivors of that shooting.

As North made clear, he has a dim view of those protesters.

"They call them activists. That’s what they’re calling themselves. They’re not activists — this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America," North told the Times.

North also told the Times that anti-gun advocates "can do all the cyberwar against us — they’re doing it. They can use the media against us — they are. They’ve gone after our bank accounts, our finances, our donors, and obviously individual members. It’s got to stop. And that’s why the leadership invited me to become the next president of the NRA."

The Parkland protesters have been repeatedly mocked by conservatives since they emerged on the scene. As Matt Gertz of Media Matters told Salon in March, "I think conservatives view themselves as having little option but to try to take on these kids. They know these students are incredibly good on television. They’re good messengers for the gun violence prevention movement and they’re getting a lot of attention."

It is worth noting that this kind of detached-from-reality rhetoric is very much baked into the NRA's political brand. Prior to the 1970s, the NRA was mostly known as a sportsmen's club, one that had even supported certain types of gun control during the 1930s. After right-wing radicals seized the NRA during a convention in 1977, however, the organization became a hotbed for extreme beliefs — all of them united in the conviction that the government, and liberals in general, are determined to seize NRA members' guns and in general victimize them.

That air of victimization was apparent when North actually compared the experiences of NRA supporters to those of America's most persecuted minority groups.

"You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things — even there you didn’t have this kind of thing," North told the Times. Perhaps realizing how he just sounded, he clarified that "we didn’t have the cyberwar kind of thing that we’ve got today."

He also depicted the Parkland school survivors as being pawns in a larger propaganda effort.

"What they did very successfully with a frontal assault, and now intimidation and harassment and lawbreaking, is they confused the American people. Our job is to get the straight story out about what happened there, and to make sure that kind of thing doesn’t happen again because the proper things are being done with the advocacy of the NRA," North told the Times.

There are two reasons why the "straight story" may be somewhat difficult for North to communicate. The first is that, throughout most of American history, the notion that gun regulation would automatically violate the Constitution was a fringe belief. When the Second Amendment was written, it was to make it possible for white men (the only people allowed to own guns at that time) to serve in militias. Although courts were often conflicted as to how much government regulation would be constitutionally acceptable, the absolutist approach that is supported by the NRA had not yet drowned out all other perspectives.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Oliver North isn't an ordinary conservative commentator. He became famous due to the Iran-Contra scandal, during which he used an intermediary to sell weapons to Iran, with the proceeds then being used to help a right-wing political group known as the Contras in Nicaragua. North was eventually convicted of three charges, although those convictions were vacated by a court due to the possibility that witnesses may have been influenced by North's congressional testimony.

Yet although North depicts the Iran-Contra scandal as ancient history, the fact that he had been involved in arming the right-wing Contras says a great deal about his worldview. From his time as a regular on Fox News (which is now over) to his early statements on behalf of the NRA, it is clear that North conceives of himself as a warrior fighting for sacred causes. This probably goes a long way toward explaining why NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre described North when announcing his appointment:

Oliver North is a legendary warrior for American freedom, a gifted communicator and skilled leader. In these times, I can think of no one better suited to serve as our president.

While North's services on behalf of "freedom" are questionable at best, he is indeed skilled in the arts of rhetoric and leadership. Between that and his long history of shady right-wing activities — including his recent statements vilifying protesters who merely wish to save lives — he is indeed someone ideally suited to serve as the NRA's president.

Is arming teachers the answer?
Salon Talks hosts a discussion on whether the NRA's suggestion of arming teachers would actually help during school shootings.

Town & Country rudely uninvited Monica Lewinsky to an event after Bill Clinton RSVP’d

Getty/Adrian Sanchez-Gonzalez

One step forward, two steps back — that’s often the rhythm for any social movement. However, when news surfaced that Monica Lewinsky was uninvited to a Town & Country event because Bill Clinton happened to be on the list too, I thought, really? In this #MeToo era, when some of the most important conversations in feminism are happening, a woman’s presence was still thought of as less important than a man’s, according to those in charge of the guest list.

Here’s what apparently happened: Town & Country, a lifestyle magazine owned by Hearst, was curating the list of attendees for its annual Philanthropy Summit. Both Lewinsky  and Bill Clinton received invitations. Lewinsky accepted her invitation, only to have it rescinded after Clinton RSVP’d.

The timeline is unclear, but it’s possible that Lewinsky's invitation was rescinded as late as the day of the Summit — May 9 — which is when she sent out a cryptic tweet.

“Dear world: please don’t invite me to an event (esp one about social change) and ―then after i’ve accepted― uninvite me because bill clinton then decided to attend/was invited,” Lewinsky tweeted. “It’s 2018. Emily post would def not approve.”

“P.s. ...and definitely, please don't try to ameliorate the situation by insulting me with an offer of an article in your mag,” she added.

Angel Ureña, press secretary for Clinton, tweeted that Clinton was not involved in Lewinsky's invitation being revoked by the magazine.

“President Clinton was invited to address the Town & Country Philanthropy Summit,” Ureña said on Twitter. “He gladly accepted. Neither he nor his staff knew anything about the invitation or it being rescinded.”

On Thursday, the day after the event — and Lewinsky’s tweet — the magazine issued an apology on Twitter.

“We apologize to Ms. Lewinsky and regret the way the situation was handled,” the magazine stated.

The situation outraged many on Twitter, such as director and producer Judd Apatow, who said the magazine should be “ashamed of themselves."

This insult to Lewinsky might seem highly specific to her and her past relationship with a former president, but it's also yet more evidence that patriarchy and gender inequality are alive and well.  Why should Lewinsky's invitation be rescinded when she is an influential and important guest in her own right, regardless of her past? Lewinsky isn’t just a former intern who had an affair with the president when she was 22 — that was more than two decades ago. Now, she is a writer, book author and bullying prevention activist, and a sought-after voice for social change.

There are multiple disconcerting components at work here. First, the blatant disrespect on the part of the magazine is rooted in sexism. As Lewinsky said, this is 2018. If anyone’s invitation should have been revoked, it should have been Clinton’s — Lewinsky was a White House intern during their relationship, creating a massive workplace power imbalance between the two. Yet for some, the woman is and always will be at fault — both back in 1998 and today, in eyes of Town & Country.

But an even bigger question is why anyone's invitation needed to be revoked in the first place. A solution to any perceived awkwardness would have been simply to sit the two at different tables. There’s this strange narrative that persists in the public imagination that former lovers can’t be in the same room together, but in reality, people do it all the time. It’s called being a mature adult — something both Lewinsky and Clinton are very capable of being.

How much longer will America continue to automatically punish the woman in any scenario involving sex? In the name of gender equality, when it comes to affairs, both parties should share the responsibility and absorb an equal amount of social backlash. Alternatively, forgiveness and acceptance are always options the public — and philanthropic event committees — can acquaint themselves with. There are bigger fish to fry this decade.

A feminist's guide for men
Eve Ensler has some thoughts on how men can contribute to gender equality.

Samantha Bee on Trump CIA pick Gina Haspel: “Man, getting answers out of her is torture!”

TBS

This article originally appeared on Raw Story

The United States had a rough week on the world stage, comedian Samantha Bee said during Wednesday’s episode of “Full Frontal.” Whether it was reneging on the Iran Deal or the confirmation hearing of Gina Haspel, President Donald Trump’s nominee for CIA director, it was all terrible optics.

Bee made the poignant observation that the president is attempting to negotiate a nuclear disarmament deal with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, while simultaneously pulling out of a nuclear disarmament deal with Iran. Bee isn’t sure how it’ll turn out, but she noted that it was remarkably similar to trying to pull a dine-and-dash. An astute analogy given a Trump confidant revealed he only nixed the deal to watch pundits freak out on CNN.

“I can tell you another promise Trump didn’t keep: the one we literally made when America agreed to the Iran deal. To be clear, we’re not withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, we are violating the Iran nuclear deal,” Bee explained. “It’s kind of like when you go to a nice restaurant, if you then flip the table over and run out without paying you are not withdrawing from the Shoney’s. You’re just being an assh*le who broke the law. And by pulling out of the Iran deal, we are those assh*les.”

“So one question I have not heard you answer is, ‘do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral?’” Harris asked. “It’s a ‘yes or no’ answer.”

Haspel said a lot of things but never answered the question. Harris pressed further but Haspel refused to say that she considered torture to be “immoral.”

“Man, getting answers out of her is torture,” Bee quipped. “I’m sorry. Getting answers out of her is enhanced interrogation techniques.”

The TBS host noted, however, that Haspel promised in her hearing that the CIA would no longer torture anyone.

“Really, cross your heart, no backsis,” Bee said before playing a clip of the answer Haspel really gave to the question.

“I would not start, under any circumstances an interrogation program at the CIA,” she said.

“Which would be a great answer on torture at a parole hearing but not at a government confirmation hearing,” she explained. “So, this week, we basically told the world we don’t keep our promises and we aren’t going to torture people anymore, we promise. Happy Wednesday!”

She went on to say that the whole drubbing failure will ultimately make it increasingly difficult for other countries to trust the United States in the future. “Let alone now when we have to believe the honesty with a man — of a man with raccoon eyes. I can’t believe we did this in the midst of a deal with North Korea.”

It would be like attaching a Sharpie to a hoagie, handing it to Kim Jong Un and asking him to sign, she said. “If he doesn’t like the hoagie, it’s a gamble.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. senate spent the day hammering the president’s nominee oversee the CIA. Calling her the “torture mom,” Bee played the grilling of Haspel by Sen. Kamala Harris, in which the California Democrat repeatedly demanded answers.

“So one question I have not heard you answer is, ‘do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral?’” Harris asked. “It’s a ‘yes or no’ answer.”

Haspel said a lot of things but never answered the question. Harris pressed further but Haspel refused to say that she considered torture to be “immoral.”

“Man, getting answers out of her is torture,” Bee quipped. “I’m sorry. Getting answers out of her is enhanced interrogation techniques.”

The TBS host noted, however, that Haspel promised in her hearing that the CIA would no longer torture anyone.

“Really, cross your heart , no backsis,” Bee said before playing a clip of the answer Haspel really gave to the question.

“I would not start, under any circumstances an interrogation program at the CIA,” she said.

“Which would be a great answer on torture at a parole hearing but not at a government confirmation hearing,” she explained. “So, this week, we basically told the world we don’t keep our promises and we aren’t going to torture people anymore, we promise. Happy Wednesday!”

Top Trending
Check out what's trending in the news right now.

Reich: The financial hardships of Trump’s friends

AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, file

This originally appeared on Robert Reich’s blog.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently granted to an oil refinery owned by Carl Icahn a so-called “financial hardship” waiver. The exemption allows the refinery to avoid clean air laws, potentially saving Icahn millions of dollars.

Icahn is not exactly a hardship case. According to Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index, his net worth is $21.8 billion. Over the last four decades as a corporate raider, Icahn has pushed CEOs to cut payrolls, abandon their communities, and outsource jobs abroad in order to generate more money for him and other investors.

In 1985, after winning control of the now-defunct Trans World Airlines, Icahn stripped its assets, pocketed nearly $500 million in profits, and left the airline more than $500 million in debt. Former TWA chair C.E. Meyer Jr. called Icahn “one of the greediest men on earth.”

No single person has done more to harm America’s working class than Carl Icahn. Not surprisingly, Icahn was a Trump backer from the start, and has benefited immensely from Trump’s presidency.

When Trump first talked with Scott Pruitt about running the EPA, Trump told Pruitt to meet with Icahn. As Icahn later recounted, “I told Donald that [Pruitt] is somebody who will do away with many of the problems at the EPA.”

Trump then made Icahn his special regulatory adviser, until lawmakers raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

Icahn has found other ways to make money off the Trump presidency. Days before Trump announced hefty tariffs on foreign-made steel, Icahn sold off $31.3 million in stock he owned in the Manitowoc Company, a manufacturer of steel cranes. After Trump’s announcement, the company’s shares tumbled.

Icahn says he had no inside knowledge of Trump’s move, but why should anyone believe him? The Trump presidency is awash in conflicts of interest, lies, payoffs to friends, insider deals, and utter disdain for the public.

Icahn’s steel deal was chickenfeed relative to the billions he’ll pocket courtesy of Trump’s tax cut. Icahn is said to have spent $150 million lobbying for it, which makes it one of his best investments so far.

Meanwhile, real financial hardships are bearing down on Americans who are getting no help at all. Flint’s water is still unsafe. Much of Puerto Rico is still in the dark. Last week, HUD Secretary Ben “Poverty-Is-A-State-Of-Mind” Carson proposed large rent increases for families receiving housing assistance, explaining that help to the poor “creates perverse consequences, such as discouraging these families from earning more money.”

Rubbish. Low-income Americans are already working hard, many paying half their monthly incomes in rent.

The Trump administration is also allowing states to demand that Medicaid recipients work, although there’s no evidence Medicaid deters people from working. In fact, many low-income Americans are able to work only because they have access to health care via Medicaid.

Trump and his enablers on Capitol Hill are proposing that people receiving food stamp work at least twenty hours a week. Yet over 40 million Americans — including many children and disabled — are already struggling with hunger, and food stamps average only $1.40 per person per meal.

In contrast to their argument that the poor need less help in order to work harder, Trump and his enablers justify regulatory and tax handouts to Carl Icahn and his ilk by arguing the rich need more in order to work harder.

But despite the regulatory “relief” and giant tax cut they’re getting, America’s rich aren’t investing more than before.

Corporations have been using savings from the tax cut to buy back their shares of stock at a record pace. Icahn has been among the biggest investors pushing them to do so because buybacks raise stock prices, thereby putting even more money in his pocket.

It’s doubtful Icahn will use the savings from his “financial hardship” waiver to invest in more oil refineries. Profit margins in refining are plummeting.

In reality, Trumponomics is a thin veneer of an excuse for giving America’s rich — already richer than ever — whatever they want, while sticking it to everyone else.

We are rapidly becoming a nation of just two groups. The first are those without any voice, vulnerable to real financial hardship, who are losing whatever meager assistance they had. This includes many white working-class Trump supporters.

The second are those like Carl Icahn — powerful enough to extract benefits from Trump and the GOP by claiming they need such incentives in order to invest. But their neediness is a hoax, and the only significant investments they’re making are pay-offs to politicians.

Far more Americans belong to the first group than to the second. The question is when they will realize it, and vote accordingly.