Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 853

February 25, 2016

Marco Rubio redeems himself by destroying Donald Trump and his lame Chris Christie impersonation

Republican front-runner Donald Trump loves to find a line and hammer, hammer, hammer it until the words mean as much as your own name does after you've repeated it to yourself 100 times -- and normally that doesn't hurt him. But during tonight's debate, he wasn't repeating his own line, he was borrowing one of Chris Christie's from an earlier debate about the formerly robotic Marco Rubio's tendency to repeat himself. Rubio attacked Trump for not offering specific plans. "What is your plan?" Rubio asked. "What is your plan?" "The biggest problem with him," Trump said, "is he doesn't understand anything! He doesn't know anything! I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago." Trump insisted he has plans, to which Rubio replied, "he's just repeating himself." "I don't repeat myself!" Trump said. "I watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago," Rubio shot back. "He just says five things -- 'I'm going to build a wall,' 'we need to get rid of the lines,'" but the other items were drowned out by Trump shouting, "I saw him meltdown three weeks ago!"Republican front-runner Donald Trump loves to find a line and hammer, hammer, hammer it until the words mean as much as your own name does after you've repeated it to yourself 100 times -- and normally that doesn't hurt him. But during tonight's debate, he wasn't repeating his own line, he was borrowing one of Chris Christie's from an earlier debate about the formerly robotic Marco Rubio's tendency to repeat himself. Rubio attacked Trump for not offering specific plans. "What is your plan?" Rubio asked. "What is your plan?" "The biggest problem with him," Trump said, "is he doesn't understand anything! He doesn't know anything! I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago." Trump insisted he has plans, to which Rubio replied, "he's just repeating himself." "I don't repeat myself!" Trump said. "I watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago," Rubio shot back. "He just says five things -- 'I'm going to build a wall,' 'we need to get rid of the lines,'" but the other items were drowned out by Trump shouting, "I saw him meltdown three weeks ago!"Republican front-runner Donald Trump loves to find a line and hammer, hammer, hammer it until the words mean as much as your own name does after you've repeated it to yourself 100 times -- and normally that doesn't hurt him. But during tonight's debate, he wasn't repeating his own line, he was borrowing one of Chris Christie's from an earlier debate about the formerly robotic Marco Rubio's tendency to repeat himself. Rubio attacked Trump for not offering specific plans. "What is your plan?" Rubio asked. "What is your plan?" "The biggest problem with him," Trump said, "is he doesn't understand anything! He doesn't know anything! I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago." Trump insisted he has plans, to which Rubio replied, "he's just repeating himself." "I don't repeat myself!" Trump said. "I watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago," Rubio shot back. "He just says five things -- 'I'm going to build a wall,' 'we need to get rid of the lines,'" but the other items were drowned out by Trump shouting, "I saw him meltdown three weeks ago!"Republican front-runner Donald Trump loves to find a line and hammer, hammer, hammer it until the words mean as much as your own name does after you've repeated it to yourself 100 times -- and normally that doesn't hurt him. But during tonight's debate, he wasn't repeating his own line, he was borrowing one of Chris Christie's from an earlier debate about the formerly robotic Marco Rubio's tendency to repeat himself. Rubio attacked Trump for not offering specific plans. "What is your plan?" Rubio asked. "What is your plan?" "The biggest problem with him," Trump said, "is he doesn't understand anything! He doesn't know anything! I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago." Trump insisted he has plans, to which Rubio replied, "he's just repeating himself." "I don't repeat myself!" Trump said. "I watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago," Rubio shot back. "He just says five things -- 'I'm going to build a wall,' 'we need to get rid of the lines,'" but the other items were drowned out by Trump shouting, "I saw him meltdown three weeks ago!"Republican front-runner Donald Trump loves to find a line and hammer, hammer, hammer it until the words mean as much as your own name does after you've repeated it to yourself 100 times -- and normally that doesn't hurt him. But during tonight's debate, he wasn't repeating his own line, he was borrowing one of Chris Christie's from an earlier debate about the formerly robotic Marco Rubio's tendency to repeat himself. Rubio attacked Trump for not offering specific plans. "What is your plan?" Rubio asked. "What is your plan?" "The biggest problem with him," Trump said, "is he doesn't understand anything! He doesn't know anything! I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago." Trump insisted he has plans, to which Rubio replied, "he's just repeating himself." "I don't repeat myself!" Trump said. "I watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago," Rubio shot back. "He just says five things -- 'I'm going to build a wall,' 'we need to get rid of the lines,'" but the other items were drowned out by Trump shouting, "I saw him meltdown three weeks ago!"Republican front-runner Donald Trump loves to find a line and hammer, hammer, hammer it until the words mean as much as your own name does after you've repeated it to yourself 100 times -- and normally that doesn't hurt him. But during tonight's debate, he wasn't repeating his own line, he was borrowing one of Chris Christie's from an earlier debate about the formerly robotic Marco Rubio's tendency to repeat himself. Rubio attacked Trump for not offering specific plans. "What is your plan?" Rubio asked. "What is your plan?" "The biggest problem with him," Trump said, "is he doesn't understand anything! He doesn't know anything! I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago." Trump insisted he has plans, to which Rubio replied, "he's just repeating himself." "I don't repeat myself!" Trump said. "I watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago," Rubio shot back. "He just says five things -- 'I'm going to build a wall,' 'we need to get rid of the lines,'" but the other items were drowned out by Trump shouting, "I saw him meltdown three weeks ago!"Republican front-runner Donald Trump loves to find a line and hammer, hammer, hammer it until the words mean as much as your own name does after you've repeated it to yourself 100 times -- and normally that doesn't hurt him. But during tonight's debate, he wasn't repeating his own line, he was borrowing one of Chris Christie's from an earlier debate about the formerly robotic Marco Rubio's tendency to repeat himself. Rubio attacked Trump for not offering specific plans. "What is your plan?" Rubio asked. "What is your plan?" "The biggest problem with him," Trump said, "is he doesn't understand anything! He doesn't know anything! I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago." Trump insisted he has plans, to which Rubio replied, "he's just repeating himself." "I don't repeat myself!" Trump said. "I watched you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago," Rubio shot back. "He just says five things -- 'I'm going to build a wall,' 'we need to get rid of the lines,'" but the other items were drowned out by Trump shouting, "I saw him meltdown three weeks ago!"

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 19:01

“If Trump hadn’t inherited $200 million, he’d be selling watches on the streets of Manhattan,” whatever demon possessed Marco Rubio claimed tonight

Whatever demon decided to possess the body of Florida Senator Marco Rubio has wit and clever to spare, as his withering commentary on Donald Trump's Horatio Alger narrative demonstrated tonight. "If you hadn't inherited $200 million, you'd be selling selling watches on the streets of Manhattan," Rubio told Trump. Trump tried to counter by claiming that his father only gave him $1 million in start-up money, but Rubio's eye-roll and the audience's audible gasps clearly indicate who won that point. Rubio also went after Trump's "fake university," saying "there are people that borrow $36,000 to go to Trump University, and they’re suing him now, and you know what they got? They got to take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump." The cardboard cutout of Donald Trump on stage next to him glared with utter incivility and demanded to answer the charge, but CNN's Wolf Blitzer felt it was time to move on.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 18:21

Tonight’s Republican debate is 4 minutes old and Patton Oswalt already won it, repeatedly

Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... Patton Oswalt is live-tweeting tonight's Republican debate and -- needless to say -- is winning the Internet in the process of doing so. Points! https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat... https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt/stat...

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 17:52

The GOP hopefuls are getting beyond ugly in the most entertaining debate to date

The gloves are off at tonight's Republican debate, with even the rhetorically flaccid senator from Florida trying to get a few licks in. Marco Rubio accused Donald Trump of hiring undocumented immigrants -- people who, unlike his mother, didn't become citizens through the proper channels. Instead of addressing Rubio's criticism, Trump attacked Rubio for not being a job creator. "I’m the only one on this stage that’s hired people," Trump said. "You haven’t hired anybody." Texas Senator Ted Cruz tried to get some skin in the game, saying that when he was leading the fight against amnesty for undocumented immigrants, Trump was "firing Dennis Rodman on 'Celebrity Apprentice.'" Cruz continued to hammer Trump, claiming that he funded the "Gang of Eight," to which Trump replied, as is his wont, with playground taunts. "I've had an amazing relationship with politicians," he told Cruz. "You get along with no one." He also complained that the former Mexican president, Vincente Fox, once used "a filthy, disgusting word on television," which isn't the least bit ironic coming from the man who called Cruz a "pussy" just last week.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 17:08

Scalia’s elite hunting pals: Meet St. Hubertus, patron saint of rich guys with guns

When Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly on Feb. 13, he was at the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Texas, hunting for pheasant and chukar. It has now been revealed that he was in the company of 35 members of an “exclusive fraternity for hunters called the International Order of St. Hubertus, an Austrian society that dates back to the 1600s.” According to the Washington Post, the owner of the ranch, John Poindexter, and Scalia’s traveling companion are both high-ranking members of the group. It sounds like a terrific setup for a conspiracy theory. But how secret can a society be if it has offices and a website? Its existence is out in the open. The tricky part is pinning down the names of its members. Was Scalia one of their official numbers? Probably not, given that the Order is “under the Royal Protection of His Majesty Juan Carlos of Spain, the Grand Master Emeritus His Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke Andreas Salvator of Austria and our Grand Master ... His Imperial and Royal Highness Istvan von Habsburg Lothringen, Archduke of Austria, Prince of Hungary.” In other words, the named ranking members are passionate about hunting to the point of folly. They also tend to be royal or, if American, officers in the military. I would not be surprised to learn that princes Charles, William and Harry are members. (Though Elizabeth I was renowned for her hunting skills, there don't appear to be any women in this Order.) There are reasons for both the high level of social privilege as well as the commitment of its members to an activity that many Americans find both anachronistic and offensive. The Order’s motto is “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes” or “Honoring God by Honoring His Creatures.” No less quaint to modern ears is the affirmation that the “a true knightly order in the historical tradition.” So what’s the history here? Let’s start with the name of the order itself. Hubert (or Hubertus) was a French saint and bishop of Lìege in the 700s who took his story from Saint Eustace, who began his life as a Roman soldier named Placidus. As described in the Golden Legend, 1275:
So on a day, as he was on hunting, he found a herd of harts, among whom he saw one more fair and greater than the other… And [the hart] spake to him, saying: Placidus, wherefore followest me hither? I am appeared to thee in this beast for the grace of thee. I am Jesu Christ.
In medieval illuminations, the hart of St. Eustace/St. Hubert appears with a crucifix suspended between its antlers, which have 10 prongs to represent each of the Ten Commandments. This is the origin of the much-mocked “holy hunter,” who combines reverence for God’s creations with a (seemingly contradictory) love of hunting wild creatures. Crucially, until the 19th century, hunting in Europe was traditionally restricted to members of the nobility who had the express permission of the king to hunt his land. This could cause resentment among nobles as well as the peasantry. For example, Forest Law was the central conflict in “Robin Hood,” as the merry men, starving peasants all, were forbidden to hunt the King’s forest, and so they resorted to poaching. We have nothing today that resembles the theologically saturated performance that was the royal hunt, which involved hundreds of men, horses and dogs for a protracted activity that was ceremonial, symbolic and limited to ten quarry animals: Five noble beasts blessed by God, and five “black beasts (bete noirs)” who were creatures of the devil. Yet the truest of hunters wasn’t a saint, but Sir Tristan (or Tristram) of Lyoness, who was also the first and best of knights. To those who would "learn the art of venery or hunting," wrote George Turberville in 1576, “let him give eare, to skilfull Trystrams lore.” There are many versions of Tristan’s legend, but one of the oldest, an early 13th century German manuscript, devoted extensive passages to hunting lore. Sir Thomas Malory made most of those passages disappear in his celebrated “Morte d’arthur” ("Death of King Arthur"), first published in 1485. By the time the 19th century rolled around, Tristan was too busy reading poetry to his uncle’s wife, Ysolde, to go galloping after wild deer. Notably, however, it wasn’t until the 17th century that the royal hunt was understood as a sublimated form of war. It was in 1695 that Count Franz Anton von Sporck founded the Order of St. Hubertus in what was then the Kingdom of Bohemia, now the modern Czech Republic. At this moment, I cannot independently verify what the “history” section of the Order’s website claims, but it affirms that in 1938, after Austria was absorbed by the German Reich, “Herman Göring demanded membership in the Order and executed the Grand Prior when he was denied.” Later, surviving members “were authorized by Halvor O. Ekern, chief political advisor of the US Armed Forces in Austria to use their sporting guns to provide winter food to the rural population, avoiding not only famine but helping to save the country from falling behind the Iron Curtain” after the end of WWII. Göring was not only Reichsmarschall and founder of the Gestapo, but Jagermeister (or Hunting Master) during the Nazi era, and the Library of Congress has dozens of images on file documenting his enthusiasm for the activity. He was a good hunter but a terrible human being, and that the men of the Order of St. Hubertus would rather die than make him a member says something about their values. Once the Order of St. Hubertus was reinstated in 1950, the American diplomats and generals involved in bringing about the end of WWII were the first American members. In 1967, 1st Lt. Don Feeney (U.S. Army 7th medical brigade, 56th medical battalion) was stationed in Germany, and each battalion had an officer assigned to interact with the local authorities. Among other things, Lt. Feeney had to work with the forest manager to compensate locals for damage after American military maneuvers. He eventually received permission to shoot two deer, but never undertook it, as it was simply too different from American practices. What he described was more a cull than a hunt, as he was to shoot two aged bucks that the forest manager had specified, and under his supervision. The following year, in 1968, George Wood founded the first American branch of the Order of St. Hubertus. 1950 is not that long ago, but the world has drastically changed. Today, the International Order of St. Hubertus asserts that its members are also wildlife conservationists. Again, it is difficult to interpret this without additional material to assess, but it is also the case that ethical hunters are, in fact, dedicated to preserving the wildlife as well as the wilderness. That desire to preserve nature was what prompted the Great White Hunter himself, Theodore Roosevelt, to create the National Park system. One crucial difference is that Scalia was not "in nature" but at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, which offers hunting as an activity for all of its guests, not just nobles. (What its website describes is a drive, not a canned hunt, so requires shooting skills but not expert hunting abilities.) Today, the human relationship to nature and animals is very different from what it used to be three centuries ago. What hasn’t changed, alas, is the human tendency to war.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 16:00

Mass sperm whale deaths across Europe leave scientists stumped

Global Post YORK, United Kingdom — Normally tranquil and windswept beaches across northern Europe were converted into cetacean graveyards this winter, as sperm whale after sperm whale kept stranding itself.

From January to early February, 30 of the magnificent creatures died on the coasts of the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and northern France, all “bachelor” or juvenile males.

For now the stranding appears to have ceased, yet scientists are hardly any clearer on what caused so many of the huge whales to be grounded in shallow North Sea waters. They were far from their usual hunting habitat in the deep north Atlantic Ocean, where they can plunge more than 6,500 feet preying on squid.

“It will be difficult to fully reconstruct why this group ended up in the southern North Sea,” Anja Reckendorf, a veterinary scientist with the University of Hannover, told GlobalPost. “We know very little about the journey that males make when they leave their natal group, which also makes the reconstruction of what went wrong very difficult for us.”

Many theories have been posited in the media, from squid hunting to solar flares. Early results from necropsies (whale post-mortems) conducted on some of the whales have revealed some details, such as plastic fish netting being found in the stomach.

Nicola Hodgins, the head of science and research with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Center, believes such speculation and thirst for answers can be pointless.

“Until we get clear results from the autopsies being carried out, it is all just speculation,” she told GlobalPost. “The reality is that there could be numerous reasons these whales ended up where they did.”

Weighing 35 to 45 tons, the whales are an awe-inspiring sight. Yet beyond the large crowds and strange selfies being taken, seeing the beached creatures dying can also be a harrowing experience. Once on land they are hard to move and euthanizing them is not easy. Many of the North Sea whales were removed to a landfill to avoid the carcasses becoming toxic.

Beached whales are far from a rare sight. Scientists and officials have recorded mass strandings of sperm whales before in the North Sea. In 1996, 27 were found.

Nevertheless, the recent spate is the largest such recorded event of its kind for Germany and the UK in terms of numbers. With a global population estimated to be in excess of 200,000 individuals, there is little reason to be concerned for the immediate status of the species.

For scientists and whale experts, however, it is often hard to gauge the real impact as they come late to the game — only seeing the whales once they’re on the beach. Whereas monitoring the great creatures is relatively easy in coastal areas around, say, Mexico or India, it is a far different proposition tracking them in the deep Atlantic.

“They are deep-diving whales who hunt squid at depths around 1,000-1,500 meters [about 3,300-5,000 feet] … They also do this during the cold winter months, when light is scarce in the north, the ocean is rough and weather conditions can be challenging,” Reckendorf said.

One thing is certain: Large numbers of whales beaching at the same time is very likely to occur again in the coming decades. It is the frequency of such events that may help inform experts on the deeper effects the climate and humans may be having.

“I guess one thing we can learn is that human behavior does have an impact,” Hodgins said. “It also shows we know very little about some of the animals we share the planet with.”

Global Post YORK, United Kingdom — Normally tranquil and windswept beaches across northern Europe were converted into cetacean graveyards this winter, as sperm whale after sperm whale kept stranding itself.

From January to early February, 30 of the magnificent creatures died on the coasts of the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and northern France, all “bachelor” or juvenile males.

For now the stranding appears to have ceased, yet scientists are hardly any clearer on what caused so many of the huge whales to be grounded in shallow North Sea waters. They were far from their usual hunting habitat in the deep north Atlantic Ocean, where they can plunge more than 6,500 feet preying on squid.

“It will be difficult to fully reconstruct why this group ended up in the southern North Sea,” Anja Reckendorf, a veterinary scientist with the University of Hannover, told GlobalPost. “We know very little about the journey that males make when they leave their natal group, which also makes the reconstruction of what went wrong very difficult for us.”

Many theories have been posited in the media, from squid hunting to solar flares. Early results from necropsies (whale post-mortems) conducted on some of the whales have revealed some details, such as plastic fish netting being found in the stomach.

Nicola Hodgins, the head of science and research with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Center, believes such speculation and thirst for answers can be pointless.

“Until we get clear results from the autopsies being carried out, it is all just speculation,” she told GlobalPost. “The reality is that there could be numerous reasons these whales ended up where they did.”

Weighing 35 to 45 tons, the whales are an awe-inspiring sight. Yet beyond the large crowds and strange selfies being taken, seeing the beached creatures dying can also be a harrowing experience. Once on land they are hard to move and euthanizing them is not easy. Many of the North Sea whales were removed to a landfill to avoid the carcasses becoming toxic.

Beached whales are far from a rare sight. Scientists and officials have recorded mass strandings of sperm whales before in the North Sea. In 1996, 27 were found.

Nevertheless, the recent spate is the largest such recorded event of its kind for Germany and the UK in terms of numbers. With a global population estimated to be in excess of 200,000 individuals, there is little reason to be concerned for the immediate status of the species.

For scientists and whale experts, however, it is often hard to gauge the real impact as they come late to the game — only seeing the whales once they’re on the beach. Whereas monitoring the great creatures is relatively easy in coastal areas around, say, Mexico or India, it is a far different proposition tracking them in the deep Atlantic.

“They are deep-diving whales who hunt squid at depths around 1,000-1,500 meters [about 3,300-5,000 feet] … They also do this during the cold winter months, when light is scarce in the north, the ocean is rough and weather conditions can be challenging,” Reckendorf said.

One thing is certain: Large numbers of whales beaching at the same time is very likely to occur again in the coming decades. It is the frequency of such events that may help inform experts on the deeper effects the climate and humans may be having.

“I guess one thing we can learn is that human behavior does have an impact,” Hodgins said. “It also shows we know very little about some of the animals we share the planet with.”

Global Post YORK, United Kingdom — Normally tranquil and windswept beaches across northern Europe were converted into cetacean graveyards this winter, as sperm whale after sperm whale kept stranding itself.

From January to early February, 30 of the magnificent creatures died on the coasts of the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and northern France, all “bachelor” or juvenile males.

For now the stranding appears to have ceased, yet scientists are hardly any clearer on what caused so many of the huge whales to be grounded in shallow North Sea waters. They were far from their usual hunting habitat in the deep north Atlantic Ocean, where they can plunge more than 6,500 feet preying on squid.

“It will be difficult to fully reconstruct why this group ended up in the southern North Sea,” Anja Reckendorf, a veterinary scientist with the University of Hannover, told GlobalPost. “We know very little about the journey that males make when they leave their natal group, which also makes the reconstruction of what went wrong very difficult for us.”

Many theories have been posited in the media, from squid hunting to solar flares. Early results from necropsies (whale post-mortems) conducted on some of the whales have revealed some details, such as plastic fish netting being found in the stomach.

Nicola Hodgins, the head of science and research with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Center, believes such speculation and thirst for answers can be pointless.

“Until we get clear results from the autopsies being carried out, it is all just speculation,” she told GlobalPost. “The reality is that there could be numerous reasons these whales ended up where they did.”

Weighing 35 to 45 tons, the whales are an awe-inspiring sight. Yet beyond the large crowds and strange selfies being taken, seeing the beached creatures dying can also be a harrowing experience. Once on land they are hard to move and euthanizing them is not easy. Many of the North Sea whales were removed to a landfill to avoid the carcasses becoming toxic.

Beached whales are far from a rare sight. Scientists and officials have recorded mass strandings of sperm whales before in the North Sea. In 1996, 27 were found.

Nevertheless, the recent spate is the largest such recorded event of its kind for Germany and the UK in terms of numbers. With a global population estimated to be in excess of 200,000 individuals, there is little reason to be concerned for the immediate status of the species.

For scientists and whale experts, however, it is often hard to gauge the real impact as they come late to the game — only seeing the whales once they’re on the beach. Whereas monitoring the great creatures is relatively easy in coastal areas around, say, Mexico or India, it is a far different proposition tracking them in the deep Atlantic.

“They are deep-diving whales who hunt squid at depths around 1,000-1,500 meters [about 3,300-5,000 feet] … They also do this during the cold winter months, when light is scarce in the north, the ocean is rough and weather conditions can be challenging,” Reckendorf said.

One thing is certain: Large numbers of whales beaching at the same time is very likely to occur again in the coming decades. It is the frequency of such events that may help inform experts on the deeper effects the climate and humans may be having.

“I guess one thing we can learn is that human behavior does have an impact,” Hodgins said. “It also shows we know very little about some of the animals we share the planet with.”

Global Post YORK, United Kingdom — Normally tranquil and windswept beaches across northern Europe were converted into cetacean graveyards this winter, as sperm whale after sperm whale kept stranding itself.

From January to early February, 30 of the magnificent creatures died on the coasts of the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and northern France, all “bachelor” or juvenile males.

For now the stranding appears to have ceased, yet scientists are hardly any clearer on what caused so many of the huge whales to be grounded in shallow North Sea waters. They were far from their usual hunting habitat in the deep north Atlantic Ocean, where they can plunge more than 6,500 feet preying on squid.

“It will be difficult to fully reconstruct why this group ended up in the southern North Sea,” Anja Reckendorf, a veterinary scientist with the University of Hannover, told GlobalPost. “We know very little about the journey that males make when they leave their natal group, which also makes the reconstruction of what went wrong very difficult for us.”

Many theories have been posited in the media, from squid hunting to solar flares. Early results from necropsies (whale post-mortems) conducted on some of the whales have revealed some details, such as plastic fish netting being found in the stomach.

Nicola Hodgins, the head of science and research with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Center, believes such speculation and thirst for answers can be pointless.

“Until we get clear results from the autopsies being carried out, it is all just speculation,” she told GlobalPost. “The reality is that there could be numerous reasons these whales ended up where they did.”

Weighing 35 to 45 tons, the whales are an awe-inspiring sight. Yet beyond the large crowds and strange selfies being taken, seeing the beached creatures dying can also be a harrowing experience. Once on land they are hard to move and euthanizing them is not easy. Many of the North Sea whales were removed to a landfill to avoid the carcasses becoming toxic.

Beached whales are far from a rare sight. Scientists and officials have recorded mass strandings of sperm whales before in the North Sea. In 1996, 27 were found.

Nevertheless, the recent spate is the largest such recorded event of its kind for Germany and the UK in terms of numbers. With a global population estimated to be in excess of 200,000 individuals, there is little reason to be concerned for the immediate status of the species.

For scientists and whale experts, however, it is often hard to gauge the real impact as they come late to the game — only seeing the whales once they’re on the beach. Whereas monitoring the great creatures is relatively easy in coastal areas around, say, Mexico or India, it is a far different proposition tracking them in the deep Atlantic.

“They are deep-diving whales who hunt squid at depths around 1,000-1,500 meters [about 3,300-5,000 feet] … They also do this during the cold winter months, when light is scarce in the north, the ocean is rough and weather conditions can be challenging,” Reckendorf said.

One thing is certain: Large numbers of whales beaching at the same time is very likely to occur again in the coming decades. It is the frequency of such events that may help inform experts on the deeper effects the climate and humans may be having.

“I guess one thing we can learn is that human behavior does have an impact,” Hodgins said. “It also shows we know very little about some of the animals we share the planet with.”

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 00:45

Hillary is anything but “inevitable”: The political press is lying to you about her delegate lead

AlterNet After three primary battles, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are tied in pledged delegates, or delegates that are decided by the voters, 51-51, and due to New Hampshire’s open primary that Sanders won overwhelmingly, he leads the “popular vote” 60% to 40%. But one wouldn’t know that after a cursory glance at the delegate count of media sources including ABC News, NPR, Chicago Tribune and the New York Times: When one googles “democratic delegate count” in google the default result gives a similar impression: The reason for this is because most media, though certainly not all, are including what are called “superdelegates” or delegates awarded to party insiders who have thus far pledged their delegates to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Given Clinton’s early “front-runner” status and deep connections within the party, it’s entirely logical why she would have such a considerable lead among the party elite, but it’s a precarious lead that, when presented without qualification, only serves to prejudice the voter into thinking Clinton’s lead is insurmountable. The reality, as the Times' own report makes clear, is that these delegate totals are far from set in stone: "But superdelegates could switch candidates if Mr. Sanders is the overwhelming choice of regular voters." Indeed, in 2008, a great number of superdelegates, having initially supported Clinton, flooded to Obama once he started to rack up major victories in the primary states. While such a scenario has yet to play out in 2016, why the media would present such an historically provisional total as something final is misleading. As several political pundits have pointed out, if Sanders were to begin racking up voter-allocated delegates, it would create a crisis in the party if the superdelegates usurped their wishes and selected Clinton in spite of her getting less votes. Absent a tie, as Jonathan Bernstein of Bloomberg notes, the superdelegates won’t decide the primary, and are thus far more psychological than material. All this essential context is lost in these simplistic graphs. Big-name Sanders booster Mark Ruffalo cried foul Tuesday morning, tweeting, “Please set the record straight, 51 to 51 and not 502 to 70.” Other big-name Bernie supporters Michael Moore and Robert Reich also objected to the framing. Despite their partisan tone, they’re entirely right. How the media frames the horse race matters and how they're doing so now is very misleading. Another major issue in the superdelegate-included totals, in addition to being objectively prejudicial, is that it plays into one of Clinton’s major selling points: inevitability. As the Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel put it on Twitter when objecting to the New York Times' use of superdelegates, it's an "inevitability watch." The reason she framed it this way makes sense to anyone who closely monitors the campaign; the impression that Clinton is the ordained favorite, the default nominee absent disaster, exists largely in the minds of pundits and party leaders. When the voters actually get to weigh in, as we’ve seen, Clinton and Sanders are roughly just as popular.. MSNBC Chris Hayes made a similar point, tweeting: I think it's important to keep democratically earned delegates and super delegates separate in tallies. it's true, according to the DNC rules there's no difference between them. And it's also true HRC has hundreds pledged to her. But in the event that Sanders were to head towards the convention w more awarded delegates, I think it would provoke a pretty profound. small-d democratic crisis for the DNC to award the nom to HRC just on super Ds. He’s on the right track, but this is a bit inadequate. Some media make difficult-to-understand color distinctions, but this is not something we can expect the average voter to parse. MSNBC and CNN, to their credit, have avoided publishing on their websites the lopsided superdelegate totals, vouching instead for state-by-state breakdowns. The media’s job should not be to play into power-serving tropes. The average media consumer cannot be expected to make such nuanced distinctions while briefly looking at a graph. Scrolling past Twitter or flipping through the New York Times and seeing a graph that shows Clinton with a 7-to-1 lead gives the impression the election is all but over, which can only serve to undermine democracy and further perpetuate the undeserved "inevitable" narrative advanced by the Clinton camp. AlterNet After three primary battles, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are tied in pledged delegates, or delegates that are decided by the voters, 51-51, and due to New Hampshire’s open primary that Sanders won overwhelmingly, he leads the “popular vote” 60% to 40%. But one wouldn’t know that after a cursory glance at the delegate count of media sources including ABC News, NPR, Chicago Tribune and the New York Times: When one googles “democratic delegate count” in google the default result gives a similar impression: The reason for this is because most media, though certainly not all, are including what are called “superdelegates” or delegates awarded to party insiders who have thus far pledged their delegates to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Given Clinton’s early “front-runner” status and deep connections within the party, it’s entirely logical why she would have such a considerable lead among the party elite, but it’s a precarious lead that, when presented without qualification, only serves to prejudice the voter into thinking Clinton’s lead is insurmountable. The reality, as the Times' own report makes clear, is that these delegate totals are far from set in stone: "But superdelegates could switch candidates if Mr. Sanders is the overwhelming choice of regular voters." Indeed, in 2008, a great number of superdelegates, having initially supported Clinton, flooded to Obama once he started to rack up major victories in the primary states. While such a scenario has yet to play out in 2016, why the media would present such an historically provisional total as something final is misleading. As several political pundits have pointed out, if Sanders were to begin racking up voter-allocated delegates, it would create a crisis in the party if the superdelegates usurped their wishes and selected Clinton in spite of her getting less votes. Absent a tie, as Jonathan Bernstein of Bloomberg notes, the superdelegates won’t decide the primary, and are thus far more psychological than material. All this essential context is lost in these simplistic graphs. Big-name Sanders booster Mark Ruffalo cried foul Tuesday morning, tweeting, “Please set the record straight, 51 to 51 and not 502 to 70.” Other big-name Bernie supporters Michael Moore and Robert Reich also objected to the framing. Despite their partisan tone, they’re entirely right. How the media frames the horse race matters and how they're doing so now is very misleading. Another major issue in the superdelegate-included totals, in addition to being objectively prejudicial, is that it plays into one of Clinton’s major selling points: inevitability. As the Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel put it on Twitter when objecting to the New York Times' use of superdelegates, it's an "inevitability watch." The reason she framed it this way makes sense to anyone who closely monitors the campaign; the impression that Clinton is the ordained favorite, the default nominee absent disaster, exists largely in the minds of pundits and party leaders. When the voters actually get to weigh in, as we’ve seen, Clinton and Sanders are roughly just as popular.. MSNBC Chris Hayes made a similar point, tweeting: I think it's important to keep democratically earned delegates and super delegates separate in tallies. it's true, according to the DNC rules there's no difference between them. And it's also true HRC has hundreds pledged to her. But in the event that Sanders were to head towards the convention w more awarded delegates, I think it would provoke a pretty profound. small-d democratic crisis for the DNC to award the nom to HRC just on super Ds. He’s on the right track, but this is a bit inadequate. Some media make difficult-to-understand color distinctions, but this is not something we can expect the average voter to parse. MSNBC and CNN, to their credit, have avoided publishing on their websites the lopsided superdelegate totals, vouching instead for state-by-state breakdowns. The media’s job should not be to play into power-serving tropes. The average media consumer cannot be expected to make such nuanced distinctions while briefly looking at a graph. Scrolling past Twitter or flipping through the New York Times and seeing a graph that shows Clinton with a 7-to-1 lead gives the impression the election is all but over, which can only serve to undermine democracy and further perpetuate the undeserved "inevitable" narrative advanced by the Clinton camp. AlterNet After three primary battles, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are tied in pledged delegates, or delegates that are decided by the voters, 51-51, and due to New Hampshire’s open primary that Sanders won overwhelmingly, he leads the “popular vote” 60% to 40%. But one wouldn’t know that after a cursory glance at the delegate count of media sources including ABC News, NPR, Chicago Tribune and the New York Times: When one googles “democratic delegate count” in google the default result gives a similar impression: The reason for this is because most media, though certainly not all, are including what are called “superdelegates” or delegates awarded to party insiders who have thus far pledged their delegates to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Given Clinton’s early “front-runner” status and deep connections within the party, it’s entirely logical why she would have such a considerable lead among the party elite, but it’s a precarious lead that, when presented without qualification, only serves to prejudice the voter into thinking Clinton’s lead is insurmountable. The reality, as the Times' own report makes clear, is that these delegate totals are far from set in stone: "But superdelegates could switch candidates if Mr. Sanders is the overwhelming choice of regular voters." Indeed, in 2008, a great number of superdelegates, having initially supported Clinton, flooded to Obama once he started to rack up major victories in the primary states. While such a scenario has yet to play out in 2016, why the media would present such an historically provisional total as something final is misleading. As several political pundits have pointed out, if Sanders were to begin racking up voter-allocated delegates, it would create a crisis in the party if the superdelegates usurped their wishes and selected Clinton in spite of her getting less votes. Absent a tie, as Jonathan Bernstein of Bloomberg notes, the superdelegates won’t decide the primary, and are thus far more psychological than material. All this essential context is lost in these simplistic graphs. Big-name Sanders booster Mark Ruffalo cried foul Tuesday morning, tweeting, “Please set the record straight, 51 to 51 and not 502 to 70.” Other big-name Bernie supporters Michael Moore and Robert Reich also objected to the framing. Despite their partisan tone, they’re entirely right. How the media frames the horse race matters and how they're doing so now is very misleading. Another major issue in the superdelegate-included totals, in addition to being objectively prejudicial, is that it plays into one of Clinton’s major selling points: inevitability. As the Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuvel put it on Twitter when objecting to the New York Times' use of superdelegates, it's an "inevitability watch." The reason she framed it this way makes sense to anyone who closely monitors the campaign; the impression that Clinton is the ordained favorite, the default nominee absent disaster, exists largely in the minds of pundits and party leaders. When the voters actually get to weigh in, as we’ve seen, Clinton and Sanders are roughly just as popular.. MSNBC Chris Hayes made a similar point, tweeting: I think it's important to keep democratically earned delegates and super delegates separate in tallies. it's true, according to the DNC rules there's no difference between them. And it's also true HRC has hundreds pledged to her. But in the event that Sanders were to head towards the convention w more awarded delegates, I think it would provoke a pretty profound. small-d democratic crisis for the DNC to award the nom to HRC just on super Ds. He’s on the right track, but this is a bit inadequate. Some media make difficult-to-understand color distinctions, but this is not something we can expect the average voter to parse. MSNBC and CNN, to their credit, have avoided publishing on their websites the lopsided superdelegate totals, vouching instead for state-by-state breakdowns. The media’s job should not be to play into power-serving tropes. The average media consumer cannot be expected to make such nuanced distinctions while briefly looking at a graph. Scrolling past Twitter or flipping through the New York Times and seeing a graph that shows Clinton with a 7-to-1 lead gives the impression the election is all but over, which can only serve to undermine democracy and further perpetuate the undeserved "inevitable" narrative advanced by the Clinton camp.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 00:30

“Baghdad by the Bay”: San Francisco is slowly devolving into a crypto police state

In the photo, five of Beyoncé’s leather-clad, black-bereted dancers raise their fists in a Black Power salute. The woman in the middle holds a hand-lettered sign up for the camera, bearing three words and a number: “Justice 4 Mario Woods.” Behind them, the crowd at Levi's Stadium, home of the San Francisco 49ers, is getting ready for the second half of Super Bowl 50, but the game’s real fireworks are already over. The women in the photo had just finished backing Beyoncé’s homage to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X during her incandescent halftime appearance, when two San Francisco Bay Area Black Lives Matter activists managed to grab a few words with them. Rheema Emy Calloway and Ronnisha Johnson asked if they’d make a quick video demanding justice for Mario Woods. “From the look on the faces of the dancers, they’d already heard about the case,” Calloway told the Guardian. Who was Mario Woods and why did Calloway and Johnson want the world to know that his life mattered? The answer: on December 2, 2015, Mario Woods was executed in broad daylight by officers of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and the event was filmed. Woods was a 26-year-old African American, born and raised in San Francisco’s Bayview district, one of the city’s few remaining largely black neighborhoods. (In 1980, right before I moved to San Francisco, African Americans made up almost 13% of the city’s population. Today, the figure is around 6% and shrinking.) Woods died when police attempted to arrest him because they believed that, earlier in the day, he had stabbed another man in the arm. Like many victims of police violence, Woods had mental health problems. Indeed, his autopsy’s toxicology report showed that, when he died, his system contained a powerful mix of medications (both prescribed and self-administered) including anti-depressants, speed, and marijuana. But it was the way he died that brought Mario Woods a brief bit of posthumous notoriety. His death was, like Beyoncé’s dancers, captured on video. A crowd of people watched as what CNN described as “a sea of police officers” surrounded Woods and shot him dead. At least two people recorded cell-phone videos of what looks eerily like an execution by firing squad. Woods, his back to a wall, one leg injured from earlier rounds of non-lethal projectiles, attempts to limp past the half-circle of police. Arms at his sides, he sidles along, until an officer blocks his way and opens fire. Three seconds and at least 20 shots later, he lies in a heap on the sidewalk. Police said he was carrying a knife, although this is not at all clear from the video. One thing is clear, however: Woods was not threatening anyone when he was gunned down. From Hippies to Hipsters -- Policing the City of Love San Francisco is known around the world for its gentle vibe, its Left Coast politics, its live-and-let-live approach to other people’s lifestyles -- except when it comes to the police. For many of them, “live and let live” does not seem to apply to everyone, especially not to communities of color, and in the not-too-distant past to LGBT folk either. I remember, for instance, the infamous October 6, 1989, “Castro Sweep,” when police responded to a nonviolent Act Up demonstration for AIDS funding by occupying an entire gay neighborhood called “the Castro” (for its main commercial street). They ran into bars and restaurants, dragging patrons out to the sidewalks and beating them with truncheons. I was working some blocks away at the headquarters of the “Yes on S” campaign, supporting what now seems like a quaint ballot measure (which failed) aimed at creating domestic partnerships in the City of Love. A bleeding man came stumbling into our office shouting that the police were rioting in the Castro. For once, the SFPD had gone too far and the city ended up paying out $250,000 (a pittance even then) to settle a class action suit by the victims. A couple of police captains were finally disciplined, but Chief of Police Frank Jordan was not penalized at all and went on to serve as mayor from 1992 to 1996. The Castro Sweep might hold a bigger place in the city’s memory and history, had the Loma Prieta earthquake not shaken San Francisco 11 days later. Once a mostly white department -- at whom demonstrators used to chant, “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, SFPD go away!” -- the city’s police force is now significantly more diverse. Today, women, people of color, and open LGBT folk all wear the blue, but a hard core of the old guard remains. With them remains a still-dominant culture of sexism, homophobia, racism, and impunity. In 2015, a series of text messages involving at least 10 different SFPD members came to light during a corruption case against one of them,Ian Fruminger. Sent between 2010 and 2012, these messages revealed just how ugly the attitudes of that hard core are -- and how entitled they seem to feel to end the lives of people they believe deserve it. Here’s a sample:  Fruminger texted a friend who was an SFPD officer, "I hate to tell you this but my wife [sic] friend is over with their kids and her husband is black! If [sic] is an Attorney but should I be worried?" He wrote back: "Get ur pocket gun. Keep it available in case the monkey returns to his roots. Its [sic] not against the law to put an animal down." Furminger responded, "Well said!" When the city moved to fire the officers involved, a judge ruled that the police department had missed a legal deadline for disciplinary action. Not the First Time Mario Woods was hardly the first man shot by the police in my adopted hometown. In fact, in the last couple of years two such killings happened in my neighborhood. Alejandro “Alex” Nieto died on Bernal Heights. It’s a hilltop near my house where people go to run, often with their dogs, and take in glorious views of the city that San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen used to call “Baghdad by the Bay” to emphasize its exotic character, long before Iraq became part of the  Axis of Evil. Alex Nieto, a community college student who made his living working as a security guard, came from the largely Latino and immigrant-populated Mission District. On the night of March 21, 2014, Nieto sat on a bench on Bernal Heights to eat a burrito before going to work. On his hip was the taser he carried on the job. An anonymous call to 911 reported a man sitting in the park with a gun on his hip and the SFPD responded. In January 2016, his parents, Refugio and Elvira Nieto, would finally file a wrongful death suit against Chief of Police Greg Suhr, up to 25 as-yet-unidentified police officers, and the city and county of San Francisco. The suit alleges that as their son, having finished his burrito, was “casually” walking down a jogging path towards the park entrance, the police arrived. Two officers took cover behind a patrol car, while several others, carrying what witnesses said looked like rifles, took up positions behind Nieto. One of the officers behind the police car, yelled, “Stop.” Here, in the words of the suit, is what happened next: “Within seconds a quick volley of bullets were fired at Mr. Nieto. No additional orders or any other verbal communication was heard between the first Officer yelling 'stop' and the initial volley of gunfire that rang out. Mr. Nieto fell to the ground. After a brief pause of just a second or two, a second barrage of shots were fired. The Officers’ bullets struck Mr. Nieto in his forehead and at least nine other places leaving his body grossly disfigured and mortally wounded.” The police claimed that Nieto pointed his taser at them and they had to kill him. But eyewitnesses say that he never threatened anyone. Instead, as Sergeant Furminger might have expressed it, those police officers evidently decided to “put him down” like a dangerous animal. The SFPD has never even released the names of those involved in Nieto’s death. (In the civil suit, they are referred to as John Doe 1 through 25.) As far as anyone knows, none of them have ever been disciplined in any way. Alex Nieto’s parents continue to tend a little shrine on Bernal Heights where he died. The Death of Amilcar Perez Lopez On February 26, 2015, a few blocks from my house, two undercover police officers shot Amilcar Perez Lopez, a 20-year-old Guatemalan man, six times in the back. The Mission District Episcopal church I belong to helped raise money for his family. As the members of my church community would come to understand from them, he was working in the United States without documents, the sole support for his parents and younger siblings back home in Guatemala. Through his efforts, he’d sent them enough money to bring electricity and running water to their thatched roof adobe house. On the day he died, he was involved in some kind of altercation with a man who may have accused him of stealing his bicycle. After that ended, according to the civil suit his parents brought against the city, he was walking home along Folsom Street when accosted by those undercover police officers, named in the suit as Craig Tiffe and Eric Riboli. The two “surreptitiously rushed at Amilcar from behind.” One of them got him in a “bear hug.” Amilcar spoke very little English. It’s likely he had no idea that they were police officers. In any case, he managed to get free and started running down the sidewalk. That’s when they shot him. The official police story was that he lunged at them with a knife and the officers had to shoot him to save their own lives. And that story might have stuck, had the family’s attorney not commissioned a private autopsy, which was performed by Dr. A. J. Chapman, a forensic pathologist in Santa Rosa, California. The city had already done its own autopsy when Dr. Chapman received Amilcar’s body, but had issued no report. Chapman found that Amilcar had taken six shots in the back, five to the torso and right arm, and one to the back of his head. If he was shot while attacking the two officers, why did the bullets strike him from behind? It took the city’s Medical Examiner’s Office five months to release its autopsy, which ultimately concluded the same thing. What might that report have said if activists had not arranged for a private, unbiased report? There’s no way to know. Public Servants or Occupying Army? In the aftermath of Michael Brown’s shooting death in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, many white people woke up to a reality that was hardly news in most communities of color where death-by-police is all too common. What’s new is that the rest of us are suddenly hearing about the Eric Garners, Freddie Grays, and Sandra Blands who die literally every day in this country. The rest of the U.S. is beginning to understand what the police already represent to so many communities from Ferguson to Baltimore to Waller County, Texas, to -- yes -- San Francisco. Far from seeing the police as a source of help and protection, many Americans feel the same way about them as people living under corrupt authoritarian regimes feel about their police or armies. They see them as an occupying force, not there to protect and serve but to frighten and extort. Many Americans are not used to thinking of our police as agents of extortion, but a recent Justice Department (DOJ) report on the police and the municipal courts of Ferguson, for instance, tells a different story. The department found that “City officials have consistently set maximizing revenue as the priority for Ferguson’s law enforcement activity.  Ferguson generates a significant and increasing amount of revenue from the enforcement of code provisions.” The Harvard Law Review reported that in 2013, Ferguson issued more arrest warrants than the city has residents -- one and a half for every citizen. The report adds: ”In Ferguson, residents who fall behind on fines and don’t appear in court after a warrant is issued for their arrest (or arrive in court after the courtroom doors close, which often happens just five minutes after the session is set to start for the day) are charged an additional $120 to $130 fine, along with a $50 fee for a new arrest warrant and 56 cents for each mile that police drive to serve it. Once arrested, everyone who can’t pay their fines or post bail (which is usually set to equal the amount of their total debt) is imprisoned until the next court session (which happens three days a month). Anyone who is imprisoned is charged $30 to $60 a night by the jail.” After the Justice Department released the report, the city spent six months negotiating with the DOJ on a complete overhaul of its police and courts. But when Ferguson’s own negotiators brought this proposed “consent decree” to the city council, the council members rejected it. So now the Justice Department has announced that it will sue Ferguson to force it to make changes that the city insists will cost too much. “There is no cost for constitutional policing,” says Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She’s right. What she didn’t say, because she shouldn’t have to, is that the costs of unconstitutional policing include ravaged communities and a divided nation. In many places it’s hard to get information about what goes on inside police forces because a thicket of laws protects them. In California, a 1978 law, signed by Jerry Brown in his first go-round as governor, makes it almost impossible to learn anything about the individual police officers involved in the deaths of Alex Nieto and Amilcar Perez Lopez, or whether their records reflect significant prior complaints or charges. The Modesto Bee reports that under this law: “peace officer personnel records are confidential, including personal data, promotion, appraisal and discipline records, and ‘any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ Only a judge can order their release as part of a criminal case or lawsuit.” This makes it difficult, for example, to know whether a particular officer has a record of brutality complaints, or indeed whether a whole police department has such a record. Civil rights attorney and former justice of the California Supreme Court Cruz Reynoso told the Bee that citizens seeking information about police killings face “a wall of silence.” Here in San Francisco, we might finally shake some of that information loose. In January, the Board of Supervisors responded to organized grassroots pressure by voting unanimously to request a Department of Justice review of the police department. We can only hope that when the DOJ releases its report on San Francisco’s police, my city will respond better than Ferguson did. We need more than a thorough housecleaning at the SFPD, starting at the top with Police Chief Greg Suhr. The whole community, indeed the whole country, would do well to rethink why we have police and what we really want them to do. Not shooting so many people might be a good place to start. Maybe Herb Caen was more prescient than he knew when he called San Francisco Baghdad by the Bay. Maybe we should not be surprised when police forces claim impunity for crimes they commit against the communities of color they “serve.” They’re only doing on a small scale what the United States does on the international stage -- when it claims the right to bombinvade, and occupy foreign countries, without accepting any responsibility for the human misery that results.In the photo, five of Beyoncé’s leather-clad, black-bereted dancers raise their fists in a Black Power salute. The woman in the middle holds a hand-lettered sign up for the camera, bearing three words and a number: “Justice 4 Mario Woods.” Behind them, the crowd at Levi's Stadium, home of the San Francisco 49ers, is getting ready for the second half of Super Bowl 50, but the game’s real fireworks are already over. The women in the photo had just finished backing Beyoncé’s homage to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X during her incandescent halftime appearance, when two San Francisco Bay Area Black Lives Matter activists managed to grab a few words with them. Rheema Emy Calloway and Ronnisha Johnson asked if they’d make a quick video demanding justice for Mario Woods. “From the look on the faces of the dancers, they’d already heard about the case,” Calloway told the Guardian. Who was Mario Woods and why did Calloway and Johnson want the world to know that his life mattered? The answer: on December 2, 2015, Mario Woods was executed in broad daylight by officers of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and the event was filmed. Woods was a 26-year-old African American, born and raised in San Francisco’s Bayview district, one of the city’s few remaining largely black neighborhoods. (In 1980, right before I moved to San Francisco, African Americans made up almost 13% of the city’s population. Today, the figure is around 6% and shrinking.) Woods died when police attempted to arrest him because they believed that, earlier in the day, he had stabbed another man in the arm. Like many victims of police violence, Woods had mental health problems. Indeed, his autopsy’s toxicology report showed that, when he died, his system contained a powerful mix of medications (both prescribed and self-administered) including anti-depressants, speed, and marijuana. But it was the way he died that brought Mario Woods a brief bit of posthumous notoriety. His death was, like Beyoncé’s dancers, captured on video. A crowd of people watched as what CNN described as “a sea of police officers” surrounded Woods and shot him dead. At least two people recorded cell-phone videos of what looks eerily like an execution by firing squad. Woods, his back to a wall, one leg injured from earlier rounds of non-lethal projectiles, attempts to limp past the half-circle of police. Arms at his sides, he sidles along, until an officer blocks his way and opens fire. Three seconds and at least 20 shots later, he lies in a heap on the sidewalk. Police said he was carrying a knife, although this is not at all clear from the video. One thing is clear, however: Woods was not threatening anyone when he was gunned down. From Hippies to Hipsters -- Policing the City of Love San Francisco is known around the world for its gentle vibe, its Left Coast politics, its live-and-let-live approach to other people’s lifestyles -- except when it comes to the police. For many of them, “live and let live” does not seem to apply to everyone, especially not to communities of color, and in the not-too-distant past to LGBT folk either. I remember, for instance, the infamous October 6, 1989, “Castro Sweep,” when police responded to a nonviolent Act Up demonstration for AIDS funding by occupying an entire gay neighborhood called “the Castro” (for its main commercial street). They ran into bars and restaurants, dragging patrons out to the sidewalks and beating them with truncheons. I was working some blocks away at the headquarters of the “Yes on S” campaign, supporting what now seems like a quaint ballot measure (which failed) aimed at creating domestic partnerships in the City of Love. A bleeding man came stumbling into our office shouting that the police were rioting in the Castro. For once, the SFPD had gone too far and the city ended up paying out $250,000 (a pittance even then) to settle a class action suit by the victims. A couple of police captains were finally disciplined, but Chief of Police Frank Jordan was not penalized at all and went on to serve as mayor from 1992 to 1996. The Castro Sweep might hold a bigger place in the city’s memory and history, had the Loma Prieta earthquake not shaken San Francisco 11 days later. Once a mostly white department -- at whom demonstrators used to chant, “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, SFPD go away!” -- the city’s police force is now significantly more diverse. Today, women, people of color, and open LGBT folk all wear the blue, but a hard core of the old guard remains. With them remains a still-dominant culture of sexism, homophobia, racism, and impunity. In 2015, a series of text messages involving at least 10 different SFPD members came to light during a corruption case against one of them,Ian Fruminger. Sent between 2010 and 2012, these messages revealed just how ugly the attitudes of that hard core are -- and how entitled they seem to feel to end the lives of people they believe deserve it. Here’s a sample:  Fruminger texted a friend who was an SFPD officer, "I hate to tell you this but my wife [sic] friend is over with their kids and her husband is black! If [sic] is an Attorney but should I be worried?" He wrote back: "Get ur pocket gun. Keep it available in case the monkey returns to his roots. Its [sic] not against the law to put an animal down." Furminger responded, "Well said!" When the city moved to fire the officers involved, a judge ruled that the police department had missed a legal deadline for disciplinary action. Not the First Time Mario Woods was hardly the first man shot by the police in my adopted hometown. In fact, in the last couple of years two such killings happened in my neighborhood. Alejandro “Alex” Nieto died on Bernal Heights. It’s a hilltop near my house where people go to run, often with their dogs, and take in glorious views of the city that San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen used to call “Baghdad by the Bay” to emphasize its exotic character, long before Iraq became part of the  Axis of Evil. Alex Nieto, a community college student who made his living working as a security guard, came from the largely Latino and immigrant-populated Mission District. On the night of March 21, 2014, Nieto sat on a bench on Bernal Heights to eat a burrito before going to work. On his hip was the taser he carried on the job. An anonymous call to 911 reported a man sitting in the park with a gun on his hip and the SFPD responded. In January 2016, his parents, Refugio and Elvira Nieto, would finally file a wrongful death suit against Chief of Police Greg Suhr, up to 25 as-yet-unidentified police officers, and the city and county of San Francisco. The suit alleges that as their son, having finished his burrito, was “casually” walking down a jogging path towards the park entrance, the police arrived. Two officers took cover behind a patrol car, while several others, carrying what witnesses said looked like rifles, took up positions behind Nieto. One of the officers behind the police car, yelled, “Stop.” Here, in the words of the suit, is what happened next: “Within seconds a quick volley of bullets were fired at Mr. Nieto. No additional orders or any other verbal communication was heard between the first Officer yelling 'stop' and the initial volley of gunfire that rang out. Mr. Nieto fell to the ground. After a brief pause of just a second or two, a second barrage of shots were fired. The Officers’ bullets struck Mr. Nieto in his forehead and at least nine other places leaving his body grossly disfigured and mortally wounded.” The police claimed that Nieto pointed his taser at them and they had to kill him. But eyewitnesses say that he never threatened anyone. Instead, as Sergeant Furminger might have expressed it, those police officers evidently decided to “put him down” like a dangerous animal. The SFPD has never even released the names of those involved in Nieto’s death. (In the civil suit, they are referred to as John Doe 1 through 25.) As far as anyone knows, none of them have ever been disciplined in any way. Alex Nieto’s parents continue to tend a little shrine on Bernal Heights where he died. The Death of Amilcar Perez Lopez On February 26, 2015, a few blocks from my house, two undercover police officers shot Amilcar Perez Lopez, a 20-year-old Guatemalan man, six times in the back. The Mission District Episcopal church I belong to helped raise money for his family. As the members of my church community would come to understand from them, he was working in the United States without documents, the sole support for his parents and younger siblings back home in Guatemala. Through his efforts, he’d sent them enough money to bring electricity and running water to their thatched roof adobe house. On the day he died, he was involved in some kind of altercation with a man who may have accused him of stealing his bicycle. After that ended, according to the civil suit his parents brought against the city, he was walking home along Folsom Street when accosted by those undercover police officers, named in the suit as Craig Tiffe and Eric Riboli. The two “surreptitiously rushed at Amilcar from behind.” One of them got him in a “bear hug.” Amilcar spoke very little English. It’s likely he had no idea that they were police officers. In any case, he managed to get free and started running down the sidewalk. That’s when they shot him. The official police story was that he lunged at them with a knife and the officers had to shoot him to save their own lives. And that story might have stuck, had the family’s attorney not commissioned a private autopsy, which was performed by Dr. A. J. Chapman, a forensic pathologist in Santa Rosa, California. The city had already done its own autopsy when Dr. Chapman received Amilcar’s body, but had issued no report. Chapman found that Amilcar had taken six shots in the back, five to the torso and right arm, and one to the back of his head. If he was shot while attacking the two officers, why did the bullets strike him from behind? It took the city’s Medical Examiner’s Office five months to release its autopsy, which ultimately concluded the same thing. What might that report have said if activists had not arranged for a private, unbiased report? There’s no way to know. Public Servants or Occupying Army? In the aftermath of Michael Brown’s shooting death in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, many white people woke up to a reality that was hardly news in most communities of color where death-by-police is all too common. What’s new is that the rest of us are suddenly hearing about the Eric Garners, Freddie Grays, and Sandra Blands who die literally every day in this country. The rest of the U.S. is beginning to understand what the police already represent to so many communities from Ferguson to Baltimore to Waller County, Texas, to -- yes -- San Francisco. Far from seeing the police as a source of help and protection, many Americans feel the same way about them as people living under corrupt authoritarian regimes feel about their police or armies. They see them as an occupying force, not there to protect and serve but to frighten and extort. Many Americans are not used to thinking of our police as agents of extortion, but a recent Justice Department (DOJ) report on the police and the municipal courts of Ferguson, for instance, tells a different story. The department found that “City officials have consistently set maximizing revenue as the priority for Ferguson’s law enforcement activity.  Ferguson generates a significant and increasing amount of revenue from the enforcement of code provisions.” The Harvard Law Review reported that in 2013, Ferguson issued more arrest warrants than the city has residents -- one and a half for every citizen. The report adds: ”In Ferguson, residents who fall behind on fines and don’t appear in court after a warrant is issued for their arrest (or arrive in court after the courtroom doors close, which often happens just five minutes after the session is set to start for the day) are charged an additional $120 to $130 fine, along with a $50 fee for a new arrest warrant and 56 cents for each mile that police drive to serve it. Once arrested, everyone who can’t pay their fines or post bail (which is usually set to equal the amount of their total debt) is imprisoned until the next court session (which happens three days a month). Anyone who is imprisoned is charged $30 to $60 a night by the jail.” After the Justice Department released the report, the city spent six months negotiating with the DOJ on a complete overhaul of its police and courts. But when Ferguson’s own negotiators brought this proposed “consent decree” to the city council, the council members rejected it. So now the Justice Department has announced that it will sue Ferguson to force it to make changes that the city insists will cost too much. “There is no cost for constitutional policing,” says Attorney General Loretta Lynch. She’s right. What she didn’t say, because she shouldn’t have to, is that the costs of unconstitutional policing include ravaged communities and a divided nation. In many places it’s hard to get information about what goes on inside police forces because a thicket of laws protects them. In California, a 1978 law, signed by Jerry Brown in his first go-round as governor, makes it almost impossible to learn anything about the individual police officers involved in the deaths of Alex Nieto and Amilcar Perez Lopez, or whether their records reflect significant prior complaints or charges. The Modesto Bee reports that under this law: “peace officer personnel records are confidential, including personal data, promotion, appraisal and discipline records, and ‘any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ Only a judge can order their release as part of a criminal case or lawsuit.” This makes it difficult, for example, to know whether a particular officer has a record of brutality complaints, or indeed whether a whole police department has such a record. Civil rights attorney and former justice of the California Supreme Court Cruz Reynoso told the Bee that citizens seeking information about police killings face “a wall of silence.” Here in San Francisco, we might finally shake some of that information loose. In January, the Board of Supervisors responded to organized grassroots pressure by voting unanimously to request a Department of Justice review of the police department. We can only hope that when the DOJ releases its report on San Francisco’s police, my city will respond better than Ferguson did. We need more than a thorough housecleaning at the SFPD, starting at the top with Police Chief Greg Suhr. The whole community, indeed the whole country, would do well to rethink why we have police and what we really want them to do. Not shooting so many people might be a good place to start. Maybe Herb Caen was more prescient than he knew when he called San Francisco Baghdad by the Bay. Maybe we should not be surprised when police forces claim impunity for crimes they commit against the communities of color they “serve.” They’re only doing on a small scale what the United States does on the international stage -- when it claims the right to bombinvade, and occupy foreign countries, without accepting any responsibility for the human misery that results.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 00:15

Noam Chomsky: Donald Trump is a natural product of neoliberalism

AlterNet Noam Chomsky, 87, is without a doubt the most significant academic figure to cast a highly critical eye on U.S. foreign policies. The 2016 U.S. presidential primaries are in motion and with democratic socialist Bernie Sanders challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, it may be prudent for valued thinkers like Chomsky to turn that eye in on American soil and the inner gears of its political machine. Aaron Williams: Many people now get their daily news via the news feed on their social media accounts. Unfortunately, these articles are sometimes posted by publications with a particular political leaning and use misleading or misinforming titles that paint their side more favorably. Fortunately, there are many who see past the headline and leave critical feedback. Noam Chomsky: Furthermore, social media tend to be quite superficial. And they appear to encourage what some young people call “skim reading.” Williams: How important do you think social media has become these days for making an informed public and how much of an impact do you think it can have on grassroots movements?

Chomsky: They are useful for organizing, but as information sources they do not begin to compare with print media, in my opinion. Nor do TV or radio.

Williams: Bernie Sanders has been quite outspoken about breaking up banks that are "too big to fail." Rolling Stone recently published an article that speculated on the idea ultimately doing more harm than voters may realize, with corporate bank spinoffs making much more money than they would before a breakup, with some people being driven out of banking to form much less regulated hedge funds. What is your opinion on this? Do you think banks that are "too big" should be broken up?

Chomsky: The consequences should be carefully explored. I haven’t done so.

Williams: What are your opinions on the surprising progress of Donald Trump? Could it be explained by a climate of fear?

Chomsky: Fear, along with the breakdown of society during the neoliberal period. People feel isolated, helpless, victim of powerful forces that they do not understand and cannot influence. It’s interesting to compare the situation in the ‘30s, which I’m old enough to remember. Objectively, poverty and suffering were far greater. But even among poor working people and the unemployed, there was a sense of hope that is lacking now, in large part because of the growth of a militant labor movement and also the existence of political organizations outside the mainstream.

Williams: With like outspoken socialists Bernie Sanders and UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's current successes, is this a new political age and is this a direct result of austerity?

Chomsky: Sanders, in my opinion, is an honest and decent New Deal Democrat. Corbyn expresses stands of traditional Labour. The fact that they are regarded as “extreme” is a comment on the shift to the right of the whole political spectrum during the neoliberal period.

Williams:Who do you see becoming the next U.S. president?

Chomsky: I can express hopes and fears, but not predictions.

AlterNet Noam Chomsky, 87, is without a doubt the most significant academic figure to cast a highly critical eye on U.S. foreign policies. The 2016 U.S. presidential primaries are in motion and with democratic socialist Bernie Sanders challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, it may be prudent for valued thinkers like Chomsky to turn that eye in on American soil and the inner gears of its political machine. Aaron Williams: Many people now get their daily news via the news feed on their social media accounts. Unfortunately, these articles are sometimes posted by publications with a particular political leaning and use misleading or misinforming titles that paint their side more favorably. Fortunately, there are many who see past the headline and leave critical feedback. Noam Chomsky: Furthermore, social media tend to be quite superficial. And they appear to encourage what some young people call “skim reading.” Williams: How important do you think social media has become these days for making an informed public and how much of an impact do you think it can have on grassroots movements?

Chomsky: They are useful for organizing, but as information sources they do not begin to compare with print media, in my opinion. Nor do TV or radio.

Williams: Bernie Sanders has been quite outspoken about breaking up banks that are "too big to fail." Rolling Stone recently published an article that speculated on the idea ultimately doing more harm than voters may realize, with corporate bank spinoffs making much more money than they would before a breakup, with some people being driven out of banking to form much less regulated hedge funds. What is your opinion on this? Do you think banks that are "too big" should be broken up?

Chomsky: The consequences should be carefully explored. I haven’t done so.

Williams: What are your opinions on the surprising progress of Donald Trump? Could it be explained by a climate of fear?

Chomsky: Fear, along with the breakdown of society during the neoliberal period. People feel isolated, helpless, victim of powerful forces that they do not understand and cannot influence. It’s interesting to compare the situation in the ‘30s, which I’m old enough to remember. Objectively, poverty and suffering were far greater. But even among poor working people and the unemployed, there was a sense of hope that is lacking now, in large part because of the growth of a militant labor movement and also the existence of political organizations outside the mainstream.

Williams: With like outspoken socialists Bernie Sanders and UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's current successes, is this a new political age and is this a direct result of austerity?

Chomsky: Sanders, in my opinion, is an honest and decent New Deal Democrat. Corbyn expresses stands of traditional Labour. The fact that they are regarded as “extreme” is a comment on the shift to the right of the whole political spectrum during the neoliberal period.

Williams:Who do you see becoming the next U.S. president?

Chomsky: I can express hopes and fears, but not predictions.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on February 25, 2016 00:00

February 24, 2016