Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/accuser-senate-limit-press-kavanaugh-hearing/
Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing
September 25, 2018
Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have asked senators to limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover Thursday’s hearing with her and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.
Coverage is one of a number of issues Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.
Those emails were among several seen by The Washington Times detailing the tense negotiations between Ms. Blasey Ford’s team and committee staff.
While committees sometimes limit press based on space at hearings, and some witnesses have arranged to have their identities shielded, longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage.
In Ms. Blasey Ford’s case she has received threats since she went public with her story, and her team has insisted the committee guarantee her safety as she testifies, as well as limited access to the hearing.
Ms. Blasey Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of an attempted sexual assault at a party when they were both high school students in the early 1980s. He has vehemently denied the accusation, and as yet no contemporaneous witness has come forward to verify her allegations.
She has agreed to testify but has laid out a number of parameters and is objecting to some of Republicans’ plans.
One major sticking point is the GOP’s plans to use a female lawyer hired specifically for this hearing to ask questions on behalf of the Republican senators. That lawyer will question both Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey Ford, according to one email from Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley.
Debra Katz, another of Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers, said in a Tuesday morning message they still haven’t been told who that outside lawyer will be.
“Please let us know if you have similarly withheld the name of this person from Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel. If you have not, which we assume to be the case, can you please explain the disparate treatment?” she wrote. “Please also advise whether Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel have been given an opportunity to meet with this individual. We would similarly like the opportunity to meet with her at her soonest availability.”
She said in the email that Mr. Davis was refusing to talk by phone, so Ms. Blasey Ford’s team was asking for an in-person meeting.
A spokesman for Mr. Grassley didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/
10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer
It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.
By Adam Mill
September 25, 2018
I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.
My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.
Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.
I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.
It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.
When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.
Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.
1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.
Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.
2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.
For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.
3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.
The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.
4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.
The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.
5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.
Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courts on college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.
6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.
In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.
7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.
It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.
8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.
In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.
9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.
10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.
It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.
These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.
Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.
Alan Dershowitz: Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings
Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings
By Alan M. Dershowitz
September 22, 2018
It’s not surprising that each side of the Ford/Kavanaugh he said/she said dispute is seeking different procedures. This is an adversarial high-stakes confrontation between a male Supreme Court justice nominee and his female accuser. Reasonable people could disagree about the appropriate procedural steps, but there are basic rules that must be followed for hearings of this kind to be fair.
Rule 1: No one should presume that either party is lying or telling the truth. There is no gender-based gene for truth telling. Some women tell the truth; some women lie. Some men tell the truth; some men lie. Without hearing any evidence under oath, and subject to cross-examination, no reasonable person should declare psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford to be a victim or federal judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a perpetrator. Nor should anybody declare the opposite. The issue is an evidentiary one and evidence must be heard and subject to rigorous cross-examination, preferably by an experienced and sensitive female litigator.
Rule 2: The accuser must always testify first, and be subject to cross examination. The accused must then be allowed to respond to the accusation and also be subject to cross-examination. In the bad old days of the Inquisition, the accused was required to testify first without even knowing the grounds of the accusation. The rule of law in the United States had always been the opposite. The accuser accuses first and the accused then has an opportunity to respond to all accusations.
Rule 3: Political considerations should not enter into he said/she said decision making. Fact-finders and investigators must take as much time as necessary to get as close to the truth as possible, without regard to whether this helps the Democrats or the Republican or particular candidates. There should be no deadlines designed to influence the mid-term elections. Both sides should be given as much time as is reasonable to make their cases and no decision should be made until each side has had that opportunity.
Rule 4: Everybody must be willing to accept the “shoe on the other foot test.” The same rules that would apply if a liberal Democrat had been nominated by a liberal Democratic president must be applied to a conservative Republican candidate nominated by a Republican president. There can’t be one rule for the left and a different one for the right. The rule of law must apply equally in all situations.
Rule 5: The standard for proving a serious sexual allegation must be high. In a criminal case, the evidence must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.” That standard must vary with the consequences to both sides. On university campuses, for example, the standard for proving a charge of sexual assault that could result in expulsion should be close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps “clear and convincing evidence.”
But it should never be “a mere preponderance of the evidence,” because that means no more than a 51 percent likelihood that the sexual assault occurred. Under that low preponderance standard, 49 out of every 100 people convicted may well be innocent. That is far too high a percentage.
What about when the issue is suitability to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? The consequences of an erroneous decision are high on all sides. A nominee rejected for a false allegation of sexual assault will suffer grievous reputational and career consequences. But so will the woman whose accusations are deemed untruthful. There is also the consequence of having a Supreme Court justice serve for many years if he was a sexual assailant. On balance, the standard should be higher than proof by a mere preponderance. It should come close to clear and convincing evidence, especially if the allegation is decades old and the nominee has lived an exemplary life ever since.
Rule 6: No material information should be withheld from either side. Each side should have a full opportunity to examine inculpatory, exculpatory or otherwise relevant material that may have an impact on the truth-finding process. Specifically, the letter written to Senator Dianne Feinstein must be disclosed to Judge Kavanaugh and to the Senators. Ideally it should also be shared with the public as well, but if there is any highly embarrassing and personal information that is not relevant, it could be redacted.
Doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure because Ford came forward voluntarily with her accusation, thus waiving any right to privacy. Kavanaugh too has waived his privacy rights by being a candidate for the Supreme Court, and any information relevant to his activities, even 36 years ago, should be disclosed.
If these neutral rules are followed, the process may end up being fair to both sides. All Americans have a stake in the fairness of this process and no one should compromise the basic rules of fairness and due process that have long been the hallmarks of the rule of law.
Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/26/rhode-island-kavanaugh-made-a-mistake/
Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’
September 26, 2018
A Rhode Island man who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting his friend apologized on Wednesday and said he “made a mistake.”
The man called Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s office and claimed that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh, drunkenly sexually assaulted one of his friends, according to interview transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A committee investigator asked Kavanaugh about the allegation during an interview on Tuesday, which he denied.
The man’s name was redacted in the transcripts released to the public but the investigator quoted verbatim several outlandish anti-Trump tweets from the man’s Twitter account, allowing reporters to identify him on Twitter as “Jeffrey Catalan.”
“Dear Pentagon, please save my country from the parasite that occupies the White House,” Catalan wrote in one tweet. “Our [sic] you waiting until Russians parachute in like in Red Dawn? Please help!”
After Catalan started getting attention on Twitter, he publicly stated that he had recanted the accusation.
“Do [sic] everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake,” he wrote.
The committee is set to hear testimony on Thursday in a separate and unrelated accusation against Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly trying to force himself on her while the two were in high school, will both testify before the committee. Kavanaugh has adamantly denied Ford’s accusation.
Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford
Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford
September 26, 2018
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.
The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee. The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee’s investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh.
Ford was the first to step forward with allegations and claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982. Since then a number of accusations have piled on, including that of a physical assault and several other sexual encounters.
Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all the allegations lodged against him.
The committee has interviewed two men who came forward about the disputed assault at a summer house party. Both told the committee they, not Kavanaugh, “had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint,” the release states.
The previously unknown interviews could add a new layer to the evolving saga on the eve of a possible explosive hearing between Kavanaugh and Ford, though it’s unknown whether the men’s claims are being taken seriously.
One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.
Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. “He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter” to staff, the release states.
Both men were not named. USA TODAY was not able to independently vet the claims.
The committee has said it is investigating all claims made in the Kavanaugh saga, attempting to “make sure no stone was left unturned.”
In this regard, the committee has also questioned Kavanaugh about a series of anonymous allegations, including a physical assault on a woman in the 1990s.
The release also outlines a number of others the committee has interviewed, including friends of Kavanaugh and those who know the women who have lodged accusations against him.
Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination, and nominate Ann Coulter instead
President Trump should withdraw Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, and nominate Ann Coulter instead.
Here’s more proof that the Women’s March has nothing to do with helping women, and is, instead, an agenda to help the political left
The Women’s March from 2017 had nothing to do with helping women, and everything to do with promoting left wing politics. Although ight wing women were allowed to participate (because it was in a public place), none were invited to give speeches. Only left wing women were invited to give speeches.
Linda Sarsour organized the Women’s March in January 2017. Prior to this, Sarsour had made the following four tweets in favor of the U.S. adopting Sharia law:
Sarsour made this tweet, which says the following:
“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”
She also made this tweet, which says:
“shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics”
and this tweet, which says:
“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”
and this tweet, which says:
“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America.”
These statements prove that Sarsour wants the U.S. to adopt Sharia law. Sharia law bans women from driving cars, prohibits women from appearing alone in public, calls for girls to have their genitals mutilated, and gives a woman’s testimony in court only half the value of a man’s. After Sarsour made those tweets, liberals chose her to be one of the organizers of the 2017 Women’s March. But any movement which truly cared about women’s rights would not support someone who wants the U.S. to treat women in such a horrible and repulsive manner.
Now in September 2018, here’s more proof that the Women’s March is not about helping women, and is, instead, only about helping the political left: A Political Action Committee which is related to the Women’s March is targeting political candidates who have been accused of sexually harassing women. However, of the five candidates whom it has targeted so far, every single one of them is a Republican. Not a single Democrat has been targeted, despite the fact that plenty of Democratic candidates have been accused of sexually harassing women.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/24/liberal-metoo-pac-keith-ellison-tom-carper/
Liberal PAC Targeting #MeToo-Accused Politicians Only Targets Republicans, Gives Prominent Democrats A Pass
September 24, 2018
A liberal PAC affiliated with Women’s March is targeting political candidates accused of #MeToo-related misconduct.
The PAC appears to only be going after Republican candidates and includes zero Democrats on its list of targeted candidates.
Four prominent Democrats aren’t on the PAC’s list despite accusations of abuse, harassment or covering up sexual misconduct .
A political action committee (PAC) affiliated with Women’s March is targeting 2018 political candidates accused of sexual misconduct, harassment or other offenses against women.
But so far the PAC’s list of targeted candidates only includes Republicans and excludes several prominent Democrats accused of sexual misconduct, domestic abuse or covering up harassment.
The Enough Is Enough Voter Project launched on Monday to “end a culture that protects the careers of powerful men who abuse women or other survivors, and put this issue before the voters,” Stanford Law School professor Michele Dauber said in an announcement on Monday.
Dauber, who specializes in feminist, gender and sexuality studies, launched the PAC in coordination with the Women’s March Sister Network and Feminist Majority, a pair of left-wing nonprofits.
“We are going to put rape culture on the ballot across the country,” Dauber said.
Dauber’s group has currently singled out five candidates, two at the congressional level and three at the state level, for defeat in the 2018 elections. All five are Republicans.
One targeted candidate, Minnesota Rep. Jason Lewis, has not been accused of abuse or sexual misconduct, or of covering either abuse or misconduct. Lewis is on the list because he “has a long history of making misogynistic and demeaning statements about women,” Dauber’s group explains.
North Carolina congressional candidate Steve Von Loor is on the list because his ex-wife accused him of domestic abuse, including verbal abuse and pushing her, according to Enough Is Enough.
Left off of the PAC’s list are at least four prominent Democrats accused of either abuse, sexual misconduct or covering up misconduct.
Delaware Sen. Tom Carper admitted in a 1998 interview that he slapped his ex-wife in the face, leaving her with a black eye. Carper is up for re-election in November and won the party’s nomination on Sept. 6.
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the Democratic nominee for Minnesota attorney general, has been accused of emotional or physical abuse by two women.
One of those women, Karen Monahan, said Ellison was also physically abusive. She released a medical document on Sept. 19 showing she told her doctor in Nov. 2017 about Ellison’s alleged and physical abuse.
Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, denies the allegations against him.
California congressional candidate Gil Cisneros was accused of sexual harassment by a fellow Democrat. UltraViolet, a left-wing feminist organization, previously slammed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for not withdrawing its support of Cisneros.
New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, who is running for re-election, was accused of firing one of his staffers after she reported being sexually harassed by one of his campaign donors. The House used taxpayer dollars to settle the staffer’s lawsuit against Meeks.
All four Democrats denied the allegations against them.
“Although we did not target any Dems during this general cycle, we plan to do so during the next primary season. In addition if you watch the video that rolls on our main page you will see many dems who are featured there, including Sawyer, Persky, Daylin Leach and Eric Schneiderman,” Dauber said in an email to TheDCNF after this article was published.
When asked why her group would only target Democratic politicians in primaries — but not general elections — next cycle, Dauber replied: “We think that’s the best way to achieve our goals at this time given the limited resources of a start-up.”
Why is the New York government hiding the name of a woman who admitted that she had falsely accused two men of rape after her false accusation caused them to spend 26 and 11 years in prison?
I recently came across this New York Times article from May of this year.
It says that two innocent men were falsely accused of rape, and were convicted largely based on the testimony of the alleged victim.
One of the innocent men spent 26 years in prison. The other innocent man spent 11 years in prison.
The woman now says that the rape “never happened.”
The New York Times article says that the government of New York has not identified the woman.
Why is the New York government hiding the name of this woman who admitted that she had falsely accused two men of rape after her false accusation caused them to spend 26 and 11 years in prison?
And why hasn’t she been prosecuted for these false accusations?
Global warming hypocrites fly private jets to global warming conference in San Francisco
Global warming hypocrisy at its finest!
Every single time they have one of these international global warming conferences, there’s a always a huge number of attendees who arrive on private jets.
The most recent example of this hypocrisy just happened at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, California. The San Francisco International Airport said that corporate jet traffic was 30% higher than normal, and that much of this was due to attendees of the environmental conference.
Why not fly commercial air travel instead?
Or better yet, why not stay home and attend via Skype?
How to fly to a climate change summit? In a private, carbon-spewing jet
September 16, 2018
One of the hottest spots during the just-concluded Global Climate Action Summit was the private runway at San Francisco International Airport, where SFO spokesman Doug Yakel reports corporate jet traffic was up 30 percent over normal.
Airport sources told us that the carbon-spewing corporate jets nearly filled the landing area’s parking slots and that many had flown in for the conference.
The three-day climate confab drew more than 4,000 elected officials, business executives and environmentalists from around the globe and was aimed at addressing how to lower the carbon emissions responsible for global warming.
The summit was organized by Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been known to fly private.
In 2015, Brown flew with real estate mega-millionaire and major Democratic Party donor George Marcus via private jet to a climate change conference at the Vatican. The next year, the go-green governor jetted off with Marcus for a two-week trip that included stops in Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine.
This time, the governor and his wife, Anne Gust Brown, stayed grounded and carpooled in from Sacramento with his security detail.
California liberals “help” protect workers’ rights by causing them to lose their jobs
In order to protect workers’ rights in California, a bunch of liberals wanted many independent contractors to be reclassified as employees. The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of this. The intent of everyone involved was good.
But the results were disastrous. As is often the case with good intentions, there are “unintended consequences” which ended up hurting the very workers that the liberals had been trying to help.
This video is from the Sacramento affiliate of CBS News. It shows how all the employees of a small business ended up losing their jobs because liberals wanted to “help” them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZnucGhjtg
A black woman named Adwoa Lewis staged a fake hate crime and blamed it on Trump supporters
A black woman named Adwoa Lewis complained to the police that she had received a racist handwritten note from four white teens who had slashed her car’s tire, shouted“Trump 2016!” and told her that she did not belong there.
Lewis then filed a written complaint with the police.
The police then realized that it was Lewis herself who had written the hateful note. The police have since charged her with making a false statement to the police.
I didn’t know that anyone who was intelligent enough to write, could simultaneously be dumb enough to think that the police wouldn’t realize that it was her own handwriting on the hateful note.
A Democrat and a Republican got very different responses when they tried to stop someone from using a camera
On August 30, 2018, at Evansville, Indiana, a Republican used his hand to block a camera that someone was using.
Associated Press published this photograph of the incident:
The Republican who did this was disciplined. Associated Press reported:
Trump volunteer who blocked news photographer’s camera at Indiana rally taken off road
August 31, 2018
EVANSVILLE, Ind. – The White House Correspondents’ Association says a volunteer member of President Donald Trump’s advance team who blocked a photojournalist’s camera as he tried to take a photo of a protester during a campaign rally in Indiana has been taken off the road.
Olivier Knox, the association’s president, says Trump’s campaign told him the actions were those of an “inexperienced volunteer, who understands that he acted in error.” Knox says the campaign “promises that this will not happen again.”
A photo by Associated Press photographer Evan Vucci on Thursday in Evansville shows the volunteer stretching out his hand over the lens of a news photographer’s camera after a protester disrupted Trump’s rally.
Meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib is a member of the Democratic Party and also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
She is running for U.S. Congress in Michigan’s 13th district this November.
She will be the only candidate on the ballot.
Here is a video from August 12, 2018, which shows Tlaib grabbing a reporter’s camera and taking it away from the reporter without the reporter’s permission:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoGS6KsNtiw
The Democratic Party has done absolutely nothing to discipline Tlaib.
And what Tlaib did was worse than what the Republican did. Tlaib committed theft, which is a crime. The Republican did not commit theft – he merely put his hand in front of the camera.
Why hasn’t the Democratic Party disciplined Tlaib?
Wikipedia violates its own “Neutral point of view” policy by censoring information about Michael Moore’s liberal hypocrisy
Wikipedia has a policy called “Neutral point of view,” which states the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia’s three core content policies; the other two are “Verifiability” and “No original research”. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
I agree with this policy.
This is the current version of Wikipedia’s article on Michael Moore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore
Here is some content that was censored from the article. The diff can be seen here.
Michael Moore has been accused by Peter Schweizer in his book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy of being a “Corporate Criminal, Environmental Menace, and Racist Union-Buster”, making the following claims:
* Moore portraying himself as working class is deceptive, and that he actually grew up in an well-to-do home.
* While Moore criticizes racial disparity in Hollywood, Fahrenheit 9/11’s crew was all white.
* While Moore claims to not own any stock, he and his wife’s foundation owns stock in many large companies, including Halliburton.
* While praising unions, Moore tried to dissuade his workers from joining them.[Citation]
Here’s is something else that was censored. The diff can be seen here.
Moore was criticized by Sean Hannity for criticizing capitalism while benefiting from it himself.[Citation]
In this, diff, someone censored a link to a YouTube video of the Sean Hannity interview with Moore that is referenced above. The link to the video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5YOIUpLpLI
The following was also censored. The diff can be seen here.
In October 2009, ABC News reported that Moore had used non-union labor to create his 2009 film Capitalism: A Love Story.[Citation]
This next content was also censored. The diff can be seen here.
Moore’s net worth has been estimated at “eight figures.”[Citation]
Wikipedia has censored each and every example of Moore’s liberal hypocrisy.
This censorship is a clear violation of Wikipedia’s “Neutral point of view” policy.
Academic journal caves in to social justice warriors who demanded censorship of a scientific paper
This is first paragraph of wikipedia’s article on something known as the “variability hypothesis”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
Variability hypothesis
The variability hypothesis , also the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, is the hypothesis that males display greater variability in traits than females do. It has often been discussed in relation to cognitive ability, where it has been observed that human males are more likely than females to have very high or very low intelligence. The sex-difference in the variability of intelligence has been discussed since at least Charles Darwin. Sex-differences in variability are present in many abilities and traits – including physical, psychological and genetic ones. It is not only found in humans but in other sexually-selected species as well.
Either the variability hypothesis is true, or it is false.
The only way to know is to do research.
On August 28, 2018, Theodore P. Hill, a retired professor of mathematics at Georgia Institute of Technology, published a scientific paper titled “An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis,” which supported the variability hypothesis.
The paper has been put online here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf
And here is an archive of that same link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180910143245/https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf
Social justice accused an academic journal of sexism for publishing the paper. The journal acted very cowardly and has since rescinded the publication. Since the journal still owns the copyright, other academic journals are not allowed to publish it.
Censoring the paper has caused it to become far more popular than it otherwise would have been. Apparently, social justice warriors either don’t know about, don’t care about, or don’t understand the Streisand effect.
Medical school cancels honor society because whites and Asians were earning better grades than blacks and Latinos
According to this article from NPR, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, in order to get into the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society, you have to be in the top 25% of your graduating class.
The school is eliminating the honor society because not enough blacks and Latinos were graduating in the top 25%.
I’m not sure how getting rid of this honor society makes anyone better off.
On the contrary – I see this as just one more example of the dumbing down of America’s educational system.
As to the issue of why blacks and Latinos are underrepresented in the top 25%, my guess is that the school has lower admissions standards for blacks and Latinos than for everyone else. I could be wrong. And I’d be curious to hear anyone else explain a different reason in the comment section.
A Medical School Tradition Comes Under Fire For Racism
September 5, 2018
Senior medical student Giselle Lynch has plenty of accomplishments to list when she applies for a coveted spot in an ophthalmology residency program this fall.
But one box she won’t be able to check when she submits her application is one of the highest academic awards medical students can receive, election to the honor society Alpha Omega Alpha.
It’s not because she didn’t excel. It’s because her medical school, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, put a moratorium on student nominations because it determined the selection process discriminates against students of color.
The award is open to the top 25 percent of a medical school’s graduating class and can be a valuable career boost, making students more competitive for desirable residencies and jobs.
Icahn administrators say the disparities in the selection process reflect deeper issues of racial inequality in medical education.
“AOA perpetuates systems that are deeply flawed,” says Dr. David Muller, the dean for medical education at Icahn. “We can’t justify putting people who are historically at a disadvantage at an even greater disadvantage. It just doesn’t seem fair to dangle in front of our students an honorific that we know people are not equally eligible for.”
Over the past five years, around 3 percent of students chosen for the distinction at Icahn were from a racial background that is underrepresented in medicine, which includes blacks and Latinos. In that same period, about 18 percent to 20 percent of each graduating class at Icahn came from those groups.
The school made the change after Lynch led a group of fellow students in an effort to fight inequality at Icahn. The students collected data on how many students from underrepresented minorities were nominated to the honor society at Icahn and presented it in a series of meetings with school leadership last year.
Lynch, who is black, recalls one particularly moving meeting when they showed photographs of Icahn’s past AOA students — and black and Latino faces were conspicuously sparse.
“Where are we? We’re nowhere here,” says Lynch, remembering her reaction. “AOA is an award of student excellence. What was the argument that was being perpetuated about us if we’re not being included?”
Announced in May of this year, the decision at Icahn was a controversial one, because many students and faculty fear that not participating in the award puts Icahn students at a disadvantage when competing for slots in residency programs.
The honor society has existed since 1902 and is a sought-after line on the résumés of medical students across the country. Membership can help students secure training in competitive specialties and is a predictor of success in academic medicine.
Membership is generally open to the top 25 percent of medical students in a graduating class, as determined by their grades and scores on standardized tests, but only about 16 percent makes it in. Each medical school has its own criteria for making final selections including qualities like leadership or professionalism.
Icahn is not alone in selecting a disproportionately low number of minority students for the honor society. A 2017 study in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that nationwide, black and Asian students were less likely than their white counterparts to be selected for the honor.
Dr. Dowin Boatright, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Yale, hypothesizes that the disparities may be related to racial inequalities in grading and standardized tests, a phenomenon well-documented in medical education literature. Grading based on clinical performance is subjective, he notes, since it often reflects a global assessment of a student rather than technical skills or performance on a test.
“You’re graded on things that are completely vulnerable to bias, like, ‘How good is this medical student?’ ” Boatright says.
Other medical schools are also considering how their AOA chapters can accurately reflect the racial makeup of their student bodies, according to Dr. Eve Higginbotham, the president of AOA board. And at the University of California, San Francisco, faculty and students are debating whether the honor society has a future there.
“Systems we use [for student evaluation] fail to take into account the extra work minorities are doing,” says Dr. Catherine Lucey, vice dean for education at UCSF. “[Minority] students have more stressors they have to deal with, low levels of racism that exist in our patients and our clinical environments.”
Lucey says that UCSF changed its selection criteria for AOA in 2016 to focus less on grades. The number of minority students selected for the honor society that year increased to match the percentage of minorities in each graduating class.
Dr. Jonathan Giftos, an internist in New York who was president of the Icahn chapter when he graduated in 2012, says disparities in the honor society are important to address because when medical education favors white students that can mean fewer minorities in leadership roles.
“It feels like a layering on of accolades that makes people who are doing well do better, have more access and power and opportunity,” Giftos says.
National AOA leadership says that diversity is a priority for the organization, but since every medical school is different, they leave the specifics of how students are chosen up to the school.
“We know that improving diversity will hopefully result in inclusion of talented individuals from different backgrounds, and that will help benefit our patient care,” says Dr. Richard Byyny, executive director of AOA. “But the schools themselves need to tackle this.”
Muller notes that Icahn has not officially closed its AOA chapter and will still nominate faculty and residents.
And student activists at Icahn aren’t celebrating yet. Lynch says she now wants to focus on discrimination in grading and medical school admissions. This, she says, can help address the dearth of minority physicians in different specialities — a problem with negative consequences for the health of minority patients.
“Many of us are still wary,” Lynch says. “It is a symbolic gesture, actually. We are interested in the deeper work.”
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 