An appropriate cartoon from the LGBT newspaper Between the Lines.
In a series of tweets Julius Ghost has a few things to say about the abusive movie mogul Harvey Weinstein and the various bits of commentary swirling around the story.
What the last week of reactions to the Weinstein story have demonstrated is just how reflexive our societal victim-blaming instinct is. Victims coming forward are very disruptive if the existing order is abusive. And our society clearly prefers order to justice. … The key thing I’m trying to notice through the noise is, who are the people orientated toward recognizing and solving an obvious problem and who are the people oriented toward damage control. … But some of these attacks feel to me more like a firewall, like an attempt to make this a Harvey problem rather than a deep systemic one. … Listen to our arguments. The arguments will tell you. Reflexively we aim at the victims. The one group that should bear no responsibility. … The question that keeps coming up is, where will it all end? It will end with justice. The real question behind the question is, “but what will this cost me?” A perceptive question. It will probably cost something. But to decline the invitation costs something too. That price will be a society where women continue to be abused. That price is too high.
Facebook has said that 10 million people had read ads that Russia bought as part of their disinformation campaign. Social media analyst Jonathan Albright researched the issue and came up with data that suggested the audience was at least double that, perhaps much higher. Albright was not pleased to discover once his research was published, Facebook scrubbed the thousands of Facebook posts and related data that had made his work possible.
Josh Meyer of Politico reports on what is surely not a coincidence…
Twitter has deleted tweets and other user data of potentially irreplaceable value to investigators probing Russia's suspected manipulation of the social media platform during the 2016 election, according to current and former government cybersecurity officials.
Whose side are they on?
Melissa McEwan of Shakesville reports on some strange scenarios:
What if the nasty guy lunged for the nuclear football? Would General Kelly (Chief of Staff) and Secretary of Defense Mattis tackle him?
The person spinning this fantasy is a “very senior Republican.” McEwan says the purpose of this fantasy is to get everyone talking about it rather than demanding the GOP actually use the checks and balances the constitution says they have. She reminds us:
* It is not the job of Kelly and Mattis to overrule the president.
* The fantasy is a suggestion that the president be overruled by former military generals.
* Even though the nasty guy is terrible it is an abandonment of democratic principles to root for him to be thwarted.
* The GOP could draw up impeachment papers at any time. This fantasy of a military coup is a way for them to avoid actually doing anything.
Another scenario is described by David Frum. Various national security and military agencies are working to circumvent the nasty guy’s role as commander-in-chief. An example is reassuring potential adversaries that the nasty guy didn’t really mean that threat.
As much as I like this particular president to be thwarted and “contained” … Frum says, “Regencies and palace coups are not constitutional.” If you think the president is unfit, the 25th Amendment defines a removal process.
McEwan adds this is incompatible with a healthy democracy. Nobody voted for Kelly and Mattis.
No comments:
Post a Comment