January 6 committee focuses on phone calls among Trumps children and aides – The Guardian US

The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack is closely focused on phone calls and conversations among Donald Trumps children and top aides captured by a documentary film-maker weeks before the 2020 election, say sources familiar with the matter.

The calls among Trumps children and top aides took place at an invitation-only event at the Trump International hotel in Washington that took place the night of the first presidential debate on 29 September 2020, the sources said.

The select committee is interested in the calls, the sources said, since the footage is understood to show the former presidents children, including Donald Jr and Eric Trump, privately discussing strategies about the election at a crucial time in the presidential campaign.

House investigators first learned about the event, hosted by the Trump campaign, and the existence of the footage through British film-maker Alex Holder, who testified about what he and his crew recorded during a two-hour interview last week, the sources said.

The film-maker testified that he had recorded around seven hours of one-to-one interviews with Trump, then-vice president Mike Pence, Trumps adult children and Trumps son-in-law Jared Kushner, the sources said, as well as around 110 hours of footage from the campaign.

But one part of Holders testimony that particularly piqued the interest of the members of the select committee and chief investigative counsel Tim Heaphy was when he disclosed that he had managed to record discussions at the 29 September event.

The select committee is closely focused on the footage of the event in addition to the content of the one-on-one interviews with Trump and Ivanka because the discussions about strategies mirror similar conversations at that time by top Trump advisors.

On the night of the first presidential debate, Trumps top former strategist Steve Bannon said in an interview with The Circus on Showtime that the outcome of the election would be decided at the state level and eventually at the congressional certification on January 6.

Theyre going to try and overturn this election with uncertified votes, Bannon said. Asked how he expects the election to end, Bannon said: Right before noon on the 20th, in a vote in the House, Trump will win the presidency.

The select committee believes that ideas such as Bannons were communicated to advisers to Donald Jr and his fiancee, Kimberly Guilfoyle, even before the 2020 election had taken place, the sources said leading House investigators to want to review the Trump hotel footage.

What appears to interest the panel is whether Trump and his children had planned to somehow stop the certification of the election on January 6 a potential violation of federal law and to force a contingent election if Trump lost as early as September.

The event was not open to the public, Holder is said to have testified, and the documentary film-maker was waved into the Trump hotel by Eric Trump. At some point after Holder caught the calls on tape, he is said to have been asked to leave by Donald Jr.

Among the conversations captured on film was Eric Trump on the phone to an unidentified person saying, according to one source familiar: Hopefully youre voting in Florida as opposed to the other state youve mentioned.

The phone call a clip of which was reviewed by the Guardian was one of several by some of the people closest to Trump that Holder memorialized in his film, titled Unprecedented, which is due to be released in a three-part series later this year on Discovery+.

Holder also testified to the select committee, the sources said, about the content of the interviews. Holder interviewed Trump in early December 2020 at the White House, and then twice a few months after the Capitol attack both at Mar-a-Lago and his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey.

The select committee found Holders testimony and material more explosive than they had expected, the sources said. Holder, for instance, showed the panel a discrepancy between Ivanka Trumps testimony to the panel and Holders camera.

In her interview in December 2020, the New York Times earlier reported, Ivanka said her father should continue to fight until every legal remedy is exhausted because people were questioning the sanctity of our elections.

That interview was recorded nine days after former attorney general William Barr told Trump there was no evidence of election fraud. But in her interview with the select committee, Ivanka said she had accepted what Barr had said.

Read this article:

January 6 committee focuses on phone calls among Trumps children and aides - The Guardian US

The Man Helping Drive the Investigation Into Trumps Push to Keep Power – The New York Times

WASHINGTON As the Justice Department expands its criminal investigation into the efforts to keep President Donald J. Trump in office after his 2020 election loss, the critical job of pulling together some of its disparate strands has been given to an aggressive, if little-known, federal prosecutor named Thomas P. Windom.

Since late last year, when he was detailed to the U.S. attorneys office in Washington, Mr. Windom, 44, has emerged as a key leader in one of the most complex, consequential and sensitive inquiries to have been taken on by the Justice Department in recent memory, and one that has kicked into higher gear over the past week with a raft of new subpoenas and other steps.

It is Mr. Windom, working under the close supervision of Attorney General Merrick B. Garlands top aides, who is executing the departments time-tested, if slow-moving, strategy of working from the periphery of the events inward, according to interviews with defense lawyers, department officials and the recipients of subpoenas.

He has been leading investigators who have been methodically seeking information, for example, about the roles played by some of Mr. Trumps top advisers, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and John Eastman, with a mandate to go as high up the chain of command as the evidence warrants.

That element of the inquiry is focused in large part on the so-called fake electors scheme, in which allies of Mr. Trump assembled slates of purported electors pledged to Mr. Trump in swing states won by Joseph R. Biden Jr.

In recent weeks, the focus has shifted from collecting emails and texts from would-be electors in Georgia, Arizona and Michigan to the lawyers who sought to overturn Mr. Bidens victory, and pro-Trump political figures like the head of Arizonas Republican Party, Kelli Ward.

Mr. Windom has also overseen grand jury appearances like the one on Friday by Ali Alexander, a prominent Stop the Steal organizer who testified for nearly three hours. And Mr. Windom, in conjunction with Matthew M. Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been pushing the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack to turn over transcripts of its interviews with hundreds of witnesses in the case spurred on by an increasingly impatient Lisa O. Monaco, Mr. Garlands top deputy, according to people familiar with the matter.

The raid last week on the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who played a key role in Mr. Trumps effort to pressure the department to pursue and back his baseless claims of widespread election fraud, was initiated separately by the departments independent inspector general, since Mr. Clark had been an employee at the time of the actions under scrutiny. So was the apparently related seizure last week of a cellphone from Mr. Eastman, who has been linked by the House committee to Mr. Clarks push to help Mr. Trump remain in office.

But Mr. Windom has been involved in almost all the departments other key decisions regarding the wide-ranging inquiry into Mr. Trumps multilayered effort to remain in office, officials said.

For all of this activity, Mr. Windom remains largely unknown even within the Justice Department, outside of two high-profile cases he successfully brought against white supremacists when he worked out of the departments office in Washingtons Maryland suburbs.

Mr. Windoms bosses appear to be intent on preserving his obscurity: The departments top brass and its press team did not announce his shift to the case from a supervisory role in the U.S. attorneys office in Maryland late last year, and they still refuse to discuss his appointment, even in private.

That might not be a bad thing for Mr. Windom, the latest federal official assigned to investigate the former president and his inner circle, a hazardous job that turned many of his predecessors into targets of the right, forcing some to exit public service with deflated reputations and inflated legal bills.

Dont underestimate how every single aspect of your life will be picked over, looked at, investigated, examined you, your family, everything, said Peter Strzok, who was the lead agent on the F.B.I.s investigation into Mr. Trumps ties to Russia until it was discovered he had sent text messages disparaging Mr. Trump.

You think: Im doing the right thing and that will protect you, added Mr. Strzok, who is still bombarded with threats and online attacks more than three years after being fired. I didnt appreciate that there were going to be people out there whose sole goal is to totally destroy you.

Any investigator scrutinizing Mr. Trump, former prosecutors said, is liable to be marked as an enemy, regardless of the nature of their inquiry. They were out to destroy Trump, and they were members of our, you know, Central Intelligence or our F.B.I., Doug Jensen, 42, a QAnon follower from Iowa who stormed the Capitol, said in an interview with federal authorities, reflecting the views of many right-wing conspiracy theorists about Mr. Strzok and other investigators.

Mr. Windom is overseeing at least two key parts of the Justice Departments sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack, according to grand jury subpoenas obtained by The New York Times and interviews with current and former prosecutors and defense attorneys.

June 28, 2022, 8:20 p.m. ET

One prong of the inquiry is focused on a wide array of speakers, organizers, security guards and so-called V.I.P.s who took part in Mr. Trumps rally at the Ellipse near the White House on Jan. 6. which directly preceded the storming of the Capitol. According to subpoenas, this part of the investigation is also seeking information on any members of the executive or legislative branch who helped to plan or execute the rally, or who tried to obstruct the certification of the election that was taking place inside the Capitol that day a broad net that could include top Trump aides and the former presidents allies in Congress.

Mr. Windoms second objective mirroring one focus of the Jan. 6 committee is a widening investigation into the group of lawyers close to Mr. Trump who helped to devise and promote the plan to create alternate slates of electors. Subpoenas related to this part of the inquiry have sought information about Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Eastman as well as state officials connected to the fake-elector scheme.

One of the witnesses he subpoenaed is Patrick Gartland, a small business coach active in Georgia Republican politics, who turned aside efforts by Trump supporters to recruit him as a Trump elector in late 2020.

On May 5, Mr. Gartland, who was grieving the recent death of his wife, answered his front door to find two F.B.I. agents, who handed him an eight-page subpoena, signed by Mr. Windom. The subpoena, which he shared with The New York Times, asked him to provide emails, other correspondence or any document purporting to to be a certificate certifying elector votes in favor of Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence.

Mr. Windoms subpoena sought information about all of Mr. Gartlands interactions and appended a list of 29 names, which represents a road map, of sorts, to his wider investigation in Georgia and beyond.

It included Mr. Giuliani; Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner; Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump White House aide; other staff members and outside legal advisers to Mr. Trump, including Mr. Eastman, Ms. Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro; and a handful of Georgia Republicans whose names were listed on potential elector slates.

At least three of the people listed on the subpoena to Mr. Gartland including David Shafer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and Brad Carver, another party official were served similar documents by Mr. Windoms team last week, according to people with knowledge of the situation.

At least seven others not on the list among them Thomas Lane, an official who worked on behalf of Mr. Trumps campaign in Arizona, and Shawn Flynn, a Trump campaign aide in Michigan also received subpoenas, they said.

Mr. Windom, a Harvard alumnus who graduated from the University of Virginias law school in 2005, comes from a well-connected political family in Alabama. His father, Stephen R. Windom, served as the states lieutenant governor from 1999 to 2003, after switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

The elder Mr. Windom, who retired from politics after a failed bid to become governor, was known for his earthy sense of humor: In 1999, he admitted to urinating in a jug while presiding over the State Senate chamber during a round-the-clock session, fearful that Democrats would replace him as presiding officer if he took a bathroom break.

His son has a similarly irreverent side, reflected in humor columns he wrote for student publications when he was younger.

In one of them, a brief essay for The Harvard Crimson that ran on Presidents Day in 1998, he professed to be uninterested in the front-page presidential investigation of that era, and oblivious to current events.

I know little about President Clintons current sex scandal or our countrys troubles with Iraq, and I really do not care that much, Mr. Windom wrote. I place much more importance on what I am doing this weekend, why I have not asked that girl out yet or when I am going to have time to exercise tomorrow.

Mr. Windoms later career beginning with his clerkship with Edith Brown Clement, a conservative judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans belied that flippancy. From the start, even as a clerk, he adopted the mind-set of an aggressive prosecutor, writing a law journal article proposing a moderate loosening of a criminal defendants Miranda rights.

Tom was always the go-to guy in the department for the big, important national security cases in and around the Beltway, said Jamie McCall, a former federal prosecutor who worked with Mr. Windom to bring down a white supremacist group known as The Base out of the U.S. attorneys office in Greenbelt, Md., in 2019.

Mr. Windoms exhaustive work on two particular cases brought him to the attention of Mr. Garlands team. One was the trial of The Base in 2020, in which he creatively leveraged federal sentencing guidelines to secure uncommonly lengthy prison terms for the group of white supremacists. The other was the case one year before of Christopher Hasson, a former Coast Guard lieutenant who had plotted to kill Democratic politicians.

But his blunt, uncompromising approach has, at times, chafed his courtroom opponents.

During Mr. Hassons post-trial hearing, Mr. Windom persuaded a federal judge to give Mr. Hasson a stiff 13-year sentence beyond what would typically be given to a defendant pleading guilty to drug and weapons charges as punishment for the violence he had intended to inflict.

During the hearing, Mr. Windom attacked a witness for the defense who argued for leniency; Mr. Hassons court-appointed lawyer at the time who is now the Justice Departments senior pardons attorney said Mr. Windoms behavior was one of the most alarming things that I have heard in my practice in federal court.

Mirriam Seddiq, a criminal defense lawyer in Maryland who opposed Mr. Windom in two fraud cases, said he was a personable but inflexible adversary who sought sentences that, in her view, were unduly harsh and punitive. But Ms. Seddiq said she thought he was well suited to his new job.

If you are going to be a bastard, be a bastard in defense of democracy, she said in an interview.

Adam Goldman and Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.

Continue reading here:

The Man Helping Drive the Investigation Into Trumps Push to Keep Power - The New York Times

Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and the standard double standard – The Boston Globe

And it has delivered. The testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, the aide to Donald Trumps chief of staff Mark Meadows, was bombshell after bombshell.

It showed that Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani knew the Jan. 6 rally would lead to violence at the Capitol. Giuliani crowed about it four days before the rally. Trump knew the crowd was carrying weapons, but wanted security removed so more of those armed rubes could crowd around the stage and adore him.

In a scene right out of a movie, Trump tried to wrest control of the steering wheel in his limo so he could join the armed, jacked-up mob marching toward the Capitol.

Get Metro Headlines

The 10 top local news stories from metro Boston and around New England delivered daily.

Given what the House committee has established, based almost entirely on the testimony of Republicans such as Hutchinson, how can Trump and Giuliani and others in that administration avoid criminal charges at this point?

But then, given what theyve gotten away with so far, why would they worry?

On Sunday, the erstwhile presidents erstwhile lawyer Rudy Giuliani was holding court in a supermarket on Staten Island, campaigning for his son, who is running for governor in New York, when a supermarket employee named Daniel Gill walked up, slapped Giuliani on the back, and said, Whats up, scumbag?

Now, the back slap was uncalled for, the language unnecessarily profane. Gill apparently was upset with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and held Giuliani somewhat responsible for working for an administration that has cemented a conservative bloc on the court.

But what followed, in a country where justice isnt blind so much as its arbitrary, was revealing. Giuliani insisted Gill be arrested and the NYPD duly charged him with assault with intent to cause physical injury, harassment in the second degree, and menacing in the third degree. Gills lawyers said he was held in custody for more than 24 hours.

Giuliani went on Curtis Sliwas radio show and said the back slap felt like somebody shot me.

He could have killed me, Giuliani said.

A video of the incident shows something considerably less serious than that. But thats beside the point.

The point is, some guy making minimum wage at a supermarket in New York is facing the full weight of the law for giving Rudy Giuliani a slap on the back and calling him a name while to date, Giuliani has not faced any consequences for participating in a conspiracy to overthrow a presidential election and ruining the lives of a couple of election workers in Georgia.

At the Jan. 6 committee hearing last week, Georgia election worker Shaye Moss testified that she and her mother were subjected to death threats and widespread harassment after Donald Trump and Giuliani falsely accused them of costing Trump the presidential election by engaging in a plot to count phony ballots for Joe Biden.

Mosss mother, Ruby Freeman, said shes afraid to go to the supermarket. I doubt Rudy is despite his near-death experience at the ShopRite on Staten Island.

Gills lawyers at the Legal Aid Society say one of Giulianis entourage followed and threatened Gill after the confrontation, poking him forcefully in the chest, telling him he was going to be locked up. The chest poke was approximately the same as the back slap, unwanted but did not cause physical injury. One gets charged, the other gets bupkis.

Daniel Gill was wrong. He shouldnt have put his hands on Rudy Giuliani. But hes being held accountable for his actions.

When will Rudy Giuliani be held accountable for his? When will Donald Trump?

If this country didnt have double standards, it wouldnt have any standards at all.

Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at kevin.cullen@globe.com.

Link:

Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and the standard double standard - The Boston Globe

Republican Officials Spent the Weekend Going Full White Supremacist – Vanity Fair

Outright racism has long been a major plank of the Republican Party. But it appears that the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and take away a constitutional right of millions of Americansa move that will disproportionately affect Black and brown womenhas emboldened GOP officials to drop whatever lingering apprehension they had about going full white supremacist and just go for it.

At a Saturday rally held by Donald Trumpi.e., a guy who kicked off his first bid for the White House by calling Mexicans rapists and criminals and whose entire brand is racismRep. Mary Miller said into the microphone: President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday. Then she clapped her hands as the audience cheered.

After an onslaught of condemnation, Millers spokesman insisted to the Associated Press that the congresswoman from Illinois had misread her remarks and meant to say the ruling was a victory for the right to life. Yet that explanation would be a lot more believable if Miller didnt have a history of embracing the views of people who are famously about white life. At a Moms for America event last year, the lawmaker told the crowd that Hitler was right on one thing. He said, Whoever has the youth has the future. (She later issued a statement claiming she was sincerely sorry for any harm her words caused.) So youll have to forgive us if we find it hard to believe this was simply a slip of the tongue.

Whats more, Miller undoubtedly knew she was speaking before a group of people who would be receptive to such a point of view, given that Trump was headlining the event. While examples of the ex-president being an unabashed racist could fill several books (or Twitter timelines), a small representative sampling includes starting an entire movement around the lie that the countrys first Black presidentwasnt born here; calling for theexecutionof five Black and Latino teenagers; telling four congresswomen of color to go back to the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came, despite the fact that three quarters of those women came from the U.S.; banningtravelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the U.S.; pardoning a guy who the Justice Department saidoversaw theworst pattern of racial profilingby a law enforcement agency in U.S. history; throwing atotal shit fitover the removal of a statue of a Confederate general who thought Black people should be white peoples property; and reportedly calling white supremacists my people. As Ahmed Baba, a columnist for The Independent, tweeted on Saturday, Whether it was a slip or not, the audience heard white life and didnt flinch. They applauded.

Meanwhile, Miller wasnt the only Republican lawmaker to put racism on full display this weekend. Also on Saturday, Republican Texas senator John Cornynin the view of manycalled for the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling deeming racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. After Barack Obama tweeted that the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologuesattacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans, Cornyn quote-tweeted him and wrote: Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education. (Cornyn has since suggested he was merely noting the importance of long-standing precedent being overturned.)

Read the original post:

Republican Officials Spent the Weekend Going Full White Supremacist - Vanity Fair

Donald Trump Supporters Call on Gay Marriage to Be Overturned Next – Newsweek

A video showing supporters of former President Donald Trump calling on the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States has gone viral on social media.

The comments came after Justice Clarence Thomas said in a concurring opinion to the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last week that the court has "a duty to 'correct the error' established" in rulings like Obergefell.

In the video, Jason Selvig, a member of the comedy duo the Good Liars, speaks to a man and woman wearing Trump apparel. It is not clear where the video was taken but the caption states that Selvig spoke to the pair over the weekend. The footage has so far been viewed over 400,000 times and shows Selvig trying to find out their opinions on the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that secured the right to abortion in the United States.

After the woman said she was against abortion, Selvig asked: "There's been some talk with some people saying we need to protect life, sperm is the seed of life. Would you be in favor of all males who are not married getting vasectomies?"

The man responded "no" to the question, while the woman said: "to each their own."

The video then skipped to when Selvig highlighted Thomas' comments about Obergefell v. Hodges. Selvig asked in the video: "Clarence Thomas, said yesterday, maybe we should take a look at the same-sex marriage ruling. Is that something you think we should look at as well?"

The pair said they did not believe that same-sex couples should be able to get married. Selvig then confirmed whether they would like to see this decision reversed, and the pair agreed. When asked why the female Trump supporter said: "[It is] just how I was brought up and how I believe...It is to each their own, but everyone should have respect in their own biblical sense."

"So, to each their own, but you don't want gay people getting married, and you don't want women choosing what to do with their body?" Selvig said, to which the woman replied "right."

Newsweek reached out to the Good Liars for comment.

See the original post here:

Donald Trump Supporters Call on Gay Marriage to Be Overturned Next - Newsweek

Here are all the people who sought preemptive pardons from Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, per January 6 committee witnesses – Yahoo News

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., joined from left by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., speaks at a news conference on Dec. 7, 2021.J. Scott Applewhite/AP

At least nine people close to Donald Trump reportedly requested preemptive pardons following Jan. 6.

Former Trump aides named six GOP lawmakers while testifying before the Jan. 6 panel this month.

A former aide also said Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani asked the then-president for pardons.

At least six Republican members of Congress requested preemptive pardons from former President Donald Trump in the wake of the Capitol insurrection, according to testimony from former Trump aides last Thursday.

The House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, riot has hosted six public hearings so far revealing their findings, which also included public damning testimony from former staffers in the Trump administration.

GOP Reps. Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene were among the six GOP lawmakers also asked Trump to pardon them for their efforts in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

During a surprise hearing on Tuesday, June 28, Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide, also testified that former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows were among those who asked the former president for a preemptive pardon after the pro-Trump mob descended upon the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Hutchinson also previously testified that former Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio had discussed pardons with the White House but never asked for one.

On Sunday, Jordan responded to his mention during the hearing, accusing the January 6 House panel of "misrepresenting" a video clip of him saying "the ultimate date of significance is Jan. 6 in a presidential election in determining the winner."

"This committee, I think the country understands, is purely partisan," Jordan said. "And they're frankly not paying much attention to what's being said."

Here are all of the people who sought a pardon from Trump following the Capitol riot, per testimony:

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Hutchinson, who served as a top aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows at the time of the insurrection, testified on Tuesday that her former boss asked the president for a preemptive pardon in the wake of the Capitol siege.

Story continues

Rudy Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.Spencer Platt/Getty Images

In the surprise public hearing on Tuesday, Hutchinson also alleged that Giuliani asked Trump for a pardon over the January 6 attack.

Media outlets previously reported that Giuliani had also requested a preemptive pardon ahead of the siege in December 2020 related to a criminal probe into whether the former New York City mayor violated foreign lobbying laws through his business dealings in Ukraine.

Giuliani did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona

Rep. Andy Biggs.US House of Representatives

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified in a previous video deposition that Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona was among six GOP lawmakers who requested a pardon from Trump for any connection to the January 6 Capitol attack.

The select committee in May requested that Biggs testify about any communications he'd had with Trump, Trump administration officials, and Stop the Steal rally organizers regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The lawmaker refused to cooperate with the probe and accused the committee of engaging in a "baseless witch hunt."

Following Hutchinson's public allegation that he sought a presidential pardon for January 6, Biggs denied the accusation in a Twitter statement and said the former aide was "mistaken" in her testimony. He accused the panel of "deceptively" editing Hutchinson's words to "make it appear as if I personally asked her" for the pardon.

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama.AP Photo/Vasha Hunt

In the days following the insurrection, Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama requested a blanket pardon not only for himself, but for all 146 GOP members of Congress who objected to the certification of President Joe Biden's 2020 win, per the January 6 committee.

In an email to Molly Michaels, Trump's former White House executive assistant, Brooks asked for "all purpose pardons" for the lawmakers. The January 6 panel earlier this month shared an image of the email with a subject line reading "Pardons."

In the correspondence, Brooks specifically said he was writing on behalf of Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, as well.

In a statement to Insider last week, Brooks confirmed the legitimacy of the email and said he had made the request because there was "concern" that Democrats would prosecute and jail Republicans following January 6.

"Fortunately, with time passage, more rational forces took over and no one was persecuted for performing their lawful duties, which means a pardon was unnecessary after all," he said.

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida at the White House on May 8, 2020.Anna Moneymaker-Pool/Getty Images

Former Trump aides also named Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida as one of the lawmakers who sought a preemptive pardon related to the Capitol siege and efforts to challenge the 2020 presidential election.

Former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann said Gaetz's pardon request covered "from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things," asking for a pardon similar to the one received by President Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal.

Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson also testified that Gaetz's requests for a pardon dated back as early as December 2020 weeks before a mob of Trump supporters laid siege to the US Capitol.

Following the aides' testimony, Gaetz did not deny having asked for a pardon. Instead, he attacked the select committee as "an unconstitutional political sideshow" in a Twitter statement.

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, listens during a news conference at the Capitol Building on December 07, 2021 in Washington, DC.Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

After former Trump aides testified last Thursday that Gohmert sought a pardon from Trump, the Texas lawmaker denied doing so and accused the January 6 committee of spreading "propaganda."

"I have never sought a pardon for myself and anybody who says otherwise is a liar and possibly a lot worse," Gohmert tweeted last Friday.

Ahead of the Capitol riot in January 2021, GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert attempted to overturn the 2020 election by filing a suit maintaining that former Vice President Mike Pence, not US voters, had the power to decide the presidency.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from GeorgiaTom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Cassidy Hutchinson, the former White House aide, testified that she heard that Greene had asked for a pardon from the White House Counsel's Office following the Capitol riot.

In response, Greene tweeted a clip of Hutchinson's testimony, writing "Saying 'I heard' means you don't know."

"Spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the January 6th Witch Hunt Committee is all about," she wrote in the tweet.

Greene, a staunch Trump ally, has been vocal about disputed claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, though in July 2021 she was among those who rejected the conspiracy theory that Trump will be reinstated as president in August.

Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

Republican Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania outside the Capitol on December 3, 2020.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

GOP Rep. Liz Cheney, who serves on the January 6 House panel, said during a hearing that Perry had requested a pardon for his role in seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Perry, along with several other Republican lawmakers, has refused to testify before the committee.

According to the January 6 committee, the Pennsylvania Republican played a significant role in the then-president's efforts to stay in power by introducing Trump to sympathetic DOJ official Jeffrey Clark and pushing then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to set in motion a plan to keep Trump in power.

In response, to the allegation, Perry tweeted: "The notion that I ever sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress is an absolute, shameless, and soulless lie."

Lawyer John Eastman

John Eastman testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 4, 2013.Charles Dharapak/AP

Conservative lawyer John Eastman, who pushed a plan to overturn the 2020 election results, asked Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to put him on a pardon list following the insurrection, the House Select Committee revealed earlier this month.

"I've decided I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works," Eastman wrote in an email to Giuliani. The committee read the email out loud during a June 16 hearing.

When Eastman was deposed by the committee, he ultimately pleaded the Fifth Amendment 100 times, the panel said.

Eastman did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read more here:

Here are all the people who sought preemptive pardons from Donald Trump after the Capitol riot, per January 6 committee witnesses - Yahoo News

Jack White blames Donald Trump for the overturn of Roe v. Wade – Business Insider

Musician Jack White blasted former President Donald Trump on Friday, blaming him directly for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

In a lengthy Instagram post, White called Trump an "unchecked egomaniac" who took the US down "the worst, regressive path to the point of an insurrection in our capital building threatening the lives of the vice president and congress members, and in turn made our govt. an embarrassment to the entire world."

He also lashed out at Trump for appointing three conservative justices to the Supreme Court during his single-term presidency.

"The two party system by proxy puts this clown in a position to pick THREE conservative supreme court justices, THREE," White wrote. "And now these three judges, completely disinterested and unaffected by what the actual majority wants and needs, have just taken the country back to the 1970's to start all over again fighting for women's rights."

White's remarks come after the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The ruling was feared since May when Politico published a leaked draft opinion in which Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito called the decision "egregiously wrong from the start."

Abortion, however, remained legal in the United States until the court handed down the final verdict. But the draft itself was enough to put reproductive rights activists and doctors who perform abortions on edge.

By overturning Roe, the Supreme Court has put the question of the legality of abortion in the hands of individual state legislatures and has essentially made it illegal in at least 22 states to obtain an abortion. There are expected to be added restrictions in several others.

"Well trump, you took the country backwards 50 years," White said. "I hope your dad is smiling and waving down on you from heaven, while his other hand holds a record of all the abortions you secretly paid for behind closed doors."

Others have also credited Trump directly for Roe v. Wade's demise, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

"Thank you President Trump," Greene said. "God bless you. This got overturned today because of your great work as president, and we want him back."

White with his remarks joins a slew of other prominent individuals who've blasted the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Read the original here:

Jack White blames Donald Trump for the overturn of Roe v. Wade - Business Insider

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection – MSNBC

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Democratic Messaging Matters08:54

The Possible Loss of Physicians in Abortion Care08:01

Now Playing

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection09:55

UP NEXT

Voicing an Opinion in the Culture Corner07:35

Interpreting the Constitution06:40

Public Prayer in Schools03:31

What Some Women Currently Face on Abortion Access06:16

Abortion Access Rights in Peril08:19

The Aftermath Of Roe V Wade Supreme Court Decision01:50

The Fourth January Sixth Committee Hearing11:10

The Newest Group to Qualify for the Covid Vaccine06:09

The Case Building Against Donald Trump10:57

Remembering and Celebrating Juneteenth08:14

Displaced by Force The Alarmingly Increasing Number04:12

January 6 Committee Hearings: Brad Raffensperger06:48

Analyzing Week Two of The January six Committee Hearings07:40

Ginni Thomas Invited By 1/6 Committee To Testify05:26

January 6th Committee Focuses On Mike Pence's Role06:47

Unmasked: Revealing the Identities of Hate Group Members05:55

Symone Sanders is joined by a political panel to discuss the January 6th hearings and the new bombshell testimony by former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson about the actions of former President Donald Trump on the day of the insurrection.June 28, 2022

Democratic Messaging Matters08:54

The Possible Loss of Physicians in Abortion Care08:01

Now Playing

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection09:55

UP NEXT

Voicing an Opinion in the Culture Corner07:35

Interpreting the Constitution06:40

Public Prayer in Schools03:31

Read this article:

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection - MSNBC

The Importance of Freedom of Speech – Center for Global Justice

Post by: Katrina Sumner

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights notes that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

The truth of this statement regarding barbarous acts was demonstrated again last week by the beheading of a beloved history teacher in Paris. The teacher was killed in broad daylight near his school in what appears to be retaliation for a lesson he taught on freedom of speech. French President Macron said the teacher was murdered, for teaching students freedom of expression, the freedom to believe or not believe. His murder has shocked and outraged thousands who took to the streets all across France to express their support for the slain educator.

The teachers murder is yet another example of why the freedom of speech is to be cherished and protected. While it is important for nations to safeguard freedom of speech, it is also important that individuals recognize that others have the right to speak freely without being subjected to violence or death.

Sometimes people speak disparagingly about freedom of speech as if it is no longer to be cherished. This liberty is as precious today as it ever has been. It is encouraging to see nations take steps to secure liberties like the freedom of expression and the freedom of belief to their people. For example, in July 2020, Sudan repealed its apostasy laws making the changing of ones religion no longer a death penalty offense in that country.

Freedom of speech is an important human right. People should not have to live in fear of death for exercising it. Our goal as individuals should be to embrace our own right to freedom of expression while respecting that others have this right, as well.

This post was written by a Center for Global JusticeStudent Staff member. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

View original post here:

The Importance of Freedom of Speech - Center for Global Justice

G7, India and 4 other countries pledge to protect free speech – The Hindu

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors

Leaders of the powerful G7 grouping and its five partner countries, including India, have said that they are committed to open public debate and the free flow of information online and offline while guarding the freedom, independence and diversity of civil society actors.

In a joint statement titled 2022 Resilient Democracies Statement issued in Elamu on June 27 during the G7 Summit, the leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said they are prepared to defend these principles and are resolved to protect the freedom of expression.

The joint statement came amidst allegations that the Indian Government was stifling the freedom of speech and the civil society actors.

The leaders said democracies enable open public debate, independent and pluralistic media and the free flow of information online and offline, fostering legitimacy, transparency, responsibility and accountability for citizens and elected representatives alike.

The leaders said they resolved to protecting the freedom of expression and opinion online and offline and ensuring a free and independent media landscape through our work with relevant international initiatives. They promised to guard the freedom, independence and diversity of civil society actors, speak out against threats to civic space, and respect freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

The leaders pledged to ensure an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable and secure internet; increase the cyber resilience of digital infrastructure, including by improving and sharing awareness of cyber threats and expanding cyber response cooperation and counter hybrid threats, in particular, information manipulation and interference, including disinformation.

They also resolved to cooperate to counter information manipulation, promote accurate information and advocate for shared democratic values worldwide.

They vowed to promote affordable access to diverse sources of reliable and trustworthy information and data, online and offline, including through a multi-stakeholder approach, and by strengthening digital skills and digital literacy.

They also pledged to enhance transparency about the actions of online platforms to combat violent, extremist and inciting content online in line with the Christchurch Call to Action.

The Christchurch Call is a commitment by governments and tech companies to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

They said democracies lay and protect the foundations for free and vibrant civic spaces, enabling and encouraging civic engagement and political participation, which in turn stimulate meaningful legitimacy, creativity, innovation, social accountability, and responsibility. The leaders said they are committed to building resilience against malign foreign interference and acts of transnational repression that seek to undermine trust in government, society and media, reduce civic space and silence critical voices.

The leaders pledged to advance programmes for the protection of human rights defenders and all those exposing corruption; promote academic freedom and strengthen the role of scientific evidence and research in democratic debate; protect civic space, and uphold transparent, accountable, inclusive and participatory governance, including by advancing womens full, equal and meaningful participation and leadership in civic and political life.

The Group of Seven (G7) is an inter-governmental political grouping consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S.

Besides India, Germany, the host of the G7 Summit, had also invited Argentina, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa as guests for the summit to recognise the democracies of the global south as its partners.

Read the original post:

G7, India and 4 other countries pledge to protect free speech - The Hindu

Amber Heard, the ACLU, and the Future of Free Speech – Reason

Because of the social media circus surrounding the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation trial, it was easy to overlook one of the principalyet least likelyactors in the courtroom drama: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which ghostwrote and placed the 2018 Washington Post op-ed by Heard about surviving domestic abuse that was the basis of the trial.

It's only the latest example of how the group has in recent years strayed from its original mission of defending speech, no matter how vile.Awash with money after former President Donald Trump was elected, the ACLU transformed into an organization that championed progressive causes, undermining the principled neutrality that helped make it a powerful advocate for the rights of clients ranging from Nazis to socialists.

It questioned the due process rights of college students accused of sexual assault and harassment under Title IX rules. It ran partisan ads against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and for Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a move that current Executive Director Anthony Romero told The New York Times was a mistake. The ACLU also called for the federal government to forgive $50,000 per borrower in student loans.

As the ACLU recedes from its mission, enter another free speech organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE. Founded in 1999 to combat speech codes on college campuses, FIRE is expanding to go well beyond the university and changing its name to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The group has raised $29 million toward a three-year "litigation, opinion research and public education campaign aimed at boosting and solidifying support for free-speech values."

"I think there have been better moments for freedom of speech when it comes to the culture," says FIRE's president, Greg Lukianoff. "When it comes to the law, the law is about as good as it's ever been. But when it comes to the culture, our argument is that it's gotten a lot worse and that we don't have to accept it."

Lukianoff tells Reason that FIRE's new initiatives have been in the works for years, but gained urgency during the COVID lockdowns. "Pretty much from day one, people have been asking us to take our advocacy off campus to an extent nationally," he says. "But 2020 was such a scarily bad year for freedom of speech on campus and off, we decided to accelerate that process." Despite 80 percent of campuses being closed and doing instruction remotely, Lukianoff says that FIRE received 50 percent more requests for help from college students and faculty. He also points to The New York Times' editorial page editor, James Bennet, getting squeezed out after running an article by Sen. Tom Cotton (RArk.) and high-profile journalists such as Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan, and Matt Yglesias "stepping away from [their publications], saying that the environment was too intolerant."

FIRE is also expanding its efforts beyond legal advocacy and into promoting what Lukianoff calls "the culture of free speech." As Politico reports, it will spend $10 million "in planned national cable and billboard advertising featuring activists on both ends of the political spectrum extolling the virtues of free speech."

He says that people in their 40s and 50s grew up in a country where the culture of free speech was embedded in colloquial sayings and common attitudes. "Things like everyone's entitled to their opinion, which is something you heard all the time when we were kids. It's a free country, to each their own, statements of deep pluralism, like the idea that [you should] walk a mile in a man's shoes," he explains. "All of these things are great principles for taking advantage of pluralism, but they've largely sort of fallen out of usage due to a growing skepticism about freedom of speech, particularly on campus, that's been about 40 years in the making."

Lukianoff has nothing negative to say about the ACLU (in fact, he used to work there) and stresses that FIRE has worked with the organization since "day one" and continues to do so. But unlike the ACLU, FIRE isn't at risk of turning into a progressive advocacy organization, partly because its staff is truly bipartisan.

"This is the first nonprofit I ever worked for where you had people who actually voted for different major-party candidates. When I worked at the ACLU in 1999, people voted for the Democrats or the Green Party," he says, noting that he is himself a liberal. But at FIRE, he continues, "My executive director is a Republican and an evangelical, a fact of which I am extremely proud."

That pluralistic pride extends to the groups funding FIRE, too. He says that critics, especially on Twitter, point to support his organization receives from "conservative and libertarian foundations" as if that invalidates its work. Yes, they give FIRE money, he says. "And you should be very proud of them, because we routinely defend people who hate their guts and we never get any foundation saying that they're taking back our funding."

Lukianoff thinks that despite the rise of cancel culture, most Americans still understand the value of free speech, but they need to be encouraged to stand up for it. FIRE's polling, he says, reveals that "it's really a pretty small minority, particularly pronounced on Twitter, that is anti-free-speech philosophically and thinks that people should shut up and conform."

For that reason, he's upbeat that FIRE will succeed in helping to restore belief in the value and function of free speech. "I think that once you start giving people permission to believe in small d democratic norms again, a lot of people are going to reveal their actual preferences. You know: 'I don't want you to fire Larry for who he voted for or a dumb joke [he] made on Twitter,'" he says. "Part of our job isreminding younger people about some of these principles because they haven't heard them before. But for most Americans, I think reminding them and giving them permission to believe what most Americans believeis a reason to be optimistic about it."

This video is based on a longer conversation I had with Lukianoff for The Reason Interview podcast. Listen to that here.

Photo Credits: Tim Evanson, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; tedeytan, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Ludwig von Mises Institute, via Wikimedia Commons; LvMI, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Stefani Reynolds/CNP / Polaris/Newscom.

Music Credits: "End To End," by Jonny Hughes via Artlist.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor.

Originally posted here:

Amber Heard, the ACLU, and the Future of Free Speech - Reason

‘What’s the point inviting me on!’ Piers Morgan and student erupt in free speech row – Express

Piers Morgan invited Larissa Kennedy onto Thursday's instalment of Piers Morgan Uncensored to debate a report which revealed students want more restrictions on free speech. The broadcaster and student clashed over the report and Larissa became frustrated she could not finish her points as she kept being challenged by Piers.

A new report by the Higher Education Policy Institute has revealed the dramatic surge in support for censorship by students.

The report revealed nearly 60 percent of those who were surveyed were opposed to unlimited free speech.

It also revealed almost 40 percent believed the Student Union should ban all speakers who might cause offence, and 76 percent want universities to get rid of any historical figures which might be deemed offensive.

Before the interview with Larissa got underway, Piers told viewers he believed the report was "absolutely nuts".

READ MORE:'Unspeakable' Prince Andrew savaged over 'cruel' treatment to Queen

Piers asked Larissa: "What's going on at universities and why have you all become the enemies of free speech?

"Why do you all get triggered by everything and why have you all become such snowflakes?

The student replied: "Yes we need to uphold freedom of speech but we also need protection so we can ensure our campuses are a safe space for evolving people.

"And if you want to ask what that means, it means if you have got someone with views which are obviously going to spark outrage, that you give a heads up to the people coming."

The TalkTV host explained he was allowed to challenge Larissa on her views before he branded the student "ageist" after she told him he had not been in education since he was 19 years old.

"You're the snowflake here, you're the snowflake here," she said. "All I am saying is how can you know what is going on at universities?"

Piers clapped back and said he understood what is going on from the report by the Higher Education Policy Institute.

"Can I ask you a question without you getting offended?" Piers asked Larissa as she rolled her eyes at him.

"I'm not offended, you could not offend me if you tried," Larissa added.

Piers asked Larissa what her idea of free speech was and she replied: "My idea of free speech is people being able to express themselves whether that is through speakers on campus or through protests."

The pair left on a sour note after they clashed over whether Larissa would want Harry Potter author JK Rowling to be a guest speaker at a university.

Piers Morgan Uncensored continues on weeknights at 8pm on TalkTV.

Follow this link:

'What's the point inviting me on!' Piers Morgan and student erupt in free speech row - Express

Binance CEO says ‘free speech is very hard to define’ – Business Insider

Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao has weighed in on the heated free speech debate that has consumed social media.

The company is one of a handful that pledged funds to "free speech absolutist" Elon Musk's bid to take Twitter private, promising $500 million. Zhao told Bloomberg in a lengthy interview published this week that he's all for the cause.

"We want to support free speech," Zhao said, before Bloomberg asked if that sentiment applies to his company's decision to sue Forbes in 2020 for defamation over a report saying Binance was dodging regulation. (The suit was later dropped).

To bring the suit, Binance hired lawyer Charles Harder, who's best known for teaming up with billionaire investor Peter Thiel in his fight against Gawker Media that eventually bankrupted the outlet.

"Free speech is very hard to define," Zhao said in the interview, maintaining that the article is inaccurate. "I've never talked to Charles Harder. Our team handled it."

Free speech has been a key driver in Musk's acquisition of Twitter. The Tesla and SpaceX billionaire has been vocal about his desire to ease Twitter's policies on harmful content. The platform and its moderation decisions have been thrust into a culture war as conservative figures claim Big Tech is stifling their freedom of speech by flagging and removing posts that break their rules.

Zhao also said the suit had with Binance's decision to invest $200 million in Forbes' plans to go public via a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC . The deal may be scrapped, however, as The New York Times reported in late May, after investors showed a decline in interest in the deals.

Zhao, who is worth $18.5 billion, also discussed with Bloomberg his company's mission and his stance on money. The outlet spoke to former Binance employees and investors who described the iron grip that Zhao has over his company.

See the original post here:

Binance CEO says 'free speech is very hard to define' - Business Insider

‘How You React Is the Only Thing You Can Control’ – The Atlantic

This is an edition of Up for Debate, a newsletter by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesdays, he rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

In my last newsletter, I asked readers, What norms should govern jokes in our society? What, if anything, makes a joke harmful? What harm, if any, is there in punishing people for jokes or chilling the expression of jokes? How has humor improved your life? Have jokes ever made your life worse? Many of you responded with memories of laughter or comedic appreciation. Others shared raw stories of hurt. And one correspondent argued that I should be fired. (Thankfully, her email was not persuasive.)

Nancy strongly dislikes hearing a certain four-letter word in comedy:

I dont appreciate hearing f this, f ing thatvery limited vocabularies besides, since when is f ing something bad? Maybe theyre doing it wrong.

Thats reportedly true of at least one randy singer-songwriter.

Victor learned the value of joking about serious subjects amid a family tragedy:

My son Aidan was diagnosed with soft-tissue sarcoma in 2018 at the age of 14. In 2019 we were told his cancer had spread to his lungs. There was nothing that could be done for him.

We brought him home to spend his last days with us. We spent a lot of time watching TV together, especially shows about superheroes. One show that stands out is The Boys on Amazon Prime, because of a particular episode. There is a scene where one of the superheroes visits a boy with cancer in the hospital as part of his Make-A-Wish. The boy becomes upset because the superhero was not the one he wanted to meet. Aidan laughed at the scene but he laughed even harder when the Superhero, who is the fastest runner in the world, told the boy he can teach him to run. The boy who was still upset responded, Can you teach me to outrun cancer? My initial response was of shock because I didnt think cancer was funny, but seeing Aidans response allowed me to appreciate the power of humor or dark comedy and its ability to make light of difficult situations.

Lisa writes that shes grateful to have a child who shares her sense of humor:

I am one of those people who has been told many times, Youre funny. No, I mean it, youre really funny. Maybe I really am. I have thought of joining Twitter to simply share humor. However, I am self-aware enough to understand this is said only by those people who know me and give the benefit of doubt to the stuff I say, otherwise known as grace.

Not too long ago, I was having a serious conversation with my child. We were discussing hormones and how they play a part in upsetting our emotions, especially during puberty and menopause. The topic of suicide came up, and my child asked if I had ever had any thoughts along those lines. We had been talking for a while and know each other well. My reply: I think I would kill your father before I killed myself What if Im not the problem? We laughed. A lot. Out of context, this is obviously a very dark thing to think, much less to say out loud to your child. Now you see why I could never be on Twitterinstant cancellation and probably urgent texts, screenshots, and calls to my husband. Humor requires all of us to be nonbinary in our thinking. It is ironic that the most stridently accepting of everyones TRUTH often cant find their funny bone.

Humor got Laura through a dark moment, too:

When my father died, his wake was appropriately somber at first. Hed had a long stretch of debilitation as a result of cancer and chemo, and my gentle, sweet dad succumbed.

What was wonderful was the laughter, though, as memories of my always-smiling, frequently laughing father started to bubble up. The family and friends gathered to remember him began to talk louder, laugh more, and reminisce about his sense of humor. As we all got sillier, a sudden group self-awareness took over and we all hushed at the impropriety of laughing after death. Until, again as if we were one body, the group realized that was what Dad would have wanted. (I could feel him in the room with us, impatient at our seriousness.) Now, as I help a friend cope with end-stage cancer (again), what strikes me anew is how he and I find relief from the seriousness of his situation in silly jokes about death, his difficulty walking and breathing, and what both of us fear and dread. Humor (we all have different senses of it) helps us cope with what we fear.

Emilys dad gave her the same gift:

Nothing should be off the table to make jokes about. My dad had one of the darkest senses of humor; he made off color jokes all the time, especially when it came to death. He absolutely believed that everything was funny. If you tried to tell him a joke wasnt funny, then THAT was funny. My dad had some tough experiences as a young person, so humor for him became how to get through it. It wasnt an act, though. It wasnt Lets laugh so we dont cry. He honestly just learned how to find it all, everything, worth laughing about. As Oscar Wilde said, Life is too short to be taken seriously. Which isnt a denial of dark things or hard things; it is learning to coexist with them so as to not live in fear.

When my dad died quickly and unexpectedly from Covid in 2020, at 64, it was his humor that helped us get through it. His ability to make you laugh at the exact wrong moment is why I far more often think of him and smile or laugh than I think of him and cry. He, more than anyone, would find his own death hysterical. He would be furious, for sure, but I know he would have us rolling making jokes about it, too. Before his death, I didnt know it was possible to laugh and cry at the same time about the same thing. Life is only misery and suffering if you cant learn to laugh about misery and suffering.

Val appreciates being around others who can both dish it out and take it:

Among jokesters, we all take our turn in the barrel. We tell a joke about someones nationality or job or hobbythen someone tells a joke about something near and dear to us.

We grin and bear it and sometimes have to admit, Hey! Thats funny!

No blood, no foul. Only people with absolutely NO sense of humor should ever be truly offended by a joke. If you cant laugh at yourself, you have no standing to laugh at others. I generally find such people to be difficult to be around. I also dont think they lead very fun lives. I think joke tellers need to be sensitive to their audience. Its definitely possible to go too far or injure peoples feelings. If you dont know your audience well, its possible to strike a little too close to a nerve. This is why I like to be with people with good senses of humor. Still, one always has to be careful about hitting below the belt.

Reb writes with mixed feelings:

This comic [strip] came out when I was in junior high school, and it has stuck with me in the nearly 40 years since. Ive pulled it up as a reminder many times in my life when either I, or someone else, overreacted. However, I do believe that laughing at a joke is implicit approval of it. I was often the butt of jokes at schoolabout my speech, physical appearance, and impairmentand yes, it was harmful to my self-image and my willingness to interact with others.

Even if you are not directly named in the joke, if you see yourself in it, it can sting, and if others approve of it, that can be harmful. How you react is the only thing you can control, so maybe you react publicly to object to that harm. As an individual that seems right and fair. I dont tend to listen to comedians. I have denied them a platform from which to present to me. But is ignoring (or not explicitly rebuking) a comedian (or politician) who says things I find hurtful to me or others also a form of implicit approval?

I think, perhaps, it is.

To the question Have jokes ever made your life worse? Adam answers, Good Lord, yes. He writes:

I grew up in the U.K. in the 1990s, and Im a cisgender guy whos mostly attracted to other guys. I would absolutely not have *dreamed* of coming out at school. You know the one thing I dreaded more than anything else? Not being simply abused, verbally or physically (although both would certainly have happened), but being *ridiculed*. That was the thing I feared the most and would have found most harmful, and it would certainly have happened, as Id seen it happening to others, whether they were out or just perceived to be gay. The very word gay was a pervasive catchall term of abuse and ridicule.

Being straightforwardly attacked, in a strange way, contains a compliment: You are at least being acknowledged as important enough to fight with. But being ridiculed has no such backhanded compensation. Being ridiculed is the mortal enemy of empathy. It makes you less than a person. It was the one thing I absolutely could not deal with, so I spent a lot of my life trying to hide a lot of who I was. Comedy is no sideline or bystander in this issue, either. Its absolutely no coincidence that the period in which it became increasingly socially unacceptable to attack people for their sexualityaround the 2000s to 2010swas exactly the time society stopped tolerating comedy which did the same.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, there was a vein of comedy in the U.K. which more or less entirely focused on insulting people for their identity. Bernard Manning was the most notorious of these comedians, and if you go looking, youll find quite a lot of debate in serious newspapers and so on about him and this genre of comedy, which very much mirrors the current one, with the term politically correct replacing the current term woke for exactly the same purpose. The jokes that were directed at normal, everyday women and minorities by normal, everyday people were the same ones these comedians told on TV and the popular club circuit. They were very influential. It took a concerted effort by liberals to shift attitudes to the point that, finally, this kind of humor was generally no longer considered acceptable, and thankfully still isnt. History suggests that the best approach is to do the hard labor of shifting peoples attitudes.

Samantha recounts awful abuse that she encountered growing up:

High school, for me, was hell. Depression, anxiety, and stifling academic pressures absolutely played a role, but so did overt bigotry wrapped up as humor. Every time I tried to challenge my classmates and even my teachers on the horrible things they said about me or other minority groups, I would be treated with an eye roll and a mocking laugh about how I just didnt understand humor and overreacted to everything. I learned to keep my head down while people laughed so they didnt see me crying.

What are some of the things my classmates and teachers alike thought were hilarious? A student kept calling me, Hey, Jew! I asked her to please call me by my name. A different student responded with a laugh, Jews dont have names. They only have numbers!

We watched a documentary about life in prison camps in North Korea. A scene showed a child so hungry that he dug through animal manure for a single piece of corn. My class erupted in laughter at the idea of a starving, tortured child being forced to eat poop. Jokes about people raping me. Jokes about me burning in a gas chamber. Jokes about how people who self-harm should just kill themselves. Jokes about wanting to gun down Romani people. This isn't humor; this is bigotry, cruelty, and bullying.

Lia explains why she is upset with Dave Chappelle:

I am Asian American and transgender. In school I used to get called eggroll behind my back, because I was a chubby teenager. I think my life would probably be better if I hadnt known Some might say that this is bullying, not comedy. But humor is just a tool, and a tool can be used to various ends. The kids who made fun of me certainly thought these were jokes. If pressed, I wouldnt be surprised if they would have said, Were just kidding. But is Its a joke a proper response to being told that youve hurt someone?

When you turn an idea into a joke, you create a premade set of words that anyone can repeat. The joke that Asian men have small penises, which classmates directed at me countless times, is not something that just anyone would come up with on their own. How many middle-school boys are going around doing cross-cultural examinations of relative phallic size? But they heard the joke, and some vague feeling of hatred or phobia that lived inside of them found an easy way to slip out into the world and make itself known. Its not great that they had those negative feelings inside them to begin with, but by putting those feelings into words, theyve actively made another persons life worse as well.

I looked up some of the anti-trans jokes and comments that Dave Chappelle has made. They made my heart sink. When Chappelle says, I am not saying... trans women arent women. Im just saying that those pussies that theyve got yknow what I mean? Im not saying thats not pussy, but Im saying thats, like, Beyond Pussy or Impossible Pussy, yknow what I mean? my reaction is not as a progressive, finding his ideas problematic. My reaction is as a trans person, feeling hurt. When I came out as transgender to my mom in college, she threatened to disown me. When I visited her on Christmas that year, she was deep in drink, and laughed at me and groped my breasts and said, Oh my God, these are real? You look almost like a woman. Then she told me how she would never be disappointed in me again for the rest of her life, because she learned to stop expecting anything good to come from me, and drank some more.

Yes. I know what you mean, Dave.

If I were a student at Duke Ellington School, what recourse would I have? One thing I could do is keep quiet, and keep hurting to myself, every time I see that a man who has insulted me has been honored as a Great Man and has had a building named after him. Another thing I could do is vandalize the building. But I dont think thats a very good idea, since Id be taking into my own hands the destruction of something that belongs to a community. Ultimately, I think, the only democratic thing I could do that is fair to myself and fair to the community is to object to the dedication. Is that the stifling of free speech, or is it the most civil form of grievance possible for a student?

Olive draws distinctions among jokes:

For me, what makes a joke harmful is not its content or its response, but its intent. A joke told for the sake of hurting other people (not offending or making angry, but causing anguish) is what can be harmful. If a joke makes me angry, its usually because it hurt my ego a little and I can recognize thats not all that bad. But a joke thats only a thinly veiled insult or bigoted dog whistle defended by Its only a joke. Why are you mad? can be harmful. Jokes show people whats considered acceptable to say, and communicating to the world that its okay to be hateful does more harm than good.

It should be up to the people telling the jokes to measure their own intentions and read the room. Forethought can be put in to consider if a joke will hurt or offend. If itll be hurtful, or rile up people with hateful views, a little self-censorship isnt necessarily a bad thing. But if itll only offend, it should be told to everyone who needs to hear it. A joke that causes someone to lose their job is ridiculous. But people do have a right to not like a joke. A joke being met with a comment saying its not funny isnt cancel culture. Freedom of speech should go both ways, to the people telling jokes and the people complaining, as long as neither has any expectation of a person losing their livelihood.

Kathy defends comics from offended audience members:

I love stand-up comedy. Im particularly drawn to those who are controversial. Dave Chappelle, Doug Stanhope, Chris Rock, and Patton Oswalt have made me laugh, made me think, made me reflect on myself. Louis C. K. is still one of my favorite storyteller comedians. Hes dark, makes me uncomfortable, but he really makes me laugh! And Im laughing at myself most of the time! Anytime Ive heard an offensive joke, sure, I think, Hmmm Thats a little wrong. But I also reflect on the joke, find the truth in the humor, feel where its affecting me, and see if maybe Ive got something worth rethinking, healing, or changing. Maybe theres an old belief or wound the joke is challenging. Thats all mine. I dont yell at the comedian. Its not their fault I feel the way I do about their jokes.

Matt is sympathetic to comics, too:

I always look at comics as trying to make people laugh, not expressing their straight opinions. Often, dirty, vulgar, offensive jokes are targeting that balance between being funny because theyre so taboo and going too far. I hesitate on assigning deeper meaning to most jokes in those categories because the comic is performing. It is up to each comic to have the tact to make their jokes in a way that is effective. If they dont, they wont be successful in their career. If jokes that are truly offensive and inappropriate are successful, that is a reflection of the audience, and the comic is just a mirror.

If you respect the comedian, take a minute to see if you cant hear what theyre really saying. Figure out why it bothers you so much and try laughing at yourself. Laughter is the best medicine.

Jim wants comics to be given a wide berth as artists:

If one considers jokes as art, and professional comedians as artists (which I do), then often they lead social culture more than being defined by it. I dont appreciate all art. I dont appreciate all jokes. But I appreciate the artists courage and willingness to venture into risky territory. Artists who are too perverse, edgy, or ahead-of-their-time often dont experience the appreciation of their work in their lifetime. That is their punishment.

If society tries to impose a greater punishment than that on comedians or artists, then that society will rob them of their courage to be risky and will end up with safe, largely uninspired art.

Errol defends comics who mock what they find ridiculous:

My all-time hero in comedy has been Lenny Bruce, the guy before George Carlin, who would literally be arrested onstage and taken to jail, banned from certain countries, and essentially facing constant lawsuits throughout his life because he said things like cocksucker. He saw through a ridiculous filter on society and risked his life and freedom to expose it. Thats what comedy is. Its making fun of something you think is ridiculous. The freedom to spotlight that is key to equality and true progressivism. You are very unlikely to be harmed by something that someone says sometimes in your life. Thats living with other people. The world does not revolve around one person, nor does it revolve around one group of people. Life is fleeting, and to spend so much time and energy and anger and pain on a joke is to squander the only gift the universe has given you.

In the case of stand-up comedians, the remotes right there. You dont have to watch, pay for, or listen to anything you dont want to. You can tell your phone, Im not interested in ___.

Greg is the founder of a comedy club and offers this advice:

We need to bring back the word tacky. When a comedian tells a joke that feels a little icky, that seems like it might go over the line a bit, critics jump to offensive immediately, or say that the language does harm, or, God forbid, makes them feel unsafe. Joke tellers might feel less attacked and be less defensive if those critics expressed their displeasure by saying the joke was simply tacky. Thats it. It easily sums up the ideas of it being in poor taste, not being very funny, or just being a bit ugly. But without the accusatory tones of prejudice, bias, racism, and making the world a worse place.

Paul castigates me for airing different viewpoints about Chappelle, rather than simply condemning him:

Chappelles comedy carries the same potential for negative influence on public sentiment that Fox News has. It will lead to more transphobia, more intolerance, more hate, and more violence toward the LGBTQ community and transgender people as well. I find the cavalier attitude people such as you havewith no practical, real-world experience with what you write aboutto be disgusting and offensive. I think you should try interviewing people who are trans and parents of transgender children about how they feel about this topic.

I think you will be in for a rude awakening. I am the parent of two wonderful, beautiful, smart, talented, and kind transgender young people. They are the apple of my eye, and I will support and fight for them til my dying breath. I suggest you try walking a day in my shoes. But you cant. Youre a close-minded transphobe who doesnt understand what it means to protect someone you love who is part of a vulnerable and now legally targeted group.

Megan goes further, urging The Atlantic to fire me. Because you continue to give a platform to Conor Friedersdorf despite his numerous demonstrably terrible, harmful opinions, she writes, yet another cishet white man has yet another opportunity to widely disseminate his completely irrelevant opinion on why things that demonstrably harm marginalized people whose marginalization he materially benefits from Arent That Bad, Actually (TM).

While I didnt actually express the opinion that Megan describes, I do disagree with anyone whod stop us from exchanging all these viewsopen conversation is the path to tolerance and equality.

In contrast, Darren wants to keep me around:

You seem more willing than most to take us, and yourself, outside our comfort zone and ask the uncomfortable questions that need to be asked. That qualityof taking us all out of our comfort zonesis exactly what makes comedy so essential to the work of democracy. I gave a TEDx talk in 2020 on the topic of The Politics of Laughter in which I argued that you simply cant have democracy without comedy. Put differently, if we lose comedy, we lose democracy. Id even go bigger and say that if we lose comedy, we lose humanity.

As a professor, I work on some pretty grim topics (human-rights violations, genocide, etc.) and the only thing that gets me to the end of the day without fail is a sense of humor. A good joke is like a true friend. I look on with great dismay as a growing chorus of people advocate limits on what comedians can say and what they can tell jokes about. Laughter brings us together in a moment of community, and so silencing comedians will only serve to tear us apart. Comedy has only made my life better, personally and professionally. In fact, comedy only made my life worse one time, when I was attacked by a crowd simply because I told an incite joke. (Sorry, had to end on a bad pun.)

And John says that in a world of terrible acts, targeting jokes for punishment is inapt and counterproductive:

My real problem with all this is simply that while good, moral, and honest people are now walking on eggshells for fear of being the next canceled person for some unspecified, unnormalized offense, plenty of people are saying and doing the most outrageous things and most decidedly not being canceled. We are amplifying those voices dramatically. Actual, outright enemies of democracy are growing in strength every day, and we are still having this stupid conversation. My advice to the entire Twitterati is to stop this bullshit right now. It doesnt help anybody living in the real world; it makes for great fodder for the right-wing culture war. And it is mistargeted, badly.

View post:

'How You React Is the Only Thing You Can Control' - The Atlantic

New AGB Resource Prepares Higher Education Board Members to Balance Freedom of Speech with Diversity, Equ – Benzinga

Report aids governing board members who grapple with conflicts on campus related to a perceived tension between free speech and the advancement of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2022 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- TheAssociation of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges(AGB), the premier organization advocating strategic board leadership in higher education,today released Freedom of Speech and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Campus: Considerations for Board Members and Chief Executives, a publication providing practical insights into why and how institutional leaders should prioritize freedom of speech as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Colleges and universities are grappling with conflicts on campus related to a perceived tension between free speech and the advancement of DEItwo pillars of institutional missions. Freedom of speech is not only a fundamental right under the First Amendment but also the foundation of academic freedom. Simultaneously, the ongoing national reckoning on race and culture has called attention to the importance of DEI as a cornerstone of student success, institutional viability, and a more educated citizenry. Some DEI proponents claim that provocateurs abuse institutional commitments to free speech to promote ideas that exclude and marginalize vulnerable populations, which can hinder student success, demoralize campus communities, and present a reputational risk for the institution and higher education.

With an increasingly diverse student population, board members and chief executives should recognize their time-sensitive imperative to contextualize these issues for students while cultivating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive campus environment for faculty, staff, and students. The AGB publication offers practical advice for higher education leaders in anticipating, evaluating, and addressing these issues. Two such recommendations include ensuring that the institution's freedom of speech and campus climate policies are harmonized and calling on the administration to create response plans before anticipated conflicts break out.

This report comes at a time when students, administrators, lawmakers, and the public are grappling with questions about the nature and limits of free speech and the impacts that it has on social cohesion and individual well-being. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), multiple states have enacted laws to protect free speech rights for students and faculty at state institutions. At the same time, some of the same legislatures passed "divisive concepts" legislation, limiting the kind of conversations and the topics of discussion in classrooms. Against this backdrop, students appear to believe that a wide spectrum of speech at college is important, although there is nuance among racial groups. According to a 2022 survey by the Knight Foundation, students of color believe their speech is less protected. White students, on the other hand, report that diversity and inclusion sometimes conflict with their freedom of speech.

While a previous AGB publication focused on key points of consensus regarding the boundaries of free speech, this report goes a step further to help boards face instances where frictions arise between the institutional priorities of protecting free speech and advancing DEI.

AGB President and CEO Henry Stoever affirms the need for boards to be prepared to address these issues in a timely and comprehensive manner. "Board members should not wait for a crisis on campus to focus on these issues. Upholding the principles of academic inquiry, civil discourse, and free speech is fundamental to college and university missions," he said. "It's also critical for boards to model this behavior for the rest of the campus community. If boards cannot model inclusive behavior and champion free speech, how can they expect others to do so? It is too important to students' success to ignore."

A complimentary e-book version of Freedom of Speech and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Campus: Considerations for Board Members and Chief Executives is available for AGB members at AGB.org/Freedomofspeech.

About AGB The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) is the premier membership organization that strengthens higher education governing boards and the strategic roles they serve within their organizations. Through our vast library of resources, educational events, and consulting services, and with 100 years of experience, we empower 40,000 AGB members from more than 2,000 institutions and foundations to navigate complex issues, implement leading practices, streamline operations, and govern with confidence. AGB is the trusted resource for board members, chief executives, and key administrators on higher education governance and leadership.

Media Contact

Morgan Alexander, AGB, 1 2027760853, media@agb.org

SOURCE AGB

Read more:

New AGB Resource Prepares Higher Education Board Members to Balance Freedom of Speech with Diversity, Equ - Benzinga

The smart city is a perpetually unrealized utopia – MIT Technology Review

What is interesting about both early and current visions of urban sensing networks and the use that could be made of the data they produced is how close to and yet how far away they are from Constants concept of what such technologies would bring about. New Babylons technological imagery was a vision of a smart city not marked, like IBMs, by large-scale data extraction to increase revenue streams through everything from parking and shopping to health care and utility monitoring. New Babylon was unequivocally anticapitalist; it was formed by the belief that pervasive and aware technologies would somehow, someday, release us from the drudgery of labor.

The apocalyptic news broadcast from Mariupol, Kharkiv, Izium, Kherson, and Kyiv since February 2022 seems remote from the smart urbanism of IBM. After all, smart sensors and sophisticated machine-learning algorithms are no match for the brute force of the unguided dumb bombs raining down on Ukrainian urban centers. But the horrific images from these smoldering cities should also remind us that historically, these very sensor networks and systems themselves derive from the context of war.

Unbeknownst to Constant, the very ambient technologies he imagined to enable the new playful citywere actually emerging in the same period his vision was taking shapefrom Cold Warfueled research at the US Department of Defense. This work reached its height during the Vietnam War, when in an effort to stop supply chains flowing from north to south along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the US Army dropped some 20,000 battery-powered wireless acoustic sensors, advancing General William Westmorelands vision of near 24-hour real- or near-real-time surveillance of all types. In fact, what the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) would later call network-centric warfare was the result of multibillion-dollar funding at MIT and Carnegie Mellon, among other elite US universities, to support research into developing distributed wireless sensor networksthe very technologies now powering greater lethality for the militarys smartest technology.

MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES

It is well known that technologies originally developed by DARPA, the storied agency responsible for catalyzing the development of technologies that maintain and advance the capabilities and technical superiority of the US military (as a congressional report put it), have been successfully repurposed for civilian use. ARPANET eventually became the Internet, while technologies such as Siri, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), and the micro hard drive are by now features of everyday life. What is less known is that DARPA-funded technologies have also ended up in the smart city: GPS, mesh networks for smart lighting systems and energy grids, and chemical, biological, and radiological sensors, including genetically reengineered plants that can detect threats. This link between smart cities and military research is highly active today. For example, a recent DARPA research program called CASCADE (Complex Adaptive System Composition and Design Environment) explicitly compares manned and unmanned aircraft, which share data and resources in real time thanks to connections over wireless networks, to the critical infrastructure systems of smart citieswater, power, transportation, communications, and cyber. Both, it notes, apply the mathematical techniques of complex dynamic systems. A DARPA tweet puts this link more provocatively: What do smart cities and air warfare have in common? The need for complex, adaptive networks.

Both these visionsthe sensor-studded battlefield and the instrumented, interconnected, intelligent city enabled by the technologies of distributed sensing and massive data miningseem to lack a central ingredient: human bodies, which are always the first things to be sacrificed, whether on the battlefield or in the data extraction machinery of smart technologies.

Spaces and environments outfitted with sensor networks can now perceive environmental changeslight, temperature, humidity, sound, or motionthat move over and through a space. In this sense the networks are something akin to bodies, because they are aware of the changing environmental conditions around themmeasuring, making distinctions, and reacting to these changes. But what of actual people? Is there another role for us in the smart city apart from serving as convenient repositories of data? In his 1980 book Practice of Everyday Life, the Jesuit social historian Michel de Certeau suggested that resistance to the celestial eye of power from above must be met by the force of ordinary practitioners of the city who live down below.

When we assume that data is more important than the people who created it, we reduce the scope and potential of what diverse human bodies can bring to the smart city of the present and future. But the real smart city consists not only of commodity flows and information networks generating revenue streams for the likes of Cisco or Amazon. The smartness comes from the diverse human bodies of different genders, cultures, and classes whose rich, complex, and even fragile identities ultimately make the city what it is.

Chris Salter is an artist and professor of immersive arts at the Zurich University of the Arts. His newest book, Sensing Machines: How Sensors Shape Our Everyday Life, has just been published by MIT Press.

See more here:

The smart city is a perpetually unrealized utopia - MIT Technology Review

Opinion | Technology and the Triumph of Pessimism – The New York Times

One of the best-selling novels of the 19th century was a work of what wed now call speculative fiction: Edward Bellamys Looking Backward: 2000-1887. Bellamy was one of the first prominent figures to recognize that rapid technological progress had become an enduring feature of modern life and he imagined that this progress would vastly improve human happiness.

In one scene, his protagonist, who has somehow been transported from the 1880s to 2000, is asked if he would like to hear some music; to his astonishment his hostess uses what we would now call a speakerphone to let him listen to a live orchestral performance, one of four then in progress. And he suggests that having such easy access to entertainment would represent the limit of human felicity.

Well, over the past few days Ive watched several shows on my smart TV I havent made up my mind yet about the new season of Westworld and also watched several live musical performances. And let me say, I find access to streamed entertainment a major source of enjoyment. But the limit of felicity? Not so much.

Ive also read recently about how both sides in the Russia-Ukraine war are using precision long-range missiles guided by more or less the same technology that makes streaming possible to strike targets deep behind each others lines. For what its worth, Im very much rooting for Ukraine here, and it seems significant that the Ukrainians seem to be striking ammunition dumps while the Russians are carrying out terror attacks on shopping malls. But the larger point is that while technology can bring a lot of satisfaction, it can also enable new forms of destruction. And humanity has, sad to say, exploited that new ability on a massive scale.

My reference to Edward Bellamy comes from a forthcoming book, Slouching Towards Utopia, by Brad DeLong, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The book is a magisterial history of what DeLong calls the long 20th century, running from 1870 to 2010, an era that he says surely correctly was shaped overwhelmingly by the economic consequences of technological progress.

Why start in 1870? As DeLong points out, and many of us already knew, for the great bulk of human history roughly 97 percent of the time that has elapsed since the first cities emerged in ancient Mesopotamia Malthus was right: There were many technological innovations over the course of the millenniums, but the benefits of these innovations were always swallowed up by population growth, driving living standards for most people back down to the edge of subsistence.

There were occasional bouts of economic progress that temporarily outpaced what DeLong calls Malthuss devil indeed, modern scholarship suggests there was a significant rise in per-capita income during the early Roman Empire. But these episodes were always temporary. And as late as the 1860s, many smart observers believed the progress that had taken place under the Industrial Revolution would prove equally transitory.

Around 1870, however, the world entered an era of sustained rapid technological development that was unlike anything that had happened before; each successive generation found itself living in a new world, utterly transformed from the world into which its parents had been born.

As DeLong argues, there are two great puzzles about this transformation puzzles that are highly relevant to the situation in which we now find ourselves.

The first is why this happened. DeLong argues that there were three great meta-innovations (my term, not his) innovations that enabled innovation itself. These were the rise of large corporations, the invention of the industrial research lab and globalization. We could, I think, argue the details here. More important, however, is the suggestion from DeLong and others that the engines of rapid technological progress may be slowing down.

The second is why all this technological progress hasnt made society better than it has. One thing I hadnt fully realized until reading Slouching Towards Utopia is the extent to which progress hasnt brought felicity. Over the 140 years DeLong surveys, there have been only two eras during which the Western world felt generally optimistic about the way things were going. (The rest of the world is a whole other story.)

The first such era was the 40 or so years leading up to 1914, when people began to realize just how much progress was being made and started to take it for granted. Unfortunately, that era of optimism died in fire, blood and tyranny, with technology enhancing rather than mitigating the horror (coincidentally, today is the 108th anniversary of Archduke Ferdinands assassination).

The second era was the 30 glorious years, the decades after World War II when social democracy a market economy with its rough edges smoothed off by labor unions and a strong social safety net seemed to be producing not Utopia, but the most decent societies humanity had ever known. But that era, too, came to an end, partly in the face of economic setbacks, but even more so in the face of ever more bitter politics, including the rise of right-wing extremism that is now putting democracy itself at risk.

It would be silly to say that the incredible progress of technology since 1870 has done nothing to improve things; in many ways the median American today has a far better life than the richest oligarchs of the Gilded Age. But the progress that brought us on-demand streaming music hasnt made us satisfied or optimistic. DeLong offers some explanations for this disconnect, which I find interesting but not wholly persuasive. But his book definitely asks the right questions and teaches us a lot of crucial history along the way.

A bit harder than my usual tastes, but you have to love a song whose chorus is partly in binary code.

Continue reading here:

Opinion | Technology and the Triumph of Pessimism - The New York Times

The Swansea bar that’s re-opening as an LGBT+ venue – Wales Online

Swansea's LGBT+ scene has had its ups and downs with a number of venues coming and then quickly going again. But one re-opening is hoped to change that. Utopia - a cocktail bar familiar to many - has come under new management and wants to be a colourful home for LGBT+ communities to thrive.

Utopia opened in October last year in Little Wind Street, but was not specifically catered towards the LGBT+ community. It featured large neon lights, a penny piece bar counter and large artificial trees 'growing' out of the bar in a space uniquely designed to be a social media hub for party-goers at the start or end of their nights out. The new bar was labelled a bar "with a difference" at the time.

The new management are aiming to make sure that all LGBT+ people can feel at ease there. They are providing sensitivity training to security staff to improve the treatment of trans and non-binary people, and employing various queer acts. You can get more what's on news and other story updates by subscribing to our newsletters here.

READ MORE: Welsh LGBT+ filmmaker nominated for Digital Broadcast award

General Manager, Matthew Thom, told WalesOnline he was hoping the space would become a place for the LGBT+ community to feel safe.

"I was given the opportunity to re-open as a drag bar. I wasn't keen to do just that, I wanted to open up a completely LGBT+ friendly venue. I wanted to do this from the get go as there's really not anywhere people can go when it comes to an LGBT+ venue in Swansea," he said.

"I'm not reinventing the wheel or anything. But I'm doing things at the moment that add to it becoming a safer space. For example, we're making our toilets all gender neutral, because I don't see the need to have male and female toilets. Our door staff have had elements of sensitivity training when it comes to checking people's IDs if they're trans.

"We're looking to get a lot of queer performers and artists in, not just drag queens, because I'm really interesting in getting people like queer poets. I want [Utopia] to be actively involved with the community. I want to try and actually give back to the community in Swansea." You can read more stories about Swansea here.

Utopia bar is now open, and more information can be found via its social media here.

READ NEXT:

Find out about things going on where you live:

More here:

The Swansea bar that's re-opening as an LGBT+ venue - Wales Online

How to get the Raft Temperance code – PCGamesN

Looking for the Raft Temperance code? This snowy island is a new landmark in the ocean-based survival game Raft. The vast, icy region becomes an important location near the end of the main storyline, but in order to reach it, you have to find the coordinates. As the location code is randomised, we cant just give you a number; you have to find it yourself. No worries, this Temperance guide will lend you a hand.

And its not just about getting to the island, once there youll likely find yourself searching for a Raft Temperance code in order to finish the islands main story and reach Utopia. The Temperance coordinates are hidden in the previous landmark location: Varuna Point. This note is inside the lower building, but you need to use the large crane to create an opening. Since the crane is missing its Crane Key, your first task is to explore the larger building until you find it. Dive into the water and look for the colourful jellyfish to find the entrance.

Once youve got the Crane Key, climb up the Crane and throw the boulder. Then use a zip line to land on the smaller island, where youll find the Temperance coordinates laying on top of a desk in one of the lower rooms. Time to go back to your Raft and set sail for the Temperance!

Fair warning: it will take some time to clear Temperance island. Besides watching out for ice bears, heres a general overview of everything else you should do:

And thats it! Open the Reactor Room to find the Utopia coordinates, the Electric Smelter blueprint, and a new playable character: Shogo. Off to Utopia then! Looking for a different type of indie experience? Check out our list of the best indie games to find something unique to play. If you want to unlock new people for your crew, read our Raft characters guide to get some more.

Read the original post:

How to get the Raft Temperance code - PCGamesN

The Real Dangers of Conspiracy Fiction CrimeReads – CrimeReads

On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh, a former Army soldier, parked a Ryder rental truck outside the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. The truck was loaded with a two-ton ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel bomb. McVeigh lit two timed fuses and stole away in a getaway car. At 9:02 A.M., the bomb exploded, obliterating the buildings faade and pancaking nine floors of office space. One hundred and sixty-eight people were murdered and over five hundred were injured. Until 9/11, it was the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil. It remains the deadliest homegrown terrorist attack in the U.S.for now.

Later, when McVeigh was arrested on a weapons charge during a traffic stop, clippings from the 1978 novel,The Turner Diaries, were found in his car. The real value of our attacks today, one clipping read, lies in the psychological impact, not in the immediate casualties. For one thing, our efforts against the System gained immeasurably in credibility. More important, though, is what we taught the politicians and the bureaucrats. They learned today that not one of them is beyond our reach. They can huddle behind barbed wire and tanks in the city, or they can hide behind the concrete walls and alarm systems of their country estates, but we can still find them and kill them.

The Systemrefers to the U.S. Government, which, in the novel, is run by Jews and white race traitors who seek to destroy the white race. Written by William Pierce, a former physics professor at Oregon State University, under the pseudonym, Andrew McDonald,The Turner Diaries is a lurid story of genocidal violence meant to cleanse America of ethnic minorities to create a utopian white ethno-state. The book is a sort of white supremacist thriller and is considered the Bible of the white nationalist movementand a blueprint for revolution. Early in the plot, Earl Turner, a member of The Order and the hero of the book, blows up the Federal Bureau of Investigation building in Washington DC with an ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel bomb hidden in the back of a rental truck. Seven-hundred people are killed.

Just as McVeigh did in real life, Jacob Clay, the troubled teenage antagonist in my novel,The Recruit, finds homicidal inspiration inThe Turner Diaries. Set in 1987 Southern California,The Recruitdramatizes the rise of a new kind of anti-US government white supremacy as it clashes with the growing Vietnamese refugee population. Jacob, a fifteen-year-old who is abused by his Vietnam veteran father, is indoctrinated into a racist terrorist cell bent on attacking people of color. As part of his indoctrination, the leader of the cell gifts JacobThe Turner Diaries, allowing Jacob to vicariously experience an act of violence he wishes to commit.

A more sinister fiction, though, one presented to him as fact, gives Jacob intellectual justification for his hatred. Around the time ofThe Turner Diariespublication, the term Zionist Occupational Government (ZOG) began to get traction among the extreme-right. In this conspiracy theory, the US Government is run by a cabal of rich Jews and race traitor whites who control the banks, media, and levers of government and seek to destroy America and the white race. Racist bulletin boards on the fledgling internet, such as Aryan Nations Liberty Net, spread the theory in the early 1980s. In 1984, a group called The Order, driven by hatred of this fictional government and fear of white extinction, murdered a Jewish radio talk show host on his driveway in Denver and then committed a string of violent robberies to fund a revolution to topple the U.S. Government. It is this fear of white extinction, this imagined white genocide, that convinces Jacob that he is a soldier defending the white race.

You may hear echoes of older fictions inThe Turner Diariesand the Zionist Occupational Government. These conspiraciesthat a secret society of rich Jews control the world and are trying to destroy white Europeansharken back to the greedy Jewish merchant stereotype and the blood libel lies of Middle Ages Europe.The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, first published in Russia around 1903, which purports to reveal a secret Jewish plan to take over the world, coincided with the worst of the pogroms in Russian held territories of Eastern Europe. Later, the Nazi party published dozens of editions of theProtocolsin Germany between 1919 to 1939, helping to set the stage for the Holocaust.

There are other fictions white supremacists use to justify their hatred.The two-seed theory tells us that Satan, in the form of the serpent, slept with and impregnated Eve.Satans child was Cain, while Adam and Eves was Abelthe first white child. The Jews, according to the theory, are literally descended from Satan, and have been trying, from the very beginning, inside Eden no less, to destroy white people. The great replacement theory tells fearful whites that they are experiencing a slow genocide and will be replaced by non-white immigrants to the United States. No doubt some will read my novel and think these theories are fictions I created, but my imagination is not that vast. Many reading this article will be shocked that anyone can believe such fictions, yet the Anti-Defamation League estimates that as many as 50,000 followers of the Christian Identity movement, a conglomeration of Christian churches who preach the two seed theory, are active in the United States. And the Buffalo shooter, before murdering ten people in a grocery store in a mostly Black neighborhood, left a manifesto railing about white people being replaced.

I finishedThe Recruit a few weeks before the January 6 attack on the Capitol. If you look closely at the videos from that day, among the symbols youll find on the attackers clothing and tactical gearthe Confederate flag, the Proud Boys Punisher face, the Three Percenters III, the Kekistan flagis the Q of QAnon. The conspiracy theory internet phenomenon repackages the older fictions that motivated Hitler, McVeigh, and The Order, and declares that the world is run by a cabal of liberal globalist cannibalistic pedophiles who control US and Global politics, banks, and the media. Q, the anonymous insider whistle blower, tells us that President Trump is secretly fighting this deep state and will bring about the Storm in which he will arrest thousands of liberal elites, destroy the pedophile ring, and usher in a new utopia in America. When President Trump lost in 2020, QAnon followers felt the election was stolen by the deep state, a conspiracy President Trump stoked for months, right up to the Stop the Steal rally on January 6. On Twitter the night before the rally, Ashli Babbitt, the former Air Force soldier who was fatally shot while trying to break into the Speakers Lobby, wrote, They can try and try and try, but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours.dark to light!

Fiction can be a powerful thing, sometimes more affecting than the truth. As a writer of thrillers, it is my job, in part, to entertain readers. Beyond entertaining, I construct my fictions in hopes of understanding larger truths about people and the world. Good writers, I believe, at least the ones I love, act out of such generosity and honesty when they craft their stories.

Malevolent writers understand the power of fiction, too. These writers craft their narratives to obscure the truth about people and the world, to create dehumanizing libels. When fictions are created to amplify destructive lies, they become propaganda used as a tool to destroy. The first person in medieval Europe to utter the blood libel lie did so in hopes of causing destructive action. The same holds true for the author and publishers of theProtocols of The Elders of Zionand for William Pierce.

Whoever the QAnon author is, they are not motivated to find truth. They use their fictions to cause divisions that compel people to take ugly actionto turn fiction into reality. A hint to the power of such fictions is evidenced in the fact that some of the many law enforcement officers who stormed the Capitol on January 6, men and women bound by the thin blue line, brutally attacked other police officers that day.

InThe Recruit, Jacob Clay carries these fictions with him and makes them into a terrible realityjust as Timothy McVeigh did, just as the Buffalo terrorist did. Nearly every week in America, it seems, we are forced to bear witness to the lies malevolent fiction writers tell.

***

Read this article:

The Real Dangers of Conspiracy Fiction CrimeReads - CrimeReads