Tuesday, December 07, 2021

hagiography.

Thursday, November 04, 2021

About that Duke lacrosse thing

 

About that Duke lacrosse thing

UPDATE: In light of comments on the AutoAdmit/XOXO message board in response to this post (“I want to brutally rape that Jill slut,” “I’m 98% sure that she should be raped (even if only in Internet Land),” “So seriously, I think we should start another war with this cunt. She clearly deserves anything XOXO might inflict on her”), I’m going to be moderating it very heavily. I’m not going to link to the AutoAdmit board; you can google it if you’re curious. Those of you who post comments that are deleted can whine about censorship and echo chambers all you want, but we’re more than 200 comments in and I’ve only deleted a handful (fewer than 5) of truly outrageous ones. Now that a group of people are making rape comments (hilarious as always) and threatening to “start another war with this cunt” because I clearly deserve “anything XOXO might inflict on her,” I’m not feeling the need to be particularly generous with my online space. So here are my rules:

-You throw out insults, you’re gone.
-You’re rude and/or clearly not interested in reasoned discussion, you’re gone.
-You’re clearly one of the people who posted nasty things on the AutoAdmit board, you’re gone. And your IP address very well may be going up in a subsequent post.
-You continue to take the thread off-topic, you’re gone. As a reminder, the post is about posting the woman’s pictures and personal information all over the internet. I did not weigh in on whether I think the three men are guilty or not, because we’ve had that conversation and another flamewar is not going to change anyone’s mind (also, please stop assuming that I think they’re guilty). This post is also not about the women’s sexual history or her line of work, so drop that, too. On this thread, we are discussing the posting of her picture, whether the posting was fair, and the posting’s effects on rape survivors. The internet is a big place, and I’m sure there are hundreds of blogs where you can discuss the guilt/not guilt of the men in question, or of some unidentified man. This is not that blog.
-Because we are talking about rape survivors, I am not going to accept comments that attack or blame survivors of sexual assault.

Also, I’m not going to be sitting at my computer all evening checking the moderation queue. I won’t be at my computer much at all tonight. I imagine that Zuzu and Piny are also fairly busy, and we generally have a policy of not moderating comments each others’ posts, unless they’re so benign that the poster would clearly have no problem letting them through. That means that, out of respect for me, Zuzu and Piny will probably not been approving comments from people who aren’t regular posters here. So if you’ve played by the rules and your comments still go into moderation and stay there for a while, it’s not because I’m trying to censor you, it’s because I’m out. If you think your comment was deleted unfairly, you are welcome to email me and contest the decision.

UPDATE TWO: A few clarifying points:
-I am in no way saying that I think these three lacrosse players are guilty. My opinion on their guilt or not isn’t really relevant since I wasn’t there and I don’t know all the facts of the case, but if you’re interested, I don’t think that they raped her. That’s neither here nor there, but there it is.
-I do, however, think that something happened in that house — I’m not sure what else explains her fingernails on the bathroom floor, her leaving her cellphone and wallet at the house (especially if she’s a greedy whore, as many people seem to be arguing), and the medical examination which showed trauma consistent with sexual assault.
-I think that the criminally accused deserve far more protections than they currently have. I think rape survivors do, too.
-I don’t have a whole lot of faith in the criminal justice system. I think it is fundamentally flawed, and broken at its very base. I think there are some good things about it, but as a general rule I cannot throw my support behind a retributive system, and I’d rather see us go the rehabilitation route. I’d rather our prisons weren’t holding pens for War on Drugs offenders. I’d rather our prisons were not major money-makers, and I’d rather they were not traded on Wall Street. I think prison rape is a huge problem, and that it’s inadequately dealt with. I don’t think that the solution to crime is to simply lock everyone up. I think it’s unfortunate that a retributive system is our only option when it comes to criminal “justice.”
-I am not interested in determining whether or not the Duke lacrosse team had anything to do with the alleged assault. I am interested in the ethical decisions to post the woman’s picture and personal information on The Smoking Gun, on the cover of the New York Post, and on dozens of websites.

Now back to the post:

Unless you’ve spent the past 48 hours hiding under a rock, you’ve probably heard the news that prosecutors have dropped charges against the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper. The backlash has been stunning: The woman’s face as plastered across the cover of the New York Post yesterday along with the words THE DUKE LIAR, and The Smoking Gun has posted her personal information. I’m not linking to either.

The overwhelming response, from liberals and conservatives alike (but mostly conservatives), has been to brand the accuser a liar. I’ve already had to delete a series of “gotcha!” comments from the moderation queue. Anti-feminists in particular are overjoyed with the players’ exoneration — not because they particularly care about justice, but because they think this is a good way to stick it to the feminists who support rape survivors, sometimes to the detriment of white men. These are the same people who regularly lectured us not to jump to conclusions, and to wait until the “boys” had their day in court.

Last I checked, the woman has not recanted her story. Last I checked, she isn’t being prosecuted for filing false charges. Last I checked, there is no evidence that she lied about a rape occurring.

At this point, what’s obvious is that there was not a strong enough case against Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty to take it to trial. That doesn’t mean that they’re upstanding citizens — after all, they hired a stripper for a team party, harassed her, etc etc — but that doesn’t make them rapists. On the other hand, they may very well be rapists, and there was simply not enough evidence to make a case. I hope we can all agree that, if they are in fact innocent, then it’s terrible that they had to go through this whole ordeal. I hope we can all agree that the DA screwed up this case royally.

But this post isn’t about guessing whether or not they did it. As far as the courts go, that issue has been pretty much settled, and we can argue until we’re blue in the face about whether or not we think they did it. I have no idea. I do think that the DA made a hasty indictment and had a shoddy case. But just because Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty may not have raped the woman in question does not mean that there was no rape, or that the woman is a liar. A guilty conviction is not the standard for determining whether or not a crime occurred, or whether or not someone who files a criminal report is telling the truth. OJ wasn’t convicted of murdering Nicole, but she’s still dead. If your car is stolen and the police never find it, it doesn’t mean that the theft never happened.

Women do not lie about rape any more than people lie about being victims of other crimes — but yet we look at rape charges with far more skepticism than we do crimes like theft or other kinds of assault. Could it be that she completely made up the assault? Yeah, it could be, but there’s about a 98% chance that she’s telling the truth.

This isn’t a choice between the three Duke lacrosse players being guilty OR her being a liar. They can be innocent, and she can still be raped. There were a lot of people in that house that night, and the three indictees are not the only possible perpetrators.

The DA dropped the ball on this one, not the woman, which is why I don’t understand the desire to post her picture and her personal information online. She was taken to the hospital an examination supported her claim of sexual assault. Several of her fingernails were left behind on the bathroom floor, along with her cell phone and her purse. She fled the house without collecting her money. She called 911. Is that definitive evidence that she was raped? No. But it lends itself to the contention that something out of the ordinary happened in that house.

From the reports I’ve read, even the law enforcement officials who don’t believe she was raped believe that she’s mentally unstable, and that she honestly thinks she was raped. The “nut or slut” defense is too often used by defense lawyers to discredit rape survivors, and these prosecutors obviously have much to gain by blaming her for their inability to make a proper case, but at the very least it’s worth noting that even the people who don’t think she was raped believe that she thought she was being honest. If that’s true, it doesn’t make her a liar; it makes her traumatized, troubled, and possibly mentally ill.

It’s deeply troubling that so many people have no qualms about posting the picture and personal information of a woman who, thus far, has not been formally accused of a crime. Of a woman who very well may be a rape survivor. Of a woman who, at the very least, believes herself to be a rape survivor. Of a woman who has not been accused nor proven to have done anything wrong.

Rape is one of the least successfully prosecuted crimes out there. It has the lowest reporting rate of all violent crimes. Women who survive sexual assault are too often silenced, and too often keep the crime a secret because they don’t think anyone will believe them. This case has been extremely harmful to rape survivors — who wants to report a rape if you think that, should prosecutors fail to successfully prosecute anyone, your face is going to be plastered all over the Post with the word “LIAR” next to it?

I don’t challenge the right of individuals to weigh in on this case. After all, the “innocent until proven guilty” standard is a legal one, not a social one, and if we’re permitted to speculate on whether the Duke lacrosse team was involved in an assault, then we’re permitted to speculate on whether she was telling the truth. But just because we’re permitted to doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And speculation goes about 10 steps too far when it turns into publishing her picture, her name, her address and other personal information.

The fact is that the three Duke men will go on leading lives of relative privilege. I’m not trying to downplay the trauma of being falsely accused of a crime, but these men have hordes of support. They are roundly perceived as innocent white victims of an evil black hypersexed slut. They had some of the best lawyers available. They will graduate from a top-tier university, and they will go on to have well-paying jobs.

She will forever be branded a lying whore. She will go back to her home in Durham — not her pricey dorm room, not the house her parents pay for her to live and party in — and she’ll try to move on with her life. She’ll have survived assault, and she’ll have survived being used as pawn by the media and her local legal establishment. She isn’t coming out unscathed. Further attempts to cause her harm — posting her pictures, calling her a liar — strike me as unbelievably cruel (not to mention usually hypocritical).

Even if you believe that the attacks on this individual woman are warranted, consider the effects that they will have on rape survivors. Consider what rape survivors feel every time they hear her called a liar. Consider what women will internalize about rape from this incident. Consider how that will effect them in the future — how it will effect their own reporting, or their belief that their friend, their daughter, their mother is telling the truth.

Accusations of lying about rape have far-reaching consequences. Lauren wrote an incredibly moving post about this a while back. I hope you’ll all read it, and re-consider the Duke case through that lens.

Monday, August 23, 2021

'Are you kidding me?' National security lawyer tears apart Nunes' 'pathetic joke' of a memo

 

'Are you kidding me?' National security lawyer tears apart Nunes' 'pathetic joke' of a memo

Brad Reed

February 02, 2018

     

'Are you kidding me?' National security lawyer tears apart Nunes' 'pathetic joke' of a memo

Attorney Bradley Moss (Screen cap).

The controversial Nunes memo is out -- and one national security expert is decidedly unimpressed.


Bradley Moss, an attorney who specializes in litigating national security matters, has written a tweet storm in which he shreds the memo and says that he believes it amounts to a "pathetic joke."


"This is the scandal??" Moss writes incredulously of the memo. "Are you kidding me?"


He then goes on to explain why there is simply no major scandal embedded within Nunes' memo, and he says that British spy Christopher Steele's personal biases against then-candidate Donald Trump are completely irrelevant to whether a FISA court should have granted the FBI a FISA warrant to surveil former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page.


"The entire premise of its insuffiency is the fact that the FBI/DOJ didn't tell the FISC that Steele was biased against Trump," he writes. "So the hell what? They're not REQUIRED to reveal that in every case. Unless that bias somehow renders the information, in and of itself, unreliable, it doesn't matter if Steele wore a 'I'm with Hillary' button. It's irrelevant."

 

Moss then went on to note that the Nunes memo confusingly admits that the FBI first launched its investigation into the Trump campaign based on the drunken boasts of former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who bragged to an Australian diplomat that he knew the Russian government would release dirt on rival Hillary Clinton.


In conclusion, Moss says the FBI needs to clear this up by releasing the entire FISA application on Page -- which he notes is usually between 50 to 100 pages long.



Bradley P. Moss

@BradMossEsq

This is the scandal?? Are you kidding me? https://scribd.com/document/370598711/House-Intelligence-Committee-Report-On-FISA-Abuses#fullscreen&from_embed

12:21 PM · Feb 2, 2018


Bradley P. Moss

@BradMossEsq

The Nunes memo is exactly the pathetic joke I expected it to be.


1) It admits that the Steele dossier is only a part of the FISA application. It even resolves once and for all that the Russia investigation did not start based on the dossier. It was based on "coffee boy".

12:22 PM · Feb 2, 2018



Bradley P. Moss

@BradMossEsq

·

Feb 2, 2018

The Nunes memo is exactly the pathetic joke I expected it to be.


1) It admits that the Steele dossier is only a part of the FISA application. It even resolves once and for all that the Russia investigation did not start based on the dossier. It was based on "coffee boy".

Bradley P. Moss

@BradMossEsq

2) The entire premise of its insuffiency is the fact that the FBI/DOJ didn't tell the FISC that Steele was biased against Trump. So the hell what? They're not REQUIRED to reveal that in every case. @OrinKerr did an exhaustive piece on the 4A issues for @lawfareblog

12:24 PM · Feb 2, 2018


Bradley P. Moss

@BradMossEsq

·

Feb 2, 2018

Replying to @BradMossEsq

2) The entire premise of its insuffiency is the fact that the FBI/DOJ didn't tell the FISC that Steele was biased against Trump. So the hell what? They're not REQUIRED to reveal that in every case. @OrinKerr did an exhaustive piece on the 4A issues for @lawfareblog

Bradley P. Moss

@BradMossEsq

Unless that bias somehow renders the information, in and of itself, unreliable, it doesn't matter if Steele wore a "I'm with Hillary" button. It's irrelevant.


3) Release the FISA application. The FBI has to do it now. It would likely have been 50-100 pages. Release it.

12:26 PM · Feb 2, 2018


Bradley P. Moss

@BradMossEsq

Any pundit that goes out there and says this is the FISA memo is a bombshell scandal is either a hack, stupid, naïve, incompetent and/or is completely and unapologetically unaware of Fourth Amendment law involving warrant applications and confidential informants.

12:45 PM · Feb 2, 2018

Monday, June 07, 2021

There is no solution to the GOP's vaccine refusal By Amanda Marcotte

There is no solution to the GOP's vaccine refusal

COVID denialism lost its political usefulness months ago, but the GOP zombies keep on refusing to get the vaccine

By Amanda Marcotte
Published June 7, 2021 1:09PM (EDT)

In the past six months, we've all witnessed the near-miraculous effectiveness of the vaccines against COVID-19  and President Joe Biden's success at turning the joke of Donald Trump's vaccine plan into a well-oiled machine. Anyone who wants the shot in the U.S. can get it. Yet, despite an initial surge of interest in vaccines in the mid-spring, there's been a drastic drop-off in vaccination rates just ahead of Biden's Independence Day goal for a return to summer grilling. 

"The United States is averaging fewer than 1 million shots per day, a decline of more than two-thirds from the peak of 3.4 million in April," the Washington Post reports, noting that "[s]mall armies of health workers and volunteers often outnumber the people showing up to get shots at clinics" in more conservative areas like Utah, North Carolina and Tennessee. 

"Experts are concerned that states across the South, where vaccination rates are lagging, could face a surge in coronavirus cases over the summer," the New York Times further reports. While many states in the Northeast have reached Biden's 70% benchmark, the Times notes that only "about half of adults or fewer have received a dose" in 15 red states. 

As vaccine rates have been lagging, a number of reasons for what tends to be called "vaccine hesitancy" have been documented through polls and other research. Issues include a lack of access, skepticism that COVID-19 is particularly dangerous, a lack of trust in the vaccines, a belief in conspiracy theories and fear of side effects.

No doubt all these aspects are true to one extent or another, and there's certainly evidence that some working-class people simply are struggling to find the time to get the shots and recover from them. But the glaring geographical differences give away the one deeply uncomfortable reality about what is driving much, if not most, of the discrepancies in vaccination rates: Republicans are refusing to get vaccinated out of pure spite.



Both Trump and Fox News made it clear in the early days of the pandemic that taking COVID-19 seriously is something only hated liberals would do. To show their right-wing bona fides, it was important for Republican voters to refuse to do anything that would suggest they are concerned about getting sick, which would be seen as disloyalty not only to Trump but to the right-wing cause. This is even though Trump himself got very sick from COVID-19 and then, as soon as it was available, got the vaccine. And it clearly persists, even though the political usefulness of COVID-19 denialism ended when Trump's presidency did.

As Politico's health care reporters Dan Goldberg and Alice Miranda Ollstein wrote on Saturday, the "partisan divide in Covid-19 vaccinations is becoming starker," as evidenced by the fact that all "but one of the 39 congressional districts where at least 60 percent of residents have received a coronavirus shot are represented by Democrats" and "Republicans represent all but two of the 30 districts where fewer than one-third of residents have received a shot."

Another giveaway is how Republican politicians have downplayed the role tribal loyalty and COVID-19 denialism are playing in the vaccine slowdown.

On Sunday morning, Mississippi's Gov. Tate Reeves, in full gaslighting mode to Jake Tapper of CNN, insisted that he believes "all Americans should go get vaccinated because I think it's safe," that that "individuals can make their own decision, Jake, as to how to protect themselves and families."

This is, of course, full-blown nonsense. People aren't carefully researching how best to protect themselves and their families. If that was the case, they'd be lining up for shots because — outside of a few rare cases where people are immunocompromised — the single best and safest way to protect yourself and your family is to get vaccinated.

No, what's actually happening in these red states is that people are putting themselves and their families at risk, deliberately. And they're doing it because Trump spent months downplaying the threat of COVID-19 and making it a loyalty test for his people to do the same. It's also clear that a lot of the fears of vaccine safety being offered to researchers as reasons for vaccine hesitancy are, in fact, just a cover story for the mindless tribalism of the right. 

Part of the problem is Trump's ability to convince people to give up their own safety and security in order to prove their loyalty to him. Recall how cronies like Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani ended up in deep but predictable legal trouble after sticking their neck out for Trump? Hundreds of Capitol rioters are now facing fines or jail time because they stormed the Capitol for an ungrateful Trump. As hard as it is for those of us who see this comically dressed, half-literate sociopathic narcissist for who he is, there can be no doubt of the hold he has over some people. 

Still, the widespread nature of vaccine refusal in the red states suggests this is actually about much more than Trump the cult leader, especially as he himself has gotten the shot. In fact, the whole situation illustrates how certain lies take on a life of their own on the right, becoming identity markers that far outlast their political expediency. In other words, getting the vaccine would be an admission for conservatives that they were wrong about COVID-19 in the first place, and that liberals were right. And for much of red-state America, that's apparently a far worse fate than death.


Of course, adding to the problem is that right-wing media has not abandoned the idea that there's something "liberal" and therefore evil about admitting that medical scientists know stuff. Right-wing media figures keep bashing Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, with increasingly convoluted conspiracy theories involving his emails that no one, right or left, can follow. Such conspiracy theories are incoherent by design. They aren't meant to be understood, so much as to create an air of suspicion around Dr. Fauci and public health officials generally, and to reaffirm that being a true member of the conservative tribe means hating such people. 

On Fox News, the message to the audience is quite clear: Real conservatives prove themselves by rejecting the vaccine. Most recently, Tucker Carlson was on air ranting about how it's "medical Jim Crow" to expect people to get vaccinated to protect others. Besides being language designed to minimize the seriousness of actual racism, this kind of rhetoric is also about falsely telling conservative Americans they are akin to a marginalized ethnic group. Refusing vaccination is a way to show off your tribal membership, like wearing a MAGA hat or deliberately getting an ugly haircut, except deadlier. 

Outside of mandates or raising the penalties by barring the unvaccinated from public spaces, there's not much to be done now to change Trumper minds on vaccines. They know being unvaccinated is irrational. Being irrational is the appeal. They know how much irrationality annoys liberals. This is one of those situations where, the more that people outside of the Trump tribe push, the more the Trumpers will dig in their heels, ready to stick it to the rest of the country by acting like stubborn asses. 

The only solution may be reverse psychology.

People who want the pandemic to end need to, paradoxically, release the desire to see conservatives get vaccinated. The more zen that liberals (or people perceived to be liberals) are about vaccination rates, the less fun it is to try to piss liberals off by refusing to get the shot. Well-intentioned goals, like Biden's 70% by July 4 deadline, end up backfiring. If Biden wants it, then conservatives will, like bratty children, refuse to do it just to stick it to him. 

The good news is that, as painful as it is for Democrats to admit, there seems to be a growing acceptance that it's unwise to let Republican anti-vaxxers hold the rest of us hostage. Lockdowns and mask mandates are relaxing, even in blue areas, despite not meeting vaccination goals. While this is less than ideal, it's better than the alternative: keeping those measures in place and trying to incentivize conservatives, who are motivated purely by spite and will thus continue to refuse the shot.

They aren't getting shots in order to troll the liberals. Time to stop feeding the trolls and let them get sick if they really want to play. 

Amanda Marcotte