Mediaboss Marketing

Hollande described Trump's statements as "unacceptable", and German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on the EU to press ahead with its own plans whatever the US says.

EU leaders have been rattled by Trump's comments on Europe and the NATO transatlantic alliance. He has voiced his support for Britain's departure from the EU, criticized European refugee policies and called NATO "obsolete".

Hollande hit out at Trump as he arrived at the informal summit on the future of the EU in Malta. "There are threats, there are challenges. What is at stake is the very future of the European Union," he said.

"It is unacceptable that there should be, through a number of statements by the US President, pressure on what Europe should be or what it should no longer be."

Merkel called on fellow EU leaders to unite, as she arrived for the summit in Valletta, Malta's capital. "I already said that Europe has its destiny in its own hands. And I believe the stronger we state clearly how we define our role in the world, the better we can take care with our transatlantic relations," she said.

Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern criticized Trump's ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries as "highly problematic." He blamed some of the migration problems on US intervention in the Middle East. "There is no doubt that America shares responsibility for the refugee flows by the way how it intervened militarily," he said, according to AFP.

The concerns about Trump continued into the discussions. Malta's Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said EU leaders expressed concern about some "decisions and attitudes" of the Trump administration during their deliberations at the summit.

"Obviously there was concern among the EU 28 on some decisions that are being taken by the new US administration and some attitudes that are being adopted by the said administration. Nevertheless there was no sense of anti-Americanism. There was a sense that we need to engage with the United States just the same, but we need to show that we cannot stay silent where there are principles involved."

The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said protecting Europe's "unique" relationship with the United States was still the "highest political priority" for not just the EU, but for all of Europe. Speaking at a press conference at the Malta summit, Tusk said that transatlantic cooperation "has until now been a key pillar of the free world."

His remarks were markedly more conciliatory than earlier int he week, when he called the Trump administration an "external threat to Europe."

The criticism of Trump came after it was revealed that the European Parliament's main political party is attempting to block Trump's expected choice for US ambassador to the European Union.

A letter from the Group of the European People's Party, or EPP, urges the EU to reject US businessman Ted Malloch, calling him "hostile and malevolent" and accusing him of "denigrating the EU."

"We are strongly convinced that persons seeing as their mission to disrupt or dissolve the EU, should not be accredited as official representatives to the EU."

The letter ends by urging EU leaders Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker not to accept Malloch should he be Trump's pick. Envoys to the EU must be approved by the European Council, the European Commission and signed off by EU leaders.

Britain's future relationship with the EU is also on the agenda in Malta.

May wants to invoke Article 50 by the end of March, firing the starting gun on a two-year divorce wrangle.

The UK government has stressed it wants to see a strong and successful European Union after Brexit.

CNN's Nic Robertson reported from Valletta, and Laura Smith-Spark wrote and reported from London and Euan McKirdy from Hong Kong.

The rest is here:
EU leaders attack Donald Trump at Malta summit - CNN

Donald Trump at a meeting with Senate and House legislators earlier this week.CreditPHOTOGRAPH BY DREW ANGERER / BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY

Donald Trump is hardly the first President to lie to the American people. Nor is he the first to place ideology before data. But this White House, unlike any other, has already crossed the threshold into a space where facts appear to mean nothing.

Eventually, the Presidents daily policy outrages, his caustic insults, and his childish Twitter rants will fade into history. But it will take years to gauge the impact of having a habitual liar as President. When words like science and progress become unmoored from their meaning, the effects are incalculable. And lets not kid ourselves: those words today are under assault with a ferocity we have not seen for hundreds of years.

The United States is now a country with dozens of unofficial government resistance Twitter accounts. There is one for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, another for the Environmental Protection Agency, and others for the National Park Service, the Peace Corps, and the Customs Agency. Last week, in what the account describes as an effort to present actual facts, instead of alternative facts, they were joined by the nations most important public-health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There are horrific lies of omission: last week, the White House released a statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day that pointedly declined to refer to Jews, because others were killed, too. And there are denials of truth that are impossible to categorize: the President met with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an anti-vaccine zealot with a history of falsehoods, and talked to him about possibly forming a commission on vaccine safety. (After Kennedy said hed actually been asked to lead such a commission, provoking dismay, the Trump team said that no decision had yet been made.) Then there are lies so ludicrous that it is hard (though essential) to take them seriously: according to Trump, the United States has just gone through the most devastating instance of voter fraud in the nations history. And, in his telling, every one of the millions of illegal votes happened to be cast for his opponent.

What happens to a society that accepts denialism as a way of life? Nearly a decade ago, I published a book about the growing number of people who, when confronted with an unpleasant reality, chose to embrace a more comfortable lie. Denialismwhether it stems from suspicions about vaccines, dread of G.M.O.s, or even confusion about climate scienceis often rooted in fear. And fear deserves to be taken seriously. The longer I have been involved in these issues, the more sympathy I have for people who are dubious about the rules of organized medicine, worried about the health of their infant children, or skeptical about the interests of the corporations that make so many of our seeds, food, and pharmaceuticals. Reason, patience, and education dont always work. But they go further in confronting those fears than self-satisfied condescension.

But we are now led, in an age of unimaginable scientific achievement, by the most narcissistic and thoughtless denialist ever to have entered public life. His denialism is not based in fear, its based in arrogance. And it must not be forgotten that denialism kills. Climate change, which Trump has denied and dismissed, has already had a grave impact on the worlds poorest people. Far from making America safer, Trumps immigration plan will cause clear harm, not least to American soldiers.

Politics doesnt belong in a test tube; neither viruses nor bacteria are members of political parties. Scientists have often been wrong, but nothing has propelled our world forward more successfully or rapidly than the scientific method, based as it is on independent inquiry and a reliance on data that can be observed, tested, analyzed, and repeated.

That essential modern projectone of passionate inquiry and personal detachmentis now in doubt. Scientists have battled the political and ideological forces against concepts such as evolution and climate change for years, Elizabeth Hadly, a professor of biology, geological, and environmental sciences at Stanford University, told the Guardian this week. We have patiently articulated the physical and biological laws governing the universe, assembled the data, and presented it in the pages of journals, at public seminars, to the halls of Congress. What is occurring now against science and scientists in the U.S. goes beyond ideology and political party. Now we nd our discourse under attack.

How many of our countrys schoolteachers must consider, every day, whether to explain to their students that the President is a liar? The alternativesimply accepting those lieswould be devastating. It would change our language and change us, if we let it. On April 22nd, Earth Day, scientists will march on Washington to show their fealty to facts. There are people, in science and out of it, who are opposed to the idea of theoretically detached researchers showing themselves to be political in this way. They might better ask in what world would Americans have to stage a march to honor reality. Unfortunately, that world is now upon us. Facts deserve our support. And lies do not.

Continued here:
The Deep Denialism of Donald Trump - The New Yorker

In the opening days of his presidency, Donald Trump appears to be taking an unpredictable, albeit hawkish approach to foreign policy.

On Wednesday, his administration issued what seemed to be a threat to Iran. As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice, his national security adviser Michael Flynn declared during a White House press conference after denouncing a recent Iranian missile test launch. On Thursday, Trump echoed that statement on Twitter, saying: Iran has been formally PUT ON NOTICE for firing a ballistic missile.

Trump Begins to Chip Away at Banking Regulations

Reports have also surfaced of confrontational phone conversations between Trump and the prime minister of Australia, a key American ally, as well as between Trump and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull disputed claims that Trump had hung up on him on Thursday, describing the call as frank and forthright, while the Mexican government shot down reports that Trump threatened to send U.S. troops into Mexico.

Trump, however, seems intent on sending the message that its time for the United States to take a harder line with world leaders. When you hear about the tough phone calls Im having, dont worry about it, the president said on Thursday. We have to be tough. Its time were going to be a little tough, folks. Were taken advantage of by every nation in the word, virtually. Its not going to happen anymore.

To get a sense of the potential consequences of Trumps combative rhetoric, I spoke with Robert Jervis, a professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University and affiliate at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. A transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length, appears below.

Clare Foran: Lets start with the Trump administration's threat of putting Iran on notice. How much does threatening rhetoric matter, and does it matter more coming from a superpower like the United States?

Robert Jervis: It does matter. Think about how much of a price President Obama paid for saying there was a red line with respect to the Assad regimes use of chemical weapons in Syria, and then failing to back that up with the use of military force. Now, Im not arguing that Obama was unsuccessful. I think he actually was successful because the removal of chemical weapons from Syria ultimately went forward, which is what he wanted to achieve. But even so, there was a lot of harm done by his statement. People who served in his administration who also think the policy was a success admit they suffered around the world for the idea that he didnt live up to his threat, not to mention suffering bipartisan attacks in the United States. If you make a threat and then appear to have backed away from it, theres a price to be paid. Your threat is less likely to be believed next time.

Foran: What do you think might happen then if Iran decides to launch another ballistic missile test?

Jervis: So after Irans next missile test, and Im willing to believe there will be a next test, its going to be tough. The question becomes what is Trump going to do? It certainly could lead us down a path that does not end well. It could end with the United States isolated from our allies. It could end with the Trump administration backing down, and damaging its credibility, or it could end with the administration taking action that could eventually lead to military clashes with Iran.

Most likely, what the Trump administration might do is some kind of unilateral American economic sanctions that will upset our allies, not do enormous damage to the Iranian economy, and increase the chances that [current Iranian President] Rouhani will not be re-elected. That could be a big domino that could put the Iran nuclear deal in jeopardy.

Foran: What do you make of the reports that the Trump administration may be planning to impose sanctions on Iran as early as Friday in response to the missile test?

Jervis: Typically sanctions would be something that I would expect would be a retaliatory measure if Iran were to go ahead and conduct another test after the United States told them they were putting them on notice. It could be self-defeating to impose anything but very limited sanctions this quickly, because it suggests that the United States will retaliate no matter what Iran does. If that's the case, then it's not clear what incentive Iran would have to do what Trump wants. [For what its worth, the U.S. enacted sanctions targeting Iranian companies and individuals last January, which President Obama said were in response to Iranian missile testing.]

Foran: Trump has suggested that unpredictability can be advantageous in foreign policy since then our adversaries wont know what were going to do. What do you think of that?

Jervis: It is true that there could be some cases where being unpredictable could be advantageous. It might create an incentive for countries to want to get out of his way because they may be afraid of what he is capable of. Its possible that it could be a deterrent. I think the odds of this working, in the sense of getting Iran to give up missile tests, seem low, but its not impossible. They may decide to back off. Theres of course a slight chance that Mexico may be afraid of what Trump might do, and decide to pay for the wall, but I highly doubt it. Getting into a conflict with the U.S. would be very costly for other countries. We are the umpteen-pound gorilla in the room, and theres enormous harm and good we can do. In most cases, if countries can stay on the right side of the United States, they will probably hope that they can do it.

But on the other hand, many countries have a strong sense of nationalism and will not want to give into the United States. Getting into a conflict with the U.S. could be damaging to a country, but it could be still be beneficial to a leader who decides to do it because it might allow them to be seen as heroic within their own country. Unpredictability and scaring people could also backfire for Trump if countries feel that they are going come into conflict with Trump no matter what.

When you look at the reports that Trump was combative with the Australian prime minister, well the prime minister might walk away from that and say, Well, if hes just going to be aggressive and belligerent from the outset of this relationship no matter what we do, then why should we try to do what he wants? Similarly, the Iranians could decide that even if they didnt launch another missile test, Trump would just find another way to punish them. If punishment seems unavoidable, theres no point in trying to appease.

Foran: What do you think is more risky: The potential that the Trump administration could damage relationships with countries that have historically been our adversaries, or countries that have historically been our allies?

Jervis: Trump has talked about the idea that our allies dont carry their own weight, and that is absolutely true, they dont. But alliances are still absolutely central to defending our interests. American power in the world is enormously enhanced by good relations with significant alliance partners, and the alliances underpin a lot of the world order that keeps us relatively safe and prosperous.

And you cant disentangle our relationships with our allies from our relationships with our adversaries. If Trump, for example, pursues policies that most leaders around the world believe are imprudent with respect to a country like Iran, and that in turn alienates our allies, it could embolden our adversaries. If Im an adversary of the United States and Im confronted by America on its own, that is much less deterring than if Im confronted by a strong alliance. For some countries, that dynamic might even create an incentive to provoke the United States. If our adversaries think they can provoke Trump into taking action that will alienate Americas allies, that could ultimately benefit them, especially if it ultimately breaks up our alliances.

Foran: What would you say to reassure someone who is concerned about the potential for escalating conflict under this administration?

Jervis: The permanent bureaucracy of the United States government can create a check on presidential recklessness, though the president can get us into situations you cant easily get out of. Its also important to keep in mind there are many kinds of conflict, and there are many intermediary steps before arriving at armed military conflict. There are a whole range of much smaller events or actions that might take place, and that are much easier to imagine than full scale war. At the same time, any kind of conflict can have a high cost in and of itself, and can lead to further escalation.

View post:
Donald Trump and the Threat of Global Conflict - The Atlantic

White nationalist political views are harder to find on Reddit this week, after the site that bills itself as the "front page of the Internet" banned two subforums for violating terms of service.

The banned forums, called subreddits, are r/altright and r/alternativeright. They went dark on Wednesday morning and now redirect to a landing page that reads: "This subreddit was banned due to a violation of our content policy, specifically, the proliferation of personal and confidential information."

That explanation likely refers to the practice of "doxing:" publishing details like home phone numbers and addresses of people whom the online community wants to shame. The doxing episode that may have precipitated the ban was the release of personal information identifying the protester who punched a white supremacist during a demonstration at President Trump's inauguration last month, The Verge reports.

Reddit did not offer more details on the specific reasons that led it to ban the subreddits, but a spokesperson explained in a statement that "we are very clear in our site terms of service that posting of personal information can get users banned from Reddit.

"We have banned r/altright due to repeated violations of the terms of our content policy," it concluded.

The site has struggled in recent months to deal with what it refers to as its "most toxic" members. Reddit CEO Steve Huffman generated controversy in November when he admitted to secretly editing posts that criticized him for banning a subreddit devoted to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Huffman apologized, and also said that Reddit would step up efforts to ban individual users who violated its policies.

This article originally appeared on PCMag.com.

Read the original:
Reddit bans 'alt-right' discussion forums - Fox News

Meanwhile, UW continues to grapple with questions of what free speech really means.

Two weeks after Milo Yiannopoulos appearance at University of Washingtonoutside of whicha 32-year-old man was shot by a fan of the the Breitbart News editorUW Police Department is still investigating what happened that evening at Red Square.

On Thursday, UWPD reported that its investigation led to search warrants to identify and preserve evidence for the case. As the shootera former UW studentwas let go without being charged, the department reported that detectives are in touch with attorneys representing people who identified themselves as involved in the incident.

Due to its sensitive nature, the Court sealed the search warrants to preserve the integrity of the investigation. At this time, detectives are still identifying witnesses that may have information that is pertinent to the investigation, a statement from the department says.

But the shooting is not the only thing that seems unclear these days, as members of the UW community have been debating a hot issue following the Milo event.

Where is the line dividing free speech from hate speech?

Shon Meckfessel maintains the speech should never have taken place. Thats a stance many on campus are taking.

Milos speech is threatening and excites violence without a question, said Meckfessel, who wrote a PhD dissertation about rhetorics at UW and is now an English faculty member at Highline College. When you have acts of violence before his campus talks or as a result of his presentations, its unambiguous that his words are threatening and incite violence. That, by legal definition is the end of free speech. Theres no longer protected speech when that happens.

The debate over Yiannopoulos long preceded his arrival on campus.

A Change.org petition to ban renown bigot and misogynist Yiannopoulos appearance at UW received 4,640 signatures while 733 people backed a counter-petition asking UW president Ana Mari Cauce to allow the event in the name of free speech.

Cauce opposed Yiannopoulos rhetoric and said that his discourse stood against the universitys values and social commitment in a statement updated Jan. 6.

He generates heat, not light, and his manner of engagement is anything but civil, respectful or conducive to true dialogue across differences, of which we need more, not less Please be assured, the fact that he is speaking at our University does not mean that he in any way represents our University or our values, the statement says.

Earlier this week, she maintained that stance when confronted by a group of protesters.

I take responsibility. Theres no question, Cauce told the crowd, before saying that Yiannopoulos should have been allowed to protest. As Cauce wrote in her statement:

The right to free speech and expression is broad and allows for speech that is offensive and that most of us would consider disrespectful, and even sexist or racist. As a public university committed to the free exchange of ideas and free expression, we are obligated to uphold this right.

Kai Frenay, secretary of the UW College Republicansthe group that issued the official invitation to the controversial Breitbart mansaw bringing Yiannopoulos to UW campus as an opportunity to challenge students beliefs and learn from different perspectives.

When the campus tries to silence or shame you for those perspectives, it sort of negates the whole point, Frenay told UW Daily Nov. 3. There are a lot of things Milo says that I dont agree with. To block him though means blocking freedom of speech.

Read more here:
Cops Still Mum On Shooting Outside Alt-Right Speech - Seattle Weekly