Mediaboss Marketing

The U.S. House of Representatives voted recently to remove newly elected Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia from congressional committees for endorsing violence against Democratic politicians, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and for spreading harmful and hateful disinformation, from the QAnon conspiracy theory that portrays Democrats as cannibalistic pedophiles, to the lie that school shootings have been staged, to various anti-Semitic tropes.

One of the last straws before the House acted was video that recently came to light showing Greene in Washington, D.C., on two separate occasions stalking and harassing gun-regulation advocate David Hogg, a survivor of the 2018 school massacre in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

Coming in the wake of Januarys attack on the U.S. Capitol by a far-right mob incited by former President Trump and other Republican politicians, the Houses dramatic move to de-committee Greene marks the first time in modern history that the majority party has taken such action against a member of the minority. More typically, the offending members party internally handles such matters, which typically involve criminal charges. But while the Republican House leadership removed Rep. Steve King of Iowa from committees in 2019 for making a racist remark to a publication, it declined to take action on Greene.

Get the news you want, delivered to your inbox every day.

Before the Feb. 4 House vote to remove her, in which Democrats were joined by 11 Republicans, Greene gave an emotional speech on the chamber floor in which she did not apologize for her remarks but noted they were made before her election and called them words of the past. She also invoked her Christian faith, complained that she was allowed to believe things that werent true and attacked the mainstream media, national debt, open borders, cancel culture, big tech, transgender identity, Black Lives Matter protests, and abortion which she called the worst thing this country has ever committed.

Though Greene has been disempowered when it comes to passing legislation, she remains the elected representative for Georgias 14th Congressional District, where shes a polarizing figure. She has pledged to use her platform and newfound free time to push the Republican Party further to the right. Shes successfully used the controversy over her committee removal to raise small-donor funds for her campaign, raking in $325,000 in the two days before the vote, according to OpenSecrets.org.

With Greene a rising celebrity on the far right, a question confronting U.S. democracy movements is how to prevent such violence-endorsing extremists from getting elected to Congress in the first place. That will take reforms to end the extreme partisan gerrymandering that helped make Greenes election possible, and which voting rights experts say is at risk of being repeated this year in a handful of Southern states, including Georgia.

Encompassing the southernmost reaches of the Appalachian mountains, the outer northern edge of the Atlanta metro area, and some of the Chattanooga metro area, Georgias 14th Congressional District came into being after the 2010 census, which found that the states population had grown 18% over the previous decade, giving it an additional U.S. House seat. States approach redistricting differently, and Georgia is among those where the legislature draws maps that the governor can veto.

Historically, the legislature handled the technical details of the map-drawing process through a contract with the University of Georgias nonpartisan Carl Vinson Institute of Government. But in 2011, the Republican-controlled state legislature decided unilaterally to take a different approach.

At the time, REDMAP was well underway; thats the Republican State Leadership Committee initiative that at the time targeted legislative races in key swing states like North Carolina with an eye toward redistricting control after 2010. After helping Republicans win and extend control in legislatures, the project used advanced map-drawing technology to create districts favorable to the GOP. Georgia, having been governed by a Republican trifecta controlling the House, Senate, and governors office since 2005, didnt need help from REDMAP but legislative Republicans there still took steps to further consolidate their partys control of the map-drawing process.

In February 2011, Georgias GOP legislative leaders announced the creation of a Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Office. It employed many of the same people who worked on redistricting at the Carl Vinson Institute. Its adviser was Anne W. Lewis, a partner in the firm Strickland Brockington Lewis; at the time, she served as general counsel to the Georgia Republican Party. The GOP leadership claimed basing the work at the Capitol was cheaper.

Democrats in the legislature criticized the change. Stacey Abrams, who at the time served as the House minority leader and represented Atlanta and unincorporated DeKalb County, said that they did not include Democrats in this decision raises some serious questions about transparency and accountability. Senate Democratic Leader Robert Brown called the news very much a surprise and said the office is obviously not nonpartisan.

When Democratic legislative leaders asked for a separate reapportionment office to provide them with the needed legal and other support services to play a meaningful role in the map-drawing process, the Republicans turned them down. They said the new office would serve all members of the General Assembly.

As of 2010, after Georgia held elections based on the old map from 2001, Republicans controlled seven of the states 13 congressional seats. Of its six Democratic districts, three were in the Atlanta area and considered safe for Democrats even under the new 2011 map. But two other districts held by Democrats John Barrows and Sanford Bishops were seen as likely targets for Georgia Republicans looking to expand power as they gained full control of redistricting for the first time.

As it turned out, the GOPs 2011 maps displaced Barrow, whos white, from a crossover district where multiracial coalitions were able to elect candidates of their choice, and redrew him into one thats now solidly Republican. The map also made the district held by Bishop, whos Black, majority-minority a gerrymandering practice known as packing, when a partys voting power is concentrated in one district to reduce its power in others. And it put part of strongly Democratic Atlanta in Republican Rep. Phil Gingreys 11th District a gerrymandering practice known as cracking, when the voting power of a partys supporters is diluted across districts.

The GOP mapmakers placed Georgias new 14th Congressional District in the states northwestern corner and they drew the lines in a way that didnt reflect the states growing demographic diversity. In 2000, Georgia was already among the 10 states with the highest concentration of nonwhite residents at 37%. By the 2010 census, the nonwhite portion of the states population had grown to 44%, with the Hispanic population accounting for almost a quarter of the states population growth and thats with an undercount of people of color in Southern states including Georgia. Georgias 14th, on the other hand, was drawn by Republicans to be 85% white, 12% Latino, and 8.7% Black. The district is also wealthier and older than Georgia as a whole, with a 2017 poverty rate of 14.7% compared to the state rate of 16%, and a resident median age of 38 compared to the state median of 36.8. Political observers predicted the changes would lead to more Republicans in the states congressional delegation.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, the civil rights leader who died last year, called the map an affront to the spirit and the letter of the Voting Rights Act. The states League of Women Voters, which has taken a lead role in fighting gerrymandering, accused GOP lawmakers of disregarding public input given at the dozen hearings held across the state.

In August 2011, after making minor changes that didnt affect the 14th, the Georgia House and Senate approved the congressional map in party-line votes and Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed it into law. That October, the state submitted the map to the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance as then required under the Voting Rights Act for states and local jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination. At the same time, Georgia filed a federal lawsuit challenging the preclearance requirement, arguing its based on a racial climate that no longer exists in the state an assertion Abrams challenged, saying, Georgia continues to evidence examples of that, not the least of which we believe are the current maps they are submitting, which re-segregate the state of Georgia, polarize communities of color and isolate them into enclaves.

Questioning the states ability to draw fair political districts while it was also challenging the rules for creating them, the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus and other groups asked the federal courts to reject the maps. Im concerned about minority votes. Im concerned about dilution of votes. Im concerned about coalition districts. Im concerned about all of those things from this power grab by those in power today, Democratic State Sen. Emanuel Jones, the head of the Black Caucus, said at the time.

But on Dec. 23, 2011, the Obama DOJ under Attorney General Eric Holder approved the maps under the Voting Rights Act. It was the first time in Georgia history that all of the states maps, for state House and Senate as well as Congress, were approved on first review. Another challenge to the preclearance requirement filed in federal court that same year, from Alabama, would eventually end up at U.S. Supreme Court, whose 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision effectively ended preclearance including review of Republican-drawn voting maps.

Following the 2012 elections based on Georgias newly drawn maps, the Republican Party as predicted gained a seat in the states congressional delegation, giving the GOP an 8-6 edge. Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, who had been drawn into the states new 14th Congressional District from his former seat in the 9th, faced no primary opponent and went on to crush Democratic challenger Daniel Grant in the general election by 72-27.

Every election since then in Georgias 14th has been at least that lopsided. In 2014, after defeating a primary challenger with over 74% of the vote, Graves went on to win without any opposition in the general election. In 2016, the same year the Trump would carry the district by 53 points, Graves defeated two primary challengers with over 75% of the vote and then routed a write-in candidate in the general. Graves attracted two primary challengers in 2018, but both quit the race before Election Day. That November, Graves went on to defeat a Democrat who during the race was convicted of driving under the influence and sentenced to six months in prison. Graves captured over 76% of the vote that cycle. The Cook Political Reports Partisan Voter Index rates the 14th as R+27, meaning its far more Republican than the national average.

But theres statistical evidence that the outcomes of elections in the 14th and Georgias congressional districts overall dont honestly reflect the electorates preferences. A 2017 report titled Extreme Maps by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, examined data from the 2012, 2014, and 2016 election cycles to identify states where the manipulation of district lines gave the map-drawing party a share of seats grossly at odds with statewide election results. The report found that the decades congressional maps were biased in favor of Republicans nationwide, with North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania showing the most extreme levels of partisan bias, followed by Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia. It also found that Georgia, along with Tennessee and Wisconsin, showed statistically significant GOP skews during that period. In fact, Georgias gerrymandered congressional races had become so uncompetitive that the San Francisco-based political startup Crowdpac used the state as its poster child for the detrimental effects of hyper-partisan redistricting by launching a national campaign there in 2017 urging citizens to consider challenging their local congressperson using the companys crowdfunding website.

In December 2019, Graves announced that he would not run for Congress again, and he stepped down early the following October. His retirement led to a crush of candidates entering the 2020 Republican primary for the 14th District seat nine in all who qualified for the ballot. The top two finishers in the June primary were Greene, a commercial construction firm owner with a business degree from the University of Georgia, who won the most votes at 43,892 (40.3%), and neurosurgeon John Cowan, who got 22,862 votes (21%). Both describe themselves as pro-Trump Republicans, but Cowan does not share Greenes extreme views and embrace of conspiracy theories.

Cowan grew up on a cattle farm in Northwest Georgia, but Greene is not a longtime resident of the district. When she first considered a congressional run, she was living north of Atlanta in Alpharetta the 6th District, where she planned to challenge U.S. Rep. Karen Handel in the GOP primary. But supporters of Greene including members of the secretive, far-right House Freedom Caucus, whose 48 known members include 27 representing Southern states reportedly convinced her to relocate to Georgias 14th and run for the open seat. The Caucuss House Freedom Fund also supported her campaign, which was primarily self-funded.

Though Cowan whose slogan was all the conservative, none of the embarrassment won hundreds of endorsements from leaders in the 14th District and support from organizations that dont generally get involved in primary races, he lost by 57-43 in a year when the GOPs conservative base was fired up by angry rhetoric from President Trump and other extremist leaders about pandemic restrictions and Black Lives Matter protests. Cowan recently told Fox 5 Atlanta that Greenes great endorsements from U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows, the former North Carolina congressman who went on to serve as Trumps chief of staff, carried a lot of weight. Both are former House Freedom Caucus leaders. Trump hailed Greenes primary win in a tweet, calling her a future Republican Star whos strong on everything.

On the Democratic side, the 2020 primarys unchallenged winner was Kevin Van Ausdal, an IT specialist and political novice who said he wanted to bring civility back to Washington. At one point during the campaign, rattled by Greenes violent rhetoric and support from white supremacists and other extremists, Van Ausdal reportedly texted to his wife that he was breaking down; soon after, she asked for a divorce, and he had to move out. Within days Van Ausdal quit the race and returned to his home state of Indiana. By then, the window had closed for Democrats to find an alternative, as Georgia law says a candidate who withdraws fewer than 60 days before the election cannot be replaced on the ballot. That November, Van Ausdal still received a quarter of the vote despite having quit, and Greene was on her way to Washington.

In the round of redistricting set to get underway later this year, an unprecedented number of states nationwide will be drawing maps under new rules designed to reduce the potential for extreme partisan gerrymandering. Among them is Virginia, whose voters this past November approved a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan redistricting commission in order to avoid hyper-partisan gerrymandering of the states legislative and congressional districts. To date, four states have adopted such bipartisan politician-appointed commissions for drawing political maps, while 11 other states have adopted independent redistricting commissions. Virginia, currently controlled by a Democratic trifecta, is the only Southern state so far to move in this direction.

But a report released this week by the Brennan Center finds that Georgia and three other Southern states Florida, North Carolina, and Texas remain at very high risk for extreme partisan gerrymandering due to whos drawing the maps, shifts in the legal landscape, and rapid demographic change thats threatening the political status quo. Three other states Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina are at high risk.

In Georgia, using the courts to challenge gerrymandering has long been complicated by the state constitution, which offers few specifics about voting rights or the characteristics of voting districts, and more recently by the U.S. Supreme Courts 2019 ruling in the North Carolina case Common Cause v. Rucho, which held that partisan gerrymandering is a political question the courts cant answer. Fair district advocates havent had much luck in Georgias Republican-controlled legislature, either. Last year, for example, a group of Democratic state senators introduced a resolution proposing to amend Georgias constitution to create an independent redistricting commission; the measure was referred to the Reapportionment and Redistricting Committee, where the GOP leadership did not allow it to budge. The resolution, known as the Democracy Act, has been introduced again this year; it would also create an online portal to help citizens submit ideas for the maps. Its being promoted by pro-democracy groups including Common Cause and the ACLU.

We commend resolution sponsors for making strides to reform Georgias redistricting process, said Gigi Pedraza, executive director of Latino Community Fund Georgia, part of the Georgia Redistricting Alliance thats advocating for fairness and transparency in the map-drawing process. Much work lies ahead to have meaningful and transformative changes that will ensure our communities are truly represented.

Because gerrymandering creates noncompetitive districts, many of the Georgia legislators who will be drawing the new maps got their positions without facing competition from the other major party. In 2016, Georgias legislative races were deemed the least competitive nationwide, with 81% of legislative seats going uncontested as a result of partisan gerrymandering. In 2018, even with those same maps in place, Georgia Democrats and allied groups undertook a massive organizing effort and managed to flip 13 state House seats. To capture the state House in 2020 they needed to win another 16 seats but managed to flip only two despite the efforts of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee led by former Attorney General Eric Holder, which targeted Georgia and 13 other states with the goal of depriving Republicans of their trifectas. And it wasnt just Georgia where Democrats hopes of gains ahead of redistricting were dashed: A post-election analysis by Facing South found that, despite Democrats taking the presidency and U.S. Senate, the GOP gained at least 48 seats in Southern legislatures in 2020 and held majorities in all of the regions legislative chambers outside of Virginia. In Georgia, Republicans now control the state House by 103-76 and the Senate by 34-22.

The new round of redistricting is set to begin later this year after the federal government sends the 2020 census data to the states. While the Census Bureau initially intended to make the information available by April 1, its now saying the data may not be released before July 31 due to delays related to the pandemic and other disasters. In Georgia, a partnership created last year between the anti-gerrymandering group Fair Districts Georgia and the Princeton Gerrymandering Project will provide analysis and information in hopes of helping the states lawmakers draw fairer districts.

Georgia is not among the states expected to gain a congressional seat this year, so the legislature will not have to draw a new district. However, an idea has been floated that puts forth congressional redistricting as a solution to the problems Greene presents. Henry Olsen, a Washington Post columnist and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has suggested the Georgia GOP gerrymander her out of the seat. Hes calling for lawmakers to break up the 14th and put parts of it in new districts where other GOP incumbents have represented more of the voters, thus giving them an edge in a primary race against Greene.

This approach contains a fair bit of risk, Olsen noted, but its likely to be less risky than any other option.

Here is the original post:
Marjorie Taylor Greene's Election Shows the Danger of Partisan... - Truthout

Merrick Garland, Biden's attorney general pick, has a long history with the Justice Department. Here are three things to know about Judge Garland. USA TODAY

Two Republican attorneys general were among bipartisan groups of U.S. Justice Department alums and formerfederal judges who announced their support Friday for President Joe Biden's attorney general nominee Merrick Garland.

Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, who both served as attorneys general in the George W. Bush administration, were among more than 150 former Justice officials and U.S. attorneys who lauded the federal appeals court judge as "the rightperson" for a difficult job following the tumult of the Trump administration.

Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, who led the Justice Department during the Obama administration, also were among the signatories to a letter submitted to the leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee leadership where Garland is set for a Monday confirmation hearing.

DOJ: The Justice Department urgently needs a reset. Enter Merrick Garland. Is he up for it?

More: Biden introduces Merrick Garland, 3 other Justice Department nominees

Then-President George W. Bush embraces U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as he walks offstage after the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in April 2005 in Washington, D.C. Gonzales has "fond feelings" about his service.(Photo: Joe Raedle, Getty Images)

A separate endorsement was submitted on behalf of 61 former federal judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents.

"Judge Garland approaches thelaw with an unwavering commitment to fairness and justice," the judges said. "Those of us who haveworked directly with Judge Garland have seen firsthand his strong moral compassand abiding integrity."

The selection of Garland, who also served as a top Justice official in the Clinton administration, has been cast by Biden as an attempt to reset a Justice Department roiled by politics and efforts by former President Donald Trump to use the institution to advance his political interests.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

"The work and reputation of the Department of Justice are as important as they have ever been," the former Justice officials said. "Judge Garland is the right person to ensure the fair administration of justice, whether related tonational security, public integrity, civil rights, antitrust, crime, or other pressing issues.

"He is alsothe right person to do so with integrity, humility, and a complete understanding of the substantialresponsibility on his shoulders at this time," the former Justice officials said.

Garland approaches his Monday confirmation hearing five years after a Republican-controlled Senate blocked his nomination to the Supreme Court by then-President Barack Obama.

But he might not be good for business

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/19/merrick-garland-nomination-backed-2-bush-attorneys-general/4513774001/

Go here to read the rest:
Merrick Garland backed by 4 former attorneys general, including 2 Republicans, ahead of confirmation hearing - USA TODAY

Drones equipped with facial recognition are coming, whether the world is ready for them or not. (Photo by Sunil Ghosh/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)

Some of the first drones with advanced facial recognition capabilities are being developed by Israeli surveillance companies, as American police consider whether they will soon be adding the controversial technology to their unmanned flying machines.

As a sign of the imminent arrival of biometric identification from the air, an Israeli startup, one previously-funded by Microsoft, has patented technologies for drone-based facial recognition. A patent application, published earlier this month, was filed by Tel Aviv-based AnyVision back in August 2019 in the U.S., detailing tech to help a drone find the best angles for a facial recognition shot, before trying to find a match for the target by referring to faces stored in a database. It was titled, Adaptive positioning of drones for enhanced facial recognition, and filed by current and former AnyVision employees, including three from Belfast, U.K.

The patent aims to iron out some of the complexities of identifying faces from a flying machine. Various obvious issues arise when trying to recognize someone from a drone: acquiring an angle at which a face can be properly captured and being able to get good-quality visuals whilst moving or hovering. Both are considerably harder than getting a match from static footage.

The AnyVision patent details how facial recognition from a drone would work.

U.S. military agencies have been trying to come up with solutions, including the Advanced Tactical Facial Recognition at a Distance Technology project at U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) Biometric Recognition and Identification at Altitude and Range initiative.

But private industry may get there first. This December, it was revealed AnyVision executives had partnered with Israeli defense supplier Rafael for a new joint venture called SightX. In demos provided to Israeli media in late 2020, SightXs small drones didnt have any facial recognition capabilities, though executives said that feature was coming soon. Its unclear if the tech is for the military only or if it will be sold to police agencies. Neither SightX nor Rafael responded to requests for comment.

What is clear is that the technology is ready for launch. AnyVision CEO Avi Golan told Forbes that whilst AnyVision didnt have any in-production drones with facial recognition, they would be a reality soon. I'm actually very glad to have a patent on that, he said, suggesting it would work well in smart cities, where drones could provide functions beyond surveillance. He pointed to delivery drones as potentially requiring facial recognition to determine whether theyve reached the correct buyer. Amazon has already patented similar tech, pointing to its potential plans for its experimental drone delivery fleet.

But, Golan added, though the tech exists, AnyVision is waiting on wider acceptance of both drones and facial recognition before any product is released. I think it's more futuristic technology, but I want to have it in the back of my pocket once its more accepted by humanity. He noted that the company doesnt currently work with U.S. law enforcement, instead choosing to work with private companies like casinos and retailers.

AnyVision has already had to fend off questions over the use of its technology. Microsoft bought a stake in the startup during a $74 million round in 2019, but last year pulled out after reports that AnyVisions tool had been used at Israel-West Bank border crossings. Golan said Microsofts main reason for exiting was its inability to exert control over AnyVision. Microsoft said much the same after an audit led by former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder found it was used at the border, but discounted claims that AnyVision software had been used to surveil Palestinians across the West Bank.

As for when Americans can expect police drones with facial recognition, even if police agencies arent immediately planning to send them to the skies, theres an expectation they will arrive in one form or another. I think at some point in the future, we will likely see that, said Mike Hutchins, lieutenant and drones lead at Sacramento Police Department. We're trying to balance technology with people's right to privacy. And obviously, if you walk into a grocery store, into a retail store, into a bank, they're capturing your face as you walk in. Pretty much anywhere you go in public now your face is being captured by cameras that are clearly capable of running facial recognition software. But we don't have any plans at all to merge those two anytime in the future. Not to say that at some point, it may not happen.

Original post:
Drones With Facial Recognition Are Primed To FlyBut The World Isnt Ready Yet - Forbes

Donald Trumps second impeachment trial was an artifact of his Presidency. It was a battle of meaning against noise, against nothing-means-anything-and-everything-is-the-same nihilismand nihilism won.

Over the course of three days, the House impeachment managers meticulously lined up facts, images, and arguments. What had been a fragmented understanding of the events of January 6th became an ordered narrative. President Trump had incited a violent insurrection. For months, he had acted consistently on his belief that he deserved to be reinstalled as the President. His actions on January 6th mirrored his earlier statements, such as his praise of a militia plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, of Michigan, and his method of communicating with his supporters through sequences of provocations, promises, and praise. In his opening statement, the House impeachment manager, Jamie Raskin, promised to be brief and specific, offering a case based on cold, hard facts. Its all about the facts. Among the facts was a graphic video of the insurrection, beginning with a fragment of the Trump speech that sent the mob on its way. Later in the day, Raskin described the facts of his own familys harrowing experience inside the besieged Capitol, and then more facts. People died that day, he said. Officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. Peoples eyes were gouged. An officer had a heart attack. An officer lost three fingers that day. Two officers have taken their own lives. Senators, this cannot be our future.

Then Bruce Castor, the co-leader of Trumps defense team, opened for his side. He spoke for more than half an hour, mentioning the Federalist Papers; three of the Founding Fathers; the Bill of Rights; having worked in the Capitol building forty years ago; having visited the Capitol earlier in the week; the importance of the Senate; the fall of Rome; the inherent fragility of democracy; Benjamin Franklin; Philadelphia; independence from Great Britain; an unnamed member of Congress; the First Amendment; the absence of criminal conspiracy charges against Trump; the exceptional nature of impeachments; Bill Clinton; former Attorney General Eric Holder; Operation Fast and Furious; the late senator Everett Dirksen, of Illinois, Dirksens speeches, and the old technology of record players; the state of Nebraska, its judicial thought, and its senator Ben Sasse; all the other senators and how great they are; floodgates, whirlwinds, and the Bible; the Fourteenth Amendment; the concept of hearsay as illustrated by an apparently clairvoyant driver speaking to his wife in a hypothetical car; a supposed Senate rule that says, Hey, you cant do that (not at all clear what); the ostensible real reason for the impeachment, that is, Trumps political rivals fear of facing him in an election; some examples of one-term Presidents; the wisdom of voters; the fear that voters inspire in members of Congress; and the filibuster; then finally concluded, President Trump no longer is in office. The object of the Constitution has been achieved. He was removed by the voters. Journalists described the speech as meandering, rambling, and incoherent, and it was all that. It was also an insult to the proceedings and an assault on reason.

The defense also had their own videos, including an eleven-minute montage of Democratic politicians and othersmany of them Black womenspeaking out against Trump. The video began with a clip of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, I just dont know even why there arent uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be; transitioned to a series of fighting-words clips from a range of people, including the singer Madonna; and ended with a mashup of Democratic politicians using the word fight. One of the videos used a clip of Vice-President Kamala Harris, then a senator, speaking on Ellen DeGeneress television show, in 2018. Another juxtaposed Trumps pronouncements about law and order with footage of Black Lives Matter protests. To call these examples false equivalences would be to elevate them. A false equivalence is the act of erroneously equating two things by using flawed reasoning or incorrect information. Equating incitement to insurrection by a sitting President with passionate political rhetoric, talk-show quips, and just about everything elsewithout acknowledging an actual insurrectionis an attack on the very concept of reason and the very idea of information. These videos, like Castors bizarre opening speech, countered the clear, factual case presented by the House managers with noise. They flooded the zone.

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt identifies a paradoxical pair of qualities that characterize the audiences of totalitarian leaders: gullibility and cynicism.

Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.

Another quality of totalitarian leaders and their followers alike is the belief that the end justifies the means; this makes it easier to accept the lie as a tactical move, even to support itand to accept the next lie, and the one after that, and the one after that.

Trumps defense team assumed that its audience was both gullible and cynical. That their audience was willing to believe, contrary to prevalent legal opinion, that Trump, as a former President, shouldnt be subject to impeachment proceedings; that he hadnt intended to incite violence; that he didnt realize that his supporters had invaded the Capitol; or simply that none of this meant anythingthat he didnt incite and yet he did, that he lost the election but won it, that Antifa members were in the building, as Trump apparently told the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, over the phone. That Trumps words were as devoid of meaning as those of his lawyers, and that impeaching the former President for just words was the beginning of a slippery slope to gratuitous impeachments and the repression of free speech. Arendt wrote that the qualities of gullibility and cynicism were present in different proportions depending on a persons place in the totalitarian movements hierarchy. A senator may be more cynical, for example, and a rank-and-file conspiracy theorist more gullible. I suspect that the proportion of gullibility to cynicism can fluctuate over time, depending on ones mood or circumstancesbecause everything is possible and nothing has meaning.

Link:
Trumps Defense Was an Insult to the Impeachment Proceedings and an Assault on Reason - The New Yorker

Am I alone or did it strike you as ironic that our State Board of Education met during Black History Month to determine how to characterize slavery and racism in social studies classes? Some charged the board was trying to rewrite history, but the truth is weve been rewriting history almost since the first settlers arrived on our Outer Banks in 1584.

History is written by the victors, Winston Churchill said. Its true. Think how the early settlings of this nation were portrayed in your history classes. I can still picture the image of pilgrims, wearing largely black costumes and funny looking hats as they mingled amongst the friendly natives, who taught them how to exist in this new land. Cant you remember the tale of how colonists sat together at table with the Indians, as they were mis-correctly called, for the first Thanksgiving feast following the fall harvest?

What we werent told was that those settlers brought with them smallpox, measles and influenza viruses that infected those indigenous people and wiped-out large percentages of them. And while we learned about warfare between the colonists and natives it wasnt explained that much of the fighting resulted from white newcomers claiming ever larger amounts of lands, building permanent settlements and villages a concept foreign to those First Peoples of America. If there was any discussion about ultimately driving them off their lands into reservations or The Trail of Tears, it didnt stick in my memory.

It shouldnt surprise us that our history with slavery and racism also wasnt accurately portrayed. My history classes back in the late fifties and early sixties talked about how North Carolina was largely settled by yeomen freemen, granted small amounts of land to eke out a better life than the one left in England. Yes, there were plantations, but not as many as in Virginia and South Carolina. We understood those large estates required labor from slaves but, in the segregated schools I attended, we didnt hear a lot about the horrid conditions, mistreatment or backbreaking work. And you can call it by any name you want but there was then, and is now, systemic racism. Look up the definition of systemic. Just as oxygen is part of the pulmonary system, racism is part of the class system in this state and nation.

It is past time we had a reckoning with history. We understand some dont want to know and some are fearful of what it says, because it might change their own story. But it is time we accurately and fairly report it, warts and all.

Our state, as well as our country, has a deep schism of racial unrest, distrust and prejudice. We cannot and will not ever heal these problems until we start by telling truth. Hopefully, reconciliation and healing can come as a result.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice, Martin Luther King, Jr. said. Former Attorney General Eric Holder added, it only bends toward justice because people pull it towards justice. It doesnt happen on its own.

It is past time we pulled harder in that direction.

Tom Campbell is a Hall of Fame North Carolina Broadcaster and columnist who has covered North Carolina public policy issues since 1965. He recently retired from writing, producing and moderating the statewide half-hour TV program NC SPIN that aired 22 years. Contact him at [emailprotected]

Continued here:
Tom Campbell | Re-rewriting the history of slavery - Richmond County Daily Journal