Quote:A video clip of Defense Secretary James Mattis speaking with troops deployed in Jordan has been making the rounds on various social media outlets, with varied and strong reactions.
Upon seeing the clip, I noted on Twitter, “Mattis is reflecting a line I have from many (mil esp but also civ): society is gone to hell and mil is only + last bastion of virtue.”
Trending: Talking Dirty With David Simon, George Pelacanos and Richard Price About HBO's 'The Deuce'
A lively discussion ensued between current and former military personnel, academics and national security professionals about what he said. Some praised him, while others wrung their hands with worry.
These contradictory reactions to his comments perfectly exemplify the civilian-military divide. The debate left me wondering: Should I be picking out my outfit for the impending military coup? Or should we all just chill?
First, what did Mattis say exactly? While his comments were part of lengthier remarks, here are the critical points:
Quote: Keep on fighting…You are buying time. You are a great example for our country. …It’s got some problems….problems we don’t have in the military…Hold the line until our country gets back to understanding and respecting and showing it….being friendly to one another.
His message to the troops in short: Don’t allow the passions and divisions back home diminish your morale or affect your ability to do what you need to do while deployed. Former US Marine Corps General, now Secretary of Defense, James Mattis testifying before the Senate Armed Service Committee on July 27, 2010 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty
This seems like a fairly straightforward pep talk from an experienced military commander to those he leads. That was certainly how many military Twitter followers, and some civilians as well, interpreted what Mattis said.
They heard the “ warrior monk ” encouraging fellow warriors and invoking a common theme of his: the lack of “friendliness” and civility in contemporary American society.
However, Mattis makes two points that require deeper reflection.
First, the troops are to stay the course out there/here on the battlefield until things right themselves back at home.
Second, the issues plaguing society at home are not present in the military, in other words, that the military has respect, understanding and friendliness. This view is hardly unique to Mattis.
As I noted in my tweet, the view implied in this part of the statement is one that I have heard in military circles for many years. I have heard it from colleagues, from family members and friends, and I’ve come across it in my research on military ethics and culture. Journalist and author Thomas Ricks notes the issue in his discussion of the civilian/military culture gap in his book Making the Corps .
Don't miss: Who is Kenneth Storey? Professor Fired After Tweeting That Hurricane Harvey Was Karma for Texas Republicans
Plus, numerous studies since Vietnam have demonstrated the public esteem and trust given to the military. The public, if these polls are correct, does view the military as honorable and ethical — and therefore trustworthy — in ways that other public institutions are not.
And here we arrive at the civilian/military cultural divide that was so evident in the reaction of civilian national security professionals and academics on Twitter who expressed concern and even moderate outrage at his comments.
These folks argued that his comments worked to widen the divide between the military and the civilian society they serve.
Some also feared that the growing divide could create favorable conditions for an assertion of even greater military involvement in civilian institutions, if not a military coup.
Those concerns were prompted by the claim of military moral superiority that they thought Mattis expressed in his comments and, for some, this resonates with the experience of Latin American countries where similar sentiments have led to military takeover of democratic institutions.
Loren DeJonge Schulman, who served on the National Security Council and at the Defense Department during the Obama administration, observed, “Mattis is doing well and getting admiration for his Mattisisms. He is also setting enormous precedent – hugely difficult to break at DOD.”
I presume Schulman would not take her point as far as a military takeover even in time of acute crisis, but it is important to ask the question how far toward the insertion of military authority in democratic and civilian life could such sentiments lead.
So is this just another pep talk to the troops or is something else much more concerning afoot? I want to emphasize that this is not about Secretary Mattis.
I am reasonably certain that he is an honorable man dedicated to serving his country as a civilian now, while continuing to live out Marine Corps values and military professionalism. While I would not count myself as a member of the Cult of Mattis, I am not questioning his character.
Instead, I’m much more interested in whether there is a precedent being set. His comments were so striking because they seemed to point to larger attitudes and assumptions held by both civilians and members of the military.
The real questions here are about how the two sides hear what he said, what they might conclude from it, and how they will act? On the military side, how will this be heard?
The concern is that troops will hear an endorsement of military moral exceptionalism and a claim that those in the military are essentially more virtuous than their fellow citizens. They could also hear that civilian society, of which they are not seemingly a part, has these problems and that they have to be sorted out by civilians and are of no concern to the military.
On the civilian side, what could be heard is a growing culture divide that has profound importance for our national life. That perception grows up in a time of the increasing influence of former and current senior military officials in political leadership positions (notably in the current administration, but not exclusively so) and the politicization of the officer corps.
Civilians could also hear the claim of moral superiority (with which some people actually agree) as an assumption that members of the military are generally imbued with some moral character from their service that civilians do not and cannot possess.
This claim can have a powerful political logic to it: eroding the idea of the military as a politically neutral player devoted only to the Constitution and protection of the Nation.
My point here is that language matters, not just in terms of what the speaker meant, but in terms of how these words and attached meanings are perceived and acted upon. Mattis cannot be responsible for that, but his words highlight something that is present and needs to be addressed.
First, we have civilian control of the military as a basic Constitutional principle and a core value of professionalism within the military. These values require a level of engagement and support from the civilian side that seems to be eroding.
The American people and some of their leaders seem more and more content to hand matters over to the military (because they are competent, moral and trustworthy) and essentially say, “We trust you. You handle this.”
This serves several purposes for the public, including: shifting the political and moral risk away from themselves, avoiding difficult decisions and public debate, and refraining from more directly addressing the costs of war.
This was highlighted quite starkly in President Donald Trump’s recent speech on Afghanistan, where he emphasized his desire not to “micromanage” the military as it carried out its mission there.
Second, the military is a part of our society – not a separate fortress. Today’s service members came from society and they will return to it. Sebastian Junger and others have aptly documented the difficulties many in the military have with returning to civilian life and the alienation and separation experienced by veterans.
There is disappointment, frustration, and sometimes, contempt and scorn directed toward civilian society that is often part of this alienation. Thinking of the military as not involved or implicated in the passions and conflicts roiling society today contributes to this, as well as being false and problematic on its own. Indeed, just another slice of this complex puzzle is the involvement of vets in militia groups on American soil.
The military does have a different culture in many ways, but it is one informed by core values that are instilled as part of the training process, then enforced by incentives and in certain cases, coercion to be maintained.
Given this, one would expect military culture to be different! On the other hand, many of the problems and conflicts consuming the American public are present in our contemporary military.
The Fat Leonard and Marines United scandals remind us that strong moral character is not a given in the military. There are discipline problems, racism, sexism, sexual assault, political radicalization, infidelity, drug addiction, lying and theft in the military, just like civilian society.
As an experienced commander, Mattis obviously knows this, even if his remarks do not reflect it in this case. The unified and clear comments of all the service chiefs condemning violence and bigotry following Charlottesville is further evidence of this recognition by commanders that the military is part of society and potentially plagued by the same threats.
In short, Mattis’s remarks and the challenge they pose should be seen as a good opportunity to shift from the civilian/military culture gap to thinking about a civilian/military partnership.
The military does have to hold the line, but they cannot and should not do so alone. Civilians need to reassume much of the moral and political risks of war that they are trying to outsource to the military and be a fully engaged partner – before, during and after conflicts.
What’s more, civilian society is, one might say, a hot mess, but we need the best people of character, commitment and experience to help sort out the myriad issues we face. The military is trained for moral and physical commitment and discipline, so they know what it takes and have practice and training that many in the civilian realm simply lack.
These distinctions could make the difference in facilitating dialog and solutions to our common problems. But it’s short-sighted to fault civilians for not having military training. Better for the military to consider what character, skills and commitment civilians have due to their experiences, education and training that also contributes to the common good.
I think we can all breathe easy that a military coup is not around the corner. I do commend Secretary Mattis for provoking an important discussion, reminding us that there is much work to be done. We need to think seriously about his words: What will the next Marine who hears those words take from them? What will she do?
What will the ROTC cadets who come through my classes hear and take with them when they are commissioned? What will the next president and other future leaders hear and take from them?
How can we as a society, military and civilian, not just learn but train to be better citizens and become, in Mattis’s words, more “friendly to one another”—both across the military-civilian divide not just within one side of it. Pauline Shanks Kaurin is Associate Professor and Chair of Philosophy at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, WA. More from Newsweek
Quote:Rachel Maddow looks back at how the Ku Klux Klan flexed its muscles in national American politics in the 1920s and how those same racist political ambitions are finding accommodation with Donald Trump. Watch TV shows, movies and more on Yahoo View, available now on iOS and Android. About The Rachel Maddow Show [/url] Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life - as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise. [url=https://view.yahoo.com/show/the-rachel-maddow-show?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ynetwork]See More
Pure and utter bullS#$%
Grasping at straws..
She glosses over a single fact.. The democrats are the KLAN!
So as an american I am supposed to get pissed when two different wings of the Democrat party are bumping heads
Propaganda smoothly delivered
No achohol to trump
pretty linking but utter bs
Someone forgot to tell her that King was a republican for a F#$%ing reason..
Quote:As the quandary of protests during the national anthem has run from the NFL‘s sideline to the White House and back to the 50-yard line, several fans have taken matters into their own hands … and lit them on fire.
The NFL’s protests began more than a year ago as a move to highlight racial inequality and bring attention to police brutality. On any given weekend, no more than a handful of players, initially led by then-San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, would sit or kneel during the national anthem. But then President Donald Trump got involved, and that changed the entire equation. After Trump blasted the NFL and its players on Friday night, well over 200 players protested during Week 3. And in response, fans of those players’ teams have shown their displeasure by torching their jerseys, gear and season tickets, then uploading the videos to social media.
Here’s one Pittsburgh Steelers fan, invoking the memory of his veteran grandfather: [/url]
… and so forth, all following the same format: fans staring into the camera, taking a long time to tell us their belief that players shouldn’t tell us their beliefs, then putting the flame to jerseys or tickets … which tend to ignite with awkward slowness.
For those keeping score, then, these are protests of the protest to the protest. It’s impossible to know whether there’s any significant number of fans torching their jerseys, or whether the ones filming themselves orating over the flames are the outliers.
From one perspective, it’s an admirable demonstration of priorities, valuing the flag even over and above one’s beloved football team. But from another view, it’s a pretty rash decision to make with such little contemplation. If you’ve spent decades of your life rooting for a team, spending money on them, defending them in innumerable bar arguments, shouldn’t you perhaps give them the slightest opportunity for explanation? Don’t you respect those you love enough to hear out and contemplate their views, which might be slightly different from your own?
Eh, maybe not.
In the wake of the president’s critical remarks, NFL teams across the league issued statements in support of their players’ right to speak, without actually endorsing (or, really, even mentioning) what they were speaking about. Sure, it was a PR move, done to tamp down brush fires that could spread into uncontrolled wildfires (see: NASCAR), but the fact that it was done at all shows the teams have at least some small measure of respect for their players’ voices. That, apparently, was too much for many fans to handle.
One key element of the protests is the idea of freedom, the idea that even if you don’t support what the players are protesting, you support their right to do so. It’s a bit of nuance lost on the love-it-or-leave-it, burn-it-all-down segment of NFL fandom. But the great thing about America is that even those basic all-or-nothing views are accepted. And the great thing about the NFL is that they’re always willing to sell you on the shield, no matter what you’ve said before.
Because you’re always welcome back in the NFL as a fan. Every team has a fresh, unburned replacement jersey just waiting for you. Fans burning jerseys across NFL. (Via screen shot)
Angry NFL fans take absurd action against protestors
This is the title of the link which I screen shooted and posted to propaganda (my other place posting all the propaganda links
2) this statement
Quote:For those keeping score, then, these are protests of the protest to the protest. It’s impossible to know whether there’s any significant number of fans torching their jerseys, or whether the ones filming themselves orating over the flames are the outliers.
Impossible to know
yet in a link that is embeded (not sure right word)
44% of americans say XXXXXX
This is propaganda aimed at readers to control narrative
And people seem to be waking up to it
Quote:The high cost of freedom in America
[img=28x0]https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/Bmhk9BqmQdPUmtIXMMVsAA--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9MTUwO3NtPTE7aWw9cGxhbmU-/https://media.zenfs.com/creatr-images/GLB/2016-10-18/b8a23750-94e1-11e6-86b6-b35ffeea45c2_finance.jpg[/img] Andy Serwer 11 hours ago
You may think that statement is trite. I actually think it makes a ton of sense.
Americans are rightfully proud to live in the Land of the Free. We have more freedom than most countries in all sorts of awesome ways: religion, speech, movement, etc. As they say, it makes us the envy of the world and is the primary reason why immigrants — legal and otherwise — still flock to our borders and shores.
Of course, there are limits to our freedom. We are not free to murder and pillage, sell heroin, run naked onto an NFL field. These are easily agreed upon taboos. Reason being is that the cost to society of allowing that much freedom is simply unacceptable and/or morally reprehensible.
There are also what I call ‘debatable freedoms,” those which we have hashed out to decide whether or not they are worth exercising. Our acceptance of them evolves over time. Think legalized marijuana or same-sex marriage.
And then there are other societal freedoms many of us seem to believe in that come with huge, often under-recognized, and to my mind, hard-to-defend costs. Three examples here are free, unfettered financial markets; a wide-open internet; and nearly unlimited access to firearms. Many of us believe passionately in these freedoms, but I wonder if we fully understand the price we pay for them.
Let’s take them one by one.
Free, unfettered financial markets
You could argue that the financial crisis of 2008/2009 came about in large part because of deregulated or under-regulated financial markets. Speculation in credit derivatives and mortgage-backed securities, along with accompanying risks that were poorly understood, created systemic risk, which badly damaged our nation’s economy and much of the rest of the world’s as well. How much did these free financial markets cost us during the Great Recession? It’s hard to pin down exactly, but I’ve seen estimates of anywhere from $12 trillion to $22 trillion —yes, with a ‘T’. After Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, policymakers advanced a slew of regulations intended better prepare the financial system for market and economic volatility. REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files
A few points here. Of course our free markets have created trillions more than that in wealth. And I’m not talking about implementing thousand of pages of myriad arcane derivatives regulation. I’m thinking mostly about increasing the amount of capital for securities firms. Simple stuff. Next financial crisis, make shareholders pay, not Jane Q. Public. So I’m arguing that with more capital requirements, which is a form of less freedom (I know, hard for Americans to swallow if it’s put that way) and yes adding cost, we could optimize our capital markets. A most worthwhile exercise, I say.
A wide-open Internet
Next the Internet. First let’s acknowledge that the internet isn’t completely free to begin with, even in the U.S. You cannot legally post child pornography or sell opioids on the web, for example. So there are limits already. Again, I know Americans will hate to admit this, but clearly we need more regulation. Why? Because the costs are too high not to.
Right now, we are paying an unquantifiably high societal price and then spending blindly to clean up after the fact. For instance, how much did the hacks on our parent company Yahoo cost? After one breach was announced, Verizon lowered its purchase price by $350 million. As for the Equifax breech — and dozens more — who knows.
This is obviously a hugely complex problem, but clearly we need to re-think many facets of the web security and social media. For example, we need to replace our Social Security number system. And social media companies like Facebook and Twitter need to disclose who is paying for ads on their platforms. Finally, these companies must own up to one degree or another that they are responsible for all content on their platforms.
The cost here is massive. But the cost of allowing Russian trolls and Macedonian teenagers the unfettered ability to destabilize our society is far higher.
Free, nearly unlimited access to firearms
And finally we have the freedom in America to buy nearly any kind of firearm our heart desires, even if these guns aren’t designed for hunting or self-defense. Are there costs associated with that? Yes. Huge costs that are escalating every month. Let me give you an example: The shootings in Columbine in 1999 cost an estimated $50 million. And that’s in 1999 dollars.
And the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando last year? Ted Miller, a researcher with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, estimates that cost as much as $390 million. Miller also says that a typical day in America costs $600 million for shootings. Miller’s tallies include medical and insurance costs, the cost of police and first responders, the cost to employers and the dollar value of lives lost.
(Just an FYI, a life in the United States is now valued in excess of $7 million according to government agencies.)
That suggests to me that the Las Vegas shooting will end up costing over half a billion dollars. Mind-boggling, right? An exhibit booth for firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson is seen on display at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Chicago, Illinois, October 26, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young
Limiting access to guns reduces shootings, which among other things reduces costs to our society. Am I worried that limiting the public’s access to assault weapons will confer too much power to the government? Not so much that I wouldn’t make the trade-off in a second.
So, you see what I say all that freedom not being free. But maybe it’s not so much about framing it as reducing the amount of freedom we have in the financial markets, or on the web, or in buying weapons. It’s understanding the costs and the trade-offs and then making smart decisions.
this is a hit piece well designed to hit the target audience
Lets look at their narrative
1)free markets
do not exist except on paper
the markets you mention are NOT free
Free markets means zero..
for the narative deconstruction that means ZERO, nothing, Nada, zilch
government interference
what you describe good sir is still an interfered with market..
the numbers are much different..
what you mention is a correction from years of Cali/detroitism
with a side note for fiat currencies and what they always do
magic word is reset to zero
please go back to you classroom and pick up a dictionary and then talk with economicist that are rich from building businesses
they will explain your error in liberalese
2)open and free internet
a simple question is then begged
who watches the watcher good sir
free speech is free
apparently you have no concept of what this means
so lets take look at history
What has enabled the internet revolution to take place in america
I will give you a hint
net nuetrality
but if you want to have a good dose of government interference
lets be real
How about we hold all the news to the same standard advertisers are held to
or political ads are held to
massive fines in billions leveled on companies and the writers for false news
like say for propaganda not listed as such
3Fire arms
the real goal of your aim here
Let me ask you a question
Do you feel the need good sir for you yourself to be banned from owning a sidearm because you are a danger?
the whole issue is not the cost of firearms
I find your research to be at the wikipedia level (propaganda deserves propaganda response)
what about the cost when firearms are not allowed to be present
How much do the rapes cost society when the female was unarmed..
How much is the deaths cost from unarmed people
If the writer of this article feels like discussing this.. I am willing to listen..
It appears they are adapting.. A new type of ploy..
She is purposely mixing confirmation bias with meritocracy
As for her main example.. Wall street
Lol..
It is about power and control.. My thought is very prowoman on this.. If women were mixed better as she expounds upon.. We would never had found it, and if it came to light.. Scapegoats would have been more readily made.. Pound for pound women are more competent (my own personal bias)..
Meritocracy-
the idea in business you are promoted on your skill and ability, no identity politics..
The issue she mentioned is again strawman.. The issue is not in promotions but training.. This tells me her training regimens for her company are lackluster..
Also she has bypassed potential company assets in favor of ideaological based hiring, training, and promotion..
Maybe I should write a non fiction for companies.. How to make billions with Darwinism? #propaganda
After Nevada hosts a gun show, California sees sharp rise in gun-related injuries and deaths A billboard along the Las Vegas Strip advertises a gun show. New research shows that firearms deaths and injuries surge in California after such shows are held in neighboring Nevada. (Drew Angerer / Getty Images)
In the two weeks after a gun show is held in Nevada, injuries and deaths involving firearms jump by 69% — in neighboring areas of California.
However, when gun shows occur in California, the state does not experience an increase in firearm-related trauma over the next fortnight.
The findings, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, show that state gun laws have a measurable effect on public safety, especially when it comes to gun shows, the study authors wrote.
More than 4,000 gun shows are held in the United States each year, and experts estimate that they’re responsible for 4% to 9% of the nation’s firearms sales. When these sales are made by federally licensed gun dealers, would-be buyers are subject to a background check. But in some states, unlicensed sellers at gun shows don’t have to follow the same rules.
California, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, requires background checks even at gun shows. Nevada does not.
Ellicott Matthay, a public health researcher at UC Berkeley, and her colleagues recognized this as an ideal scenario for testing the effects of state laws regarding gun show sales.
The researchers scoured gun show listings in a magazine called the Big Show Journal. Altogether, they tallied 275 such shows in Nevada and 640 shows in California between Jan. 1, 2005, and Dec. 31, 2013. Then they identified regions in California that were within a one-hour drive of a California gun show or a two-hour drive of a Nevada gun show. (For the record, most Californians could have driven to a gun show in 60 minutes or less at least once every few weeks.)
Next, the researchers used state health data to compare the number of gun injuries — both fatal and non-fatal — for each of the study regions in the two weeks before and two weeks after the nearby show. When the show was in California, the “after” period began 10 days after the show’s opening day, because buyers were subject to the state’s 10-day waiting period. Altogether, 15,000 Californians were injured or killed by firearms in the two weeks before California gun shows, as were 14,893 in the two weeks after those gun shows. In the before-and-after comparison, the rate of firearm injuries and deaths remained essentially flat, at about 1.3 per 100,000 people, the researchers found.
The firearms toll was much lower in regions near Nevada gun shows. Only 44 Californians were injured or killed in the two weeks leading up to those shows, but that figure jumped to 74 in the two weeks afterward. The rate of gun injuries and deaths rose from 0.67 to 1.14 per 100,000 people. After the researchers made some statistical adjustments, that represented a 69% increase in gun-related morbidity and mortality, the study said.
The researchers also found that firearm-related casualties suffered by Californians increased much more — 70% more — when gun shows were held in Nevada than when they were in California.
Most of that increase could be traced to cases in which the shooter meant to harm another person (as opposed to accidents or instances of self-harm). Injuries and deaths from these intentional shootings rose 2.2 times more after Nevada gun shows than they did after California gun shows.
The results offer a compelling case for laws regulating gun sales, according to an editorial that accompanied the study. “Laws regulating access to guns matter and do make a difference,” wrote Drs. Ali Rowhani-Rahbar and Frederick Rivara, both pediatricians and epidemiologists at the University of Washington in Seattle.
But state laws can only go so far, they added. Without federal legislation, tough regulations in California “can be easily breached by a car trip” to Nevada. “It does not reduce the importance of the laws but does reduce their impact.”
This is not science
It is analysis
As I asked elsewhere..
Where is the scientific method to test this
I see none..
Data collection yes
But did the scientist set up control groups
eliminate varibles
Quote:Ellicott C. Matthay, MPH; Jessica Galin, MPH; Kara E. Rudolph, PhD, MPH, MHS; Kriszta Farkas, MPH; Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH; Jennifer Ahern, PhD, MPH Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
[url=http://annals.org/aim/article/2659346/state-interstate-associations-between-gun-shows-firearm-deaths-injuries-quasi#]MORE
The full content of Annals is available to subscribers SUBSCRIBE/LEARN MORE
Abstract Background:
Gun shows are an important source of firearms, but no adequately powered studies have examined whether they are associated with increases in firearm injuries.
Objective:
To determine whether gun shows are associated with short-term increases in local firearm injuries and whether this association differs by the state in which the gun show is held.
Design:
Quasi-experimental.
Setting:
California.
Participants:
Persons in California within driving distance of gun shows.
Measurements:
Gun shows in California and Nevada between 2005 and 2013 (n = 915 shows) and rates of firearm-related deaths, emergency department visits, and inpatient hospitalizations in California.
Results:
Compared with the 2 weeks before, postshow firearm injury rates remained stable in regions near California gun shows but increased from 0.67 injuries (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80 injuries) to 1.14 injuries (CI, 0.97 to 1.30 injuries) per 100 000 persons in regions near Nevada shows. After adjustment for seasonality and clustering, California shows were not associated with increases in local firearm injuries (rate ratio [RR], 0.99 [CI, 0.97 to 1.02]) but Nevada shows were associated with increased injuries in California (RR, 1.69 [CI, 1.16 to 2.45]). The pre–post difference was significantly higher for Nevada shows than California shows (ratio of RRs, 1.70 [CI, 1.17 to 2.47]). The Nevada association was driven by significant increases in firearm injuries from interpersonal violence (RR, 2.23 [CI, 1.01 to 4.89]) but corresponded to a small increase in absolute numbers. Nonfirearm injuries served as a negative control and were not associated with California or Nevada gun shows. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses.
Limitation:
Firearm injuries were examined only in California, and gun show occurrence was not randomized.
Conclusion:
Gun shows in Nevada, but not California, were associated with local, short-term increases in firearm injuries in California. Differing associations for California versus Nevada gun shows may be due to California's stricter firearm regulations.
Primary Funding Source:
National Institutes of Health; University of California, Berkeley; and Heising-Simons Foundation.
So, full statement stands
Note who paid for it..
*shakes head*
Propaganda, not science
A properly ran experiment would be costly this is a bunch F#$%ers wanting money and then digging into a preset date set for what they think will sell
11-16-2017, 08:53 PM (This post was last modified: 11-16-2017, 09:00 PM by Mystic Wanderer.)
I couldn't help but notice all the negative headlines covering my home page about President Trump, and this is a daily thing. Some are so ridiculous it just leaves me laughing at how desperately the MSM are trying to brainwash the public into believing that EVERYTHING about Trump is evil and bad.
Am I the only one who finds their antics just a little below being pathetic?
The links below are just from today's news page!!
The poor man can't even take a drink of water without the Left criticizing him for how he holds the bottle.
And, of course if you scroll almost alllllllllll the way down to the bottom of the page, you find one negative article about Killary, but they're throwing the laugh on the Right Wing Trump Supporters.
Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert asked FBI Director Chris Wray about the "political bias" of specific federal agents during an open hearing on Thursday.
The question stemmed from recent reports that an agent who worked on the special counsel Robert Mueller's team before being removed in August sent texts last year that could be perceived as anti-Trump.
To some, however, Gohmert's question seemed like a "political test" meant to gauge the bureau's loyalty to the Trump administration.
A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee left several observers stunned on Thursday when he read off a list of names of agents to the FBI director and asked him to disclose their political biases.
"As you're aware, Deputy Director McCabe was involved in highly charged political cases that have been controversial due to his political leanings," Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert said.
He was presumably referring to the involvement of the deputy director, Andrew McCabe, in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
McCabe's wife ran for a seat in Virginia's Senate in 2015 and received nearly $500,000 from a political action committee affiliated with Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who has ties to the Clintons.
"I want to ask you if you are aware of any other senior FBI executives that are aligned with McCabe's political views?" Gohmert said.
"I'm not aware of any senior FBI executives who are allowing improper political considerations to affect their work with me right now," FBI Director Christopher Wray replied.
"I'm going to ask about specific executives, some of whom have been promoted by McCabe within the last few years," Gohmert said. "Are you aware of any of the following people openly aligning themselves with the political bias expressed by McCabe or openly speaking against this administration?"
Gohmert named five FBI officials, asking Wray whether they had expressed "political bias against the Trump administration." Wray said he had not witnessed any outward bias from the four whom he had interacted with directly.
'Totally inappropriate'
Thomson Reuters
FBI Director Christopher Wray. The notion that FBI agents could be subject to political tests from another branch of government unnerved several observers and former employees.
Asha Rangappa, a former FBI counterintelligence agent, called it "totally inappropriate."
"We've never had 'political tests' for civil servants," she said on Thursday. "It's worth noting that every agent undergoes an intensive background check that screens for political biases in order to ensure that the prospective agent can look past their own political identity and pursue investigations objectively."
Among those pushing the idea that the bureau has become a bastion for left-wing, pro-Clinton law-enforcement officials and whose reputation was left in "tatters" by the former FBI director James Comey is President Donald Trump.
"So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary Clinton, on that now famous FBI holiday 'interrogation' with no swearing in and no recording, lies many times...and nothing happens to her?" Trump tweeted on Saturday night, referring to Flynn's guilty plea last week.
"Rigged system, or just a double standard?" Trump said.
Trump's argument gained steam amid news that an agent on the special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election sent text messages last year that could be perceived as anti-Trump.
That agent, Peter Strzok, also reportedly watered down the language Comey used when he announced that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton over her use of a private email server.
Strzok was removed from Mueller's team in August and reassigned to the bureau's human-resources department, but it had been unclear why until earlier this week.
"Agents, like any other person, have political opinions," Rangappa said. "The difference is that we now have technology that memorializes people's thoughts through texts, tweets, and emails."
Scott Olson, a recently retired FBI agent who spent 20 years at the bureau, said in a recent interview that "all political opinions are well represented in the ranks of FBI employees."
"And the debates over coffee and lunch are the same as anywhere else," he added.
Rangappa said Republicans' attempts to discredit the Russia investigation by emphasizing the political leanings of Mueller's team could backfire if a Democrat were to be investigated and point to the bureau's reputation as a politically conservative organization as a reason the probe should not be taken seriously.
"The FBI investigators who are working on any given day will probably be mostly politically conservative," Rangappa said, drawing from her interactions with agents under President George W. Bush. "So the Republicans need to think carefully about the precedent they're setting."
12-13-2017, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 12-13-2017, 09:32 PM by Mystic Wanderer.)
I am disgusted! I don't have to point out how CNN worded this to lean in favor of the Demos; it's quite clear. Nonetheless, I will highlight the obvious words in red in the quote below for those who are still blue-pilled by the Fake News Network mind-control machine who might miss it.
Quote:The polls are about to close in Alabama, where voters, at long last, will decide if they want to replace Jeff Sessions in the United States Senate with a credibly-accused child predator who has spent his career trafficking gleefully in every imaginable brand of bigotry, or a Democrat.
I have no idea how the next few hours are going to play out. Polling a competitive Senate race in deep-red, never-competitive Alabama has proven to be an all-but-impossible task, and after 2016, even the thought of putting stock in early exit polls and/or watching the needle of that horrifying New York Timesspeedometer-style prognosticator graphic careen ominously across my laptop screen gives me hives.
What I do know, though, is regardless of how this election ends, this brief, beautiful interaction between CNN anchor Jake Tapper and Roy Moore campaign spokesman Ted Crockett should henceforth be shown on a permanent loop at the Louvre.
The MSM is pushing the narrative that the public is having a melt down because they miss the Obama's being in the White House at Christmas.
Just look at this fake article. It says this is the "latest photo" of the Obama family, sending everyone their Christmas wishes.
FALSE AGAIN!
This picture (below) is from 2013! Do a search for 2013 Christmas images and you'll see this one.
Then they have a couple of people (probably hired agents/actors) to post how much they miss them in messages from Twitter that they included in the article. But if you go into the comments below the article, everyone is saying how much they DON'T miss them.
Just another fake news item to make the democrats think the Obama's really give a shit about you, and to keep the division and emotions of the snowflakes running high.
Quote:2017 marks our first holiday season without the Obamas as the first family. Of course, we’re missing them for a lot of reasons and hanging on to any kernel of happiness that they provide us. So, seeing the 2017 Obama family Christmas picture rightfully put the people of the internet in their feelings. The precious photo, tweeted by Barack, shows the former president, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha standing together and smiling with some special little Christmas elves in front of a festive backdrop. Who wouldn’t smile seeing the Obama family with little kids — plus a surprise appearance by a stuffed Scooby-Doo wearing antlers? Since we can’t have the Obamas in the White House, this will be good consolation.
And it seems like the Obama family Christmas tweet was just what people needed after this difficult year.
Since it is the Obamas first year as private citizens since the presidency, it’s lovely just to see them as a family! It’s especially noteworthy to mention that Obama’s tweet got more retweets than any of President Trump’s holiday messages on his preferred medium — like, ~200,000 more retweets. The Obama Christmas picture also has over 30 thousand replies and over one million likes, because, well, people are EMOTIONAL.
I'm wondering if they had to use an older picture of the Obamas because they have them in custody somewhere? Let's hope so!
You'll have to go to the article to see the Tweets, if you wish. While there, be sure to read the REAL comments below the article.
12-28-2017, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 12-28-2017, 11:41 AM by BIAD.)
Especially during quiet periods like the holidays, there can be some ground made in regrds of keeping
a favoured politician in the public's eye for two reasons. It assures ratings by broadcasting interviews of
a 'sage-like' Statesman giving out wisdom -as if still near the political arena and it reinforces the narrative
that the current situation is only temporary.
Quote:Barack Obama keeps most admired status in annual Gallup poll, Donald Trump 2nd.
'More Americans are likely to name former President Barack Obama as the man they admire most, although the gap between the former president and the current has narrowed over the last year, a poll has found.
Seventeen percent of those polled said Obama was the man they admired most, compared to 14 percent who picked President Donald Trump, a Gallup poll released Wednesday said.
In 2016, 22 percent of those surveyed picked Obama and 15 percent picked Trump, according to Gallup.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton continued to top the most admired woman question, according to the poll, with 9 percent of those surveyed picking her in 2017. That number fell from 15 percent in 2013 and 12 percent in 2016, according to Gallup...'
Quote:Prince Harry sidesteps Obama-Trump wedding guest list controversy.
'Britain's Prince Harry has avoided opening up a diplomatic rift between the British and US governments over the guest list for his wedding to Meghan Markle, saying plans had yet to be finalized.
Asked on a BBC radio program whether he would invite former US President Barack Obama Harry swerved the question, saying he didn't want to "ruin that surprise."
There has been speculation in the UK media that British officials fear the political consequences if the couple decide to invite Barack and Michelle Obama, with whom they are friends, but not President Donald Trump.
Markle, an American actor, has been critical of Trump in the past, and there is already widespread controversy in the UK over the prospect of an official visit by the President to the UK...'
Quote:Obama warns against irresponsible social media use.
'Former US President Barack Obama has warned against the irresponsible use of social media, in a rare interview since stepping down in January. He warned that such actions were distorting people's understanding of complex issues, and spreading misinformation.
"All of us in leadership have to find ways in which we can recreate a common space on the internet," he said. Mr Obama was quizzed by Prince Harry on BBC Radio 4's Today programme...'
'...The former president expressed concern about a future where facts are discarded and people only read and listen to things that reinforce their own views. "One of the dangers of the internet is that people can have entirely different realities. They can be cocooned in information that reinforces their current biases...'
This statement is a little disingenuous -to say the least. The mass of 'Anti-Trump' information churned out by
the mainstream media everyday is by it's very nature, biased. So is Mr. Obama saying these outlets are
dangerous or is he just getting at the 'Pro-Trump' sites?
Maybe he should look at the faces of the young at the final Clinton rally on the election night, did they seemed
'cocooned'...? They sure looked like it.
Quote:'..."The question has to do with how do we harness this technology in a way that allows a multiplicity of voices, allows a diversity of views, but doesn't lead to a Balkanisation of society and allows ways of finding common ground," he said...'
This last comment seems a bit hypocritical, considering the segregation of races that many Universities wish
for! It also suggests that Mr. Obama knows that information-control is very important and may have been one of
the reasons for his party's downfall.
Quote:Why we need to talk about the Aziz Ansari allegations & enthusiastic consent
ShareTweetPin
When allegations of sexual misconduct involving comedian Aziz Ansari first surfaced, the reaction was immediate. For so many people — women in particular — the terrible date recounted by “Grace” (her name was changed) in the Babe interview sounded all too familiar: After a quick dinner, they ended up back at his place, where he repeatedly attempted to initiate sex despite her verbal and nonverbal cues to stop.
Unsurprisingly, alongside the many people who have found themselves in Grace’s position were those (mostly men) who couldn’t see what Ansari did wrong. After all, Grace could have been more forceful with her language or just gotten up and left his apartment, right? Surely she's only speaking up to advance her own career, taking advantage of Ansari’s fame, correct? (Reminder: She came forward anonymously.)
Not so fast, smug internet commenters — it’s not that easy regardless of whether the person had just won an award for creating and starring in a show portraying him as the perpetual nice guy, never able to land his perfect woman.
This is probably a good time for us all to have a chat about the concept and importance of “enthusiastic consent.” If this isn’t a term you’ve heard before, it means deliberately and clearly agreeing to and participating in sexual activity.
During my college’s freshman orientation (around 15 years ago), we all had to attend a seminar entitled “No Means No,” and all the women at the university were given bright-red rape whistles. While, yes, this was better than nothing, it’s absolutely sending the wrong message regarding consent: That unless a person specifically says “no” or literally blows an ear-shattering whistle, then they are indirectly consenting. Enthusiastic consent turns that concept on its head — only yes means yes.
What is enthusiastic consent?
Luckily, at this point we’re (hopefully) beyond arguing the value of consent. After all, as Shadeen Francis, a therapist, educator and author who specializes in social justice and sex therapy, points out, without consent, you have abuse. But she says the premise of enthusiastic consent is more elusive.
“When I teach students and couples about enthusiastic consent, I am talking less about things like jumping up and down with excitement — although that is awesome! — and more about clear, affectively affirmative agreements to participate in an experience,” Francis tells SheKnows. “Enthusiasm as a standard of consent is meant to help clarify the places at which initiators unintentionally and sometimes unknowingly cross from sexual experience to sexual assault.”
Dr. Fran Walfish is a Beverly Hills family and relationship psychotherapist, author of The Self-Aware Parent, regular expert child psychologist on The Doctors (CBS TV) and costar of Sex Box (We TV). She says enthusiastic consent did not occur in Grace’s encounter with Ansari.
After forced mutual oral sex and other unwanted behaviors, when Grace declared boundaries and Ansari ignored her and plowed forward, this was, to Walfish, the turning point when this became a case of sexual harassment and abuse.
“At that point, my heart rate accelerated when I understood the implied power differential in their physical size, not status,” she tells SheKnows. “Sadly, this type of behavior occurs frequently in the dating scene, and not just among Hollywood's [big-] name celebrities. Put bluntly, Ansari treated his date disrespectfully and selfishly.”
Ansari has responded to the allegations in a statement in which he confirms he did go on the date with Grace, saying, “It was true that everything did seem okay to me, so when I heard that it was not the case for her, I was surprised and concerned. I took her words to heart and responded privately after taking the time to process what she had said."
The fact that Ansari was “surprised and concerned” that Grace felt violated by his actions during their date reinforces the idea that our concept of consent needs some serious work. No one should be in a situation in which what they construe as a sexual assault comes across to the other person as a consensual encounter or simple miscommunication.
And while Ansari is being applauded for acknowledging that the night with Grace did happen as she said it did, he claims he thought the entire evening was consensual, and no part of his statement contained an actual apology. In fact, specifying that he was “surprised and concerned” to find out he and Grace were not on the same page shifts the blame back to her, making it sound like it was her fault for not being clearer about her sexual disinterest.
Not to mention that “surprised and concerned” is what parents say to teenagers about a bad report card or broken curfew. It is not an apology.
Even if he did apologize for his behavior, we also can’t accept someone blatantly ignoring someone else’s signals to stop, then saying he’s sorry for it and getting away with the whole thing. As writer/comedian Lane Moore notes on Twitter, this happens all the time, and the perpetrator only apologizes after getting what he wanted out of the situation.
✔@hellolanemoore
RT if youve had text exchanges like this w/guys who "loved" your time together when you said/communicated no 4000x & they didnt care & then acted like it was a great night & you had to be like "you didnt listen when i said no it was awful" & they were like "i didnt? weird! sorry" pic.twitter.com/3WghRxiW4Q
i just know this happens all. the. time. and it's so fucked up bc the guy then acts like he's sorry he didn't listen, but he only acts like that AFTER he got to do whatever he wanted to do. also how do you "misread" someone saying no, or moving away from you, or looking scared? 11:18 AM - Jan 14, 2018
When it comes to sexual negotiation, it is easy to be misinterpreted or misunderstood, Francis points out. Both verbal and nonverbal communication can be nuanced, subtle, layered and even contradictory.
“This is why sexual assault narratives often feel controversial: Was it assault or wasn't it?” she explains. “In a ‘no means no’ culture that often lacks emotional intelligence training and comprehensive sex education to back it up, we often reduce that message to mean that only a direct an explicit no means no.”
In reality, there are many ways to communicate disinterest, discomfort and displeasure, Francis explains. And even when a no is verbalized, if it’s spoken in a seemingly half-hearted manner, it may not be considered as final as someone shouting the word while running toward the door, she adds. Enthusiastic consent aims to avoid any potential misunderstandings or miscommunications by ensuring that all participants are active, willing participants.
Not only that, but only practicing no-means-no consent misses that relationships are not always balanced in privilege, in power — social, economic or physical — and in skill, Francis says, adding that people who feel disempowered in the moment or fear consequences later may not be able to ‘just say no.’”
“Expecting all messages to be clear and direct in that way ignores the fact that these imbalances in relationships matter,” Francis explains. “It is not unusual for folks to give in or even say yes to participate because they feel coerced or otherwise compelled to do so — even if the other person is not intending to be coercive.”
These narratives are told over and over again by employees, survivors of previous assaults, students, those who are surprised by the sexual encounter, by people who are financially dependent on the other person, by people who are marginalized on the basis of ethnicity or nationality, by women, by trans folks and by gender nonbinary people, Francis says.
More: The Impact of Sexual Harassment on Mental Health
“With all of this room for ambiguity and pressure, emotional tone can be a useful indicator of whether an experience is consensual or not,” she adds.
What does enthusiastic consent actually look like in practice?
According to Walfish, it includes partners checking in with each other, especially when proceeding into a more intimate space by asking, “Is this OK?” or, “Does that feel good?”
Following up with physical, nonverbal cues from your partner is always a good idea.
“If your partner flinches, suddenly tenses up or you sense discomfort in them, check in with how they are doing in the moment rather than proceeding full speed ahead,” Walfish continues. “Mutual pleasure, mutual orgasm and excitation between two people can only be present with two willing partners on an equal playing field.”
If some sort of power and privilege differentials exist between partners, it’s especially important to be mindful that all parties involved are enjoying themselves and are there willingly and enthusiastically — even if you’re one of the “nice” ones.
If you have experienced sexual abuse or assault, call the free, confidential National Sexual Assault hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673), or access the 24-7 help online by visiting online.rainn.org.
Quote:Home » The Return of Ethan Van Sciver’s Mean Streak
The Return of Ethan Van Sciver’s Mean Streak
Posted by Rich Johnston February 2, 2018 4 Comments
Ethan Van Sciver is a successful superhero comic book artist. Beginning with his own character Cyberfrog, he would go on to draw New X-Men, written by Grant Morrison; Green Lantern Rebirth by Geoff Johns; go exclusive with DC Comics; and more recently draw the DC Rebirth series Hal Jordan & The Green Lantern Corps.
Van Sciver has also continuously exhibited a rather fractious online personality, and has been accused of being an agitator and a troll. Over the course of much of his professional career, he has generally characterized such behavior simply as over-the-top, often ironic, bombastic banter, but last year even he seemed to accept the notion that it was something beyond that.
“I’m going to try to focus on being kinder. I try every day, but I have this mean streak…”, he said in part, at a candid moment in May 2017.
While Van Sciver has echoed that desire for a kinder focus on social media in more recent times, there are many who would say that this mean streak still in large part defines him, and guides his current intent in ways not too far removed from that pivotal moment last year.
Public and Private
At that time, some of his privately posted comments became subject to public scrutiny. While in a heated discussion, Van Sciver suggested that another user — someone who had been suffering from depression — should kill themselves.
This seemed to be a critical moment for the artist, and for the people around him. Many creators spoke out about the incident, and he seemed to realize he’d gone too far. Indeed, DC Entertainment President Diane Nelson was made aware of the situation, and responded to it in private email, which we are running for the first time here. Replying to concerns that a fan expressed to her, Nelson stated that Van Sciver’s comments were offensive, did not meet their standards for their creators, and that his actions did not speak for DC Comics.
Quote:Thank you for taking the time to write. I couldn’t agree more that the comments Ethan van Sciver made on Facebook were offensive. His actions do not meet the high standards we strive for from our creative community. They are inconsistent with the values of Warner Bros. and DC Entertainment, as well as those of the pantheon of the DC superhero characters.
Ethan is just one of hundreds of members of DC’s freelance creative community, and I assure you his actions do not speak for the rest of us. That said, I completely understand if fans choose not to purchase Ethan’s work.
Thanks again for taking the time to craft such a thoughtful email. It’s appreciated.
Best,
Diane
President, DC Entertainment
Friends In Low Places
Van Sciver has shown glimpses of the better man he vowed to be in that dark moment. He has spoken up against instances of abuse directed at LGBTQ comic book creators. He has tweeted about the need to treat each other with kindness. But overshadowing those glimpses, he has continually invested considerable effort into elevating voices whose intent seems in direct opposition to those words.
He started a YouTube channel, ostensibly to share the secrets of comic book artists, to present his commentary on the industry and engage with figures from Vox Day to Chuck Dixon to Mark Waid — but more often, Richard C. Meyer, the commentator behind the Diversity & Comics YouTube channel, which stands accused of propagating bigotry, hate speech, and harassment. Meyer’s followers have aimed abuse against many members of the comic book community.
For transparency, that often includes me.
Van Sciver has hosted a number of videos with Meyer now, equivocating away Meyer’s actions, past and present.
It was in the light of this that Van Sciver openly posted an invite to one of his critics, cartoonist and comic store employee Darryl Ayo, to come onto a live YouTube show to debate comic artist Jon Malin, with Ethan as moderator. Malin recently found himself at the centre of criticism after comparing Hitler’s ideology to that of “social justice warriors”. Ayo declined. But the requests kept coming.
Ayo, also a heavy critic of Bleeding Cool, nevertheless invited me to look into this. I reached out to Van Sciver, who initially agreed to take and answer questions about this and other matters. But before I could begin, he rescinded his agreement (more on that later). So I talked to Ayo.
Rich Johnston: Darryl, what is your history with Ethan Van Sciver?
Darryl Ayo: I don’t have a history with Ethan Van Sciver prior to January 23rd, 2018. He is a known superhero artist and I’m a minicomics creator and comics critic. I’ve never interacted with Ethan Van Sciver and haven’t made any attempt to interact with him. We are from different parts of the comics art form and industry.
RJ: So what led to his recent invite to you?
DA: In professional terms, nothing. There was no reason for Ethan Van Sciver to even be thinking about me, much less talking to me.
That said, Ethan Van Sciver decided to invite me (and I don’t necessarily see it as an “invitation,” per se) to appear on his show after I had been highlighted and targeted for harassment by an online person called “Diversity and Comics.” At the time, “Diversity and Comics” had been focusing his attention on me and targeting me for abuse by his fans for about a week.
The supposed purpose of Ethan Van Sciver’s initiation of contact was to discuss a superhero artist named Jon Malin, who had made bizarre comments earlier that day about Hitler being an “SJW,” which is a derisive term applied to liberals, progressives and leftists. The idea of Hitler, one of the most notorious and brutal right wing thugs in the twentieth century being equated with a term that essentially means “progressive” was appalling and many people throughout the comics industries, including, but not limited to me, expressed disgust at the comments of this Jon Malin person.
As I was about to shut off my computer and go to bed, I noticed a string of notifications to my twitter account. There was a discussion and there were replies. The origin was Ethan Van Sciver, who I had never spoken with before, mentioning me on his twitter and asking/telling/pleading/demanding that I join some debate that he was currently having on a podcast that he apparently hosts. This is the first time that I had any contact with Ethan Van Sciver and therefore, the casual tone of his tweets was disturbing as they seemed to indicate a familiarity or at least a preexisting relationship between us. There was no preexisting relationship. I had never agreed to appear on this podcast and I certainly was not going to be coaxed or goaded or railroaded into appearing in public in such a manner. I made a post to my own twitter account, not as a reply to Ethan, but a plain text post, indicating that I was not appearing on an Ethan Van Sciver podcast. Ethan pressed the issue by tweeting to me and attempting to sustain the illusion that there was a mutual agreement about a desire to debate. There was no agreement. There was no prior discussion or contact.
RJ: How did this invite and the repeated requests affect you?
DA: I thought it was all quite annoying and unprofessional. And since it opened me up to further trolling and harassment by the same parties that have already been attacking me, I was furious.
The entire affair was manipulative and frankly, insulting. The notion that anyone would drop everything and appear on a podcast to argue with a stranger at midnight just because someone goaded them is preposterous. The more Ethan tried to talk me into this nonsensical idea, the more certain I was that it was an attempt to publicly humiliate me. All of this became even more obvious after Ethan Van Sciver eventually dropped his pretense and admitted that he was angry with me about a comment that I had made months prior regarding reports that he, Ethan Van Sciver, had named a book of his after Hitler’s book.
As Ethan Van Sciver continued to tweet about me and at me, he would exaggerate this to his audience, spinning a fantasy that I had personally led a mob of hatred against him. Nonsense; many people publicly expressed disgust about Ethan Van Sciver’s Hitler-referencing title at the time of that particular report. However, since I was designated as the enemy of the moment by “Diversity and Comics,” Ethan sought to lie to his twitter followers and insist that I had led a hate campaign against him “for six months.” In other words, a comment *made* six months prior was recast as an ongoing campaign *lasting* for six months. Lies, outright lies. Flagrant lies. And of course, this further enflamed the angry bigots who, as I have said above, were already targeting me and friends of mine for abuse and harassment.
RJ: What outcome would you like to see come from this?
DA: Who cares. I’m already a target of abuse by the “Diversity and Comics” person’s followers. I’m already a target of abuse by the alt right. I don’t see any outcome. If you’re asking me whether Ethan Van Sciver, for his part, should lose his contract with DC Comics: absolutely. This reckless and dishonest behavior would get anybody fired from a traditional employer. But since that’s not going to happen, I don’t care. They should all definitely stay away from me and everyone I know.
A New Age Of Heroes
Van Sciver is a freelance artist working for DC Comics, and discussions with the publisher have focused on the difference between this role and that of a staffer, in regards to how the company would view their actions.
However, I have been made aware that senior DC creators have been vocal within the publisher, some going as far as refusing to work in any project Van Sciver was affiliated with, in a similar manner as some refused to work under editor Eddie Berganza. Berganza was a champion of Van Sciver’s work before he was fired following several allegations of sexual harassment. I understand that a number of letters by senior DC creators have been sent up the chain, objecting to Van Sciver’s behavior online.
It is notable that despite his critical reputation, Van Sciver was not part of the DC New Age of Heroes lineup, alongside peers of a similar background such as Tony S. Daniel or Kenneth Rocafort.
Regardless, the subject has been getting more heated. Comic book creators have again been making public statements — some about Van Sciver and some about Meyer, whom they see Van Sciver as supporting and promoting. And these creators have called on comic book publishers to do something:
Quote:28 Jan Tess Fowler@TessFowler
I hate to post this. After spending all winter trying to protect industry folks from a well known internet troll and his followers, we're now dealing with a well known pro (with a lengthy history of harassment: See link) joining in because they're friends. http://phenomenalfx.weebly.com/blog
Even if people continue to choose to ignore the things he's done before, right now he's very openly supporting a ringleader of the harassment that's been conducted against several of the women Marvel editors, and multiple freelancers that work for both companies. 2:57 PM - Jan 28, 2018
Quote:28 Jan Tess Fowler@TessFowler Replying to @TessFowler
The link I've shared is one of many such accounts. I've tangled with this pro myself in the past. I've been harassed by his friend's hate mob as recently as all winter 2017. I'm not the only one and I didn't get it near as bad as others.
I'm putting myself at risk even tweeting this. Right now I'm asking DC Comics, Marvel, Dark Horse, IDW and every other company to get involved with this. All of you have freelancers/employees who have been targeted. One of you employs someone participating in this harassment. 1:13 PM - Jan 28, 2018
Is it my feed, or my imagination, or is the comics community growing weary of Ethan Van Sciver’s asshole antics and his fuckhead cadre of alt-right bullies? 3:49 PM - Jan 29, 2018
Hey, let's talk about the pretty prevalent, but phenomenally wrongheaded idea that since D&C, EVS & the rest of the alt-right comics mob are nothing more than bullies, that they should get the standard elementary school bully treatment: "Ignore them and they'll go away." 1:49 PM - Jan 29, 2018
Funny how EVS and his dogwhistlers can stir up their followers to do the dirty work for them of harassment, doxxing, and threats but some random person says something about him and these coward snowflakes are clutching their pearls in unison. 3:55 PM - Jan 30, 2018
I approached Van Sciver to discuss all of these issues. He initially agreed to participate, but after I asked that he not screencap or post extracts of our conversation before publication, he declined to proceed.
If Van Sciver had continued, I would have asked him about the reaction from his fellow comic book professionals, from DC President Diane Nelson, senior DC employees and other freelancers and commentators. I would have asked him if, like Trump, he saw “very fine people on both sides” regarding this.
Most of all, I’d have asked him if he felt that he was living up to his promise to be a better man. And if his expressed desire to bring unity was working.
Because it seems to be having quite the opposite effect. And I am told by a number of DC sources not to expect to see Ethan Van Sciver’s name on any other upcoming DC projects after his current run on Hal Jordan & Green Lantern Corps.
Many comic book fans enjoy Ethan’s artwork and he has a solid body of work behind him. But his self-described “mean streak” has blunted his own creative potential. It has ruled him, rather than served him. I suspect even Ethan knows that too. I’d have liked the chance to ask.
[img=572x0]https://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ethan-quits-twitter.jpg[/img]
As of yesterday, he has deleted his Twitter account with the apparent intent to move his comics commentary and work to YouTube.
Neither DC Comics nor Van Sciver chose to comment on this story.
This story was written by Rich Johnston, with contributions from Mark Seifert, Jude Terror and other Bleeding Cool contributors.
![[Image: 407512b02458f04c85c3a59f049b095e]](https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/zXVIIXIglEEEQmBhhbtIeg--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9NjQwO3E9NzU7c209MQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/homerun/hello_giggles_454/407512b02458f04c85c3a59f049b095e)
![[Image: a2b34ae3b9f29d848b2a1f9f3796a91f]](https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/IvaBsgp_zDdXD3lIF0.2vg--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9NjQwO3E9NzU7c209MQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/newsweek_europe_news_328/a2b34ae3b9f29d848b2a1f9f3796a91f)
![[Image: b8e9ee90fd58ed02e664a29cad0d33cb]](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/vo0ysIWvbcax3t2fD4s9gA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NjQw/http://media.zenfs.com/es-US/homerun/yahoo_view_839/b8e9ee90fd58ed02e664a29cad0d33cb)
![[Image: 5jB06Vhhtv38Psa1.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/912009177257607173/pu/img/5jB06Vhhtv38Psa1.jpg)
![[Image: RJjNa4No_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/908902431639121921/RJjNa4No_normal.jpg)
![[Image: 1f1fa-1f1f8.png]](https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/1f1fa-1f1f8.png){kind=small}
![[Image: hubVg6knd5ktqBxS.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_thumb/912718322369675264/pu/img/hubVg6knd5ktqBxS.jpg)
![[Image: 4uHEqtTx_normal.png]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/609201074931535872/4uHEqtTx_normal.png)
![[Image: 1f525.png]](https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/72x72/1f525.png){kind=small}
![[Image: 20e0ef378c7bf314083daedd929f4b40]](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/XC.9hOqpb_GX.9MwPHsKhg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/20e0ef378c7bf314083daedd929f4b40)
![[Image: acc.gif]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/823/676/acc.gif)
![[Image: 9df.gif]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/614/639/9df.gif)
![[Image: 0a2cd090-a926-11e7-b1ac-9d2f6ab9da77_Scr...-39-PM.png]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/5y1iOfySemT2okh8hSKakg--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9MTMwO2g9NzI7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-images/GLB/2017-10-04/0a2cd090-a926-11e7-b1ac-9d2f6ab9da77_Screen-Shot-2017-10-04-at-1-00-39-PM.png)
![[Image: 00ec96b0-ad30-11e7-b4cc-d1f3e693ab52_AP_...102106.jpg]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/0CNQTYlGYGyOh0YAMlrC5w--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9MTMwO2g9NzI7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-images/GLB/2017-10-09/00ec96b0-ad30-11e7-b4cc-d1f3e693ab52_AP_17280837102106.jpg)
![[Image: 9a31d370-ad13-11e7-9f4f-81cbb9acfb70_117...00d973.jpg]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/4lHptp8UmMG2P1MTgHEbKw--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9MTMwO2g9NzI7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-images/GLB/2017-10-09/9a31d370-ad13-11e7-9f4f-81cbb9acfb70_1179579ad3e71033880f6a706700d973.jpg)
![[Image: 0850be70-ad14-11e7-9765-0588f25bf8b6_201...iginal.jpg]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/IACR9LKj1un1e5yeepbq1g--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9MTMwO2g9NzI7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-images/GLB/2017-10-09/0850be70-ad14-11e7-9765-0588f25bf8b6_2016-04-15T141532Z_2_LYNXNPEC3E0TO_RTROPTP_3_CBUSINESS-US-CITIGROUP-RESULTS_original.jpg)
![[Image: eafd37a0-ad03-11e7-8737-6db372c045c0_AP_...949866.jpg]](https://s1.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/EoWO5molEQAt1HGcrDLsDg--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9MTMwO2g9NzI7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-images/GLB/2017-10-09/eafd37a0-ad03-11e7-8737-6db372c045c0_AP_16211654949866.jpg)
![[Image: 26438390-ad05-11e7-b156-3bbb784b2f19_AP_...798466.jpg]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/NyMJNu9Ql7LzyAIJ7z9Nfw--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9MTMwO2g9NzI7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-images/GLB/2017-10-09/26438390-ad05-11e7-b156-3bbb784b2f19_AP_161199798466.jpg)
![[Image: b6e7b9d70f32238c918ad0f08938e39d]](https://s1.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/aJJOrAWrOmnDroTNmFs2rw--~B/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9MTMwO2g9NzI7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-us/video/video.cbsnewsvideos.com/b6e7b9d70f32238c918ad0f08938e39d)
![[Image: 1ef7a648963818f705cca2fe36aa9125]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/J3lire_gGqYNmDVbAHzw4w--~B/Zmk9c3RyaW07aD00NzU7dz02NDA7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/1ef7a648963818f705cca2fe36aa9125)
After Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, policymakers advanced a slew of regulations intended better prepare the financial system for market and economic volatility. REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files![[Image: dbd203eac4f9f6ded5cbe78604acec84]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/0yuMgaOR9TzpALazOsBSYg--~B/Zmk9c3RyaW07aD00Mjc7dz02NDA7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/dbd203eac4f9f6ded5cbe78604acec84)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. REUTERS/Stephen Lam![[Image: d960894213431a3ff6134f1dcb92917d]](https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/WKwQ3IsBWFmH2AJDee2oPg--~B/Zmk9c3RyaW07aD00MzY7dz02NDA7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/d960894213431a3ff6134f1dcb92917d)
An exhibit booth for firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson is seen on display at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Chicago, Illinois, October 26, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young![[Image: 5a29a0cb8a4986b0008b47a2-960-480.png]](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a29a0cb8a4986b0008b47a2-960-480.png)
![[Image: 5a29a1538a49867d0c8b46be-750-563.jpg]](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a29a1538a49867d0c8b46be-750-563.jpg)
![[Image: YQ5iuMBo-720.jpg]](https://content.jwplatform.com/thumbs/YQ5iuMBo-720.jpg)
![[Image: BXj4SZOn_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/811047793372499968/BXj4SZOn_normal.jpg)
Lane Moore![[Image: C_gvxL9V0AE1nNZ?format=jpg&name=900x900]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_gvxL9V0AE1nNZ?format=jpg&name=900x900)
![[Image: twitter-1-600x160.jpg]](https://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/twitter-1-600x160.jpg)
![[Image: b2AzbOFy_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/929890323815268353/b2AzbOFy_normal.jpg)
Tess Fowler@TessFowler![[Image: yIvD_SQZ_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/862498315803480064/yIvD_SQZ_normal.jpg)
Tamra Bonvillain @ECCC Y6@TBonvillain![[Image: 2002660287_da58078f2c_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/720129264/2002660287_da58078f2c_normal.jpg)
Layman@themightylayman![[Image: k-HqlkV9_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/921401503859875840/k-HqlkV9_normal.jpg)
BIG CHUCK SITTERSON AND HIS TAKES![[Image: tWsAs--v_normal.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/941748986783952896/tWsAs--v_normal.jpg)
KWANZA OSAJYEFO /ˌəʊsəˈɡjeɪfəʊ/![[Image: DWrYqWzX4AAIIhB.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWrYqWzX4AAIIhB.jpg)