In 2011, “rape survivor” Laura Dunn was Joe Biden’s honored guest at an event releasing the “Dear Colleague” letter, and as a result of this push to “help nation’s schools address sexual violence,” Dunn would use the accompanying publicity to kickstart her activism career:
Not only was she Biden’s honored guest at the April 4, 2011, event releasing the Dear Colleague letter, she would later serve on a White House Task Force on Sexual Assault and be recognized for her advocacy on the U.S. Senate floor. In April 2013, Dunn and Lombardi were guests on Diane Rehm show.
Dunn now runs SurvJustice, an advocacy group for rape survivors.
If you take a closer look at the Dunn case, and the work of Dunn herself, you’ll be left wondering not only how this woman rose to the position she is in today, but whether or not she is helping or hurting the cause of those she is “working” to defend.
In the wake of a recent spate of incidents on US domestic airlines, The Wall Street Journal released an article detailing the differences major airlines are undergoing in the aim to gain more consumers – even less perks for the “economy” seats, and even more for the first-class and business travelers:
Battling it out with discount carriers, the world’s biggest airlines are rolling out ultracheap economy-class tickets, or cutting back sharply on basic amenities for their lowest-paying customers. At the same time, they are pulling out the stops to lavish their premium fliers with more perks.
American Airlines Group Inc., United Continental Holdings Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc. all now offer super-low fares, dubbed “basic economy,” that strip out even once-standard allowances, such as carry-on baggage or a choice of seat before boarding.
But at the front of the plane, the same carriers are showering premium passengers with ever more comfort. Middle East and Asian airlines are among those leading the way, with U.S. carriers trying to catch up. American Airlines has upgraded its business class. Delta last year unveiled plans for business-class suites, effectively small cabins that can be closed off from others, with fully reclining seats. The suites should feature on planes this year.
Bear in mind, this is the same Wall Street Journal that shamelessly published the Shultz/Baker/Paulson essay on why a “carbon tax” is essential, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. So why hasn’t the publication looked at the increase in emissions generated by first class, and more importantly, private aviation?
Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order undoing many Obama-era regulations targeted towards coal power plants:
President Trump moved Tuesday to unravel a host of energy regulations imposed by his predecessor, targeting in particular the Obama administration’s signature program that was intended to curb carbon emissions – but blasted by Republicans for hurting the already-struggling coal industry.
With a sweeping executive order signed at EPA headquarters, Trump initiated an immediate review of the Clean Power Plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants. Surrounded by coal miners, the president described that plan as a “crushing attack” on workers and vowed to nix “job-killing regulations.”
Predictably, the Malthusian predictions came quickly from the left. Michael Moore started off the show, stating that Trump’s signature alone would be “the day the extinction of human life on earth began”:
When Pizzagate was making headlines late last year, Stephen Colbert was incredibly dismissive of the saga, and slandered anyone who would dare question its authenticity. Back in December (not long before this article was posted), he did a 10-minute segment on his show, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, where as the Daily Beast covered, he did everything possible to slander Pizzagate contributors but call for their prosecution:
“A conspiracy is what villains do. An agreement is what adults do,” he said. “Look around the country. Wouldn’t you agree we need some more adults? So WikiLeaks, Alex Jones, and the subreddit sub-geniuses—and I mean this in the nicest way possible: grow the fuck up.”
The entire segment, which has little if any comedic value and is more of a rant, is below:
Yesterday, President Trump met with the National Sheriff’s Association at the White House. Like so many Trump comments, this one took a strange turn when Trump (jokingly or not) threatened to “destroy the career” of a Texas state Senator:
During the meeting, Rockwall County, Texas, Sheriff Harold Eavenson told President Trump about a piece of asset forfeiture legislation he believes would aid Mexican drug cartels…here’s the full conversation:
Eavenson: “There’s a state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money.”
Trump: “Do you believe that?”
Eavenson: “And I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed.”
Trump: “Who is that state senator? I want to hear his name. We’ll destroy his career…”
Though the major point of conversation was about Trump’s threat to a state legislator, the bigger story should be the implicit support Trump gave to civil asset forfeiture, whether he realized it or not. And if you are not aware what civil asset forfeiture is, it is (surprisingly) something that is agreed by both sides of the aisle to be unjust and unconstitutional, and rightfully so.
Note: This is a guest contribution. Please share your thoughts with the author, Gary Potter, in the comments.
It’s a fair assumption that more or less everyone on the planet knows who Donald Trump is. It’s an equally fair assumption, as derived from the rise of the “alt-right” media, that many even know why Donald Trump is. Those that don’t – lately you can catch them in places like Portland or behind a desk at the New York Times – are suffering a very real existential crisis with regards to this question; they certainly know who Trump is, and there seems to be too much evidence from too many sources to continue the pretense he will not become the President of the United States in 2017.
Written by Cyril Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson’s law is a book that originally aimed to demonstrate the adage that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion”. Its origin can be exemplified in these corollaries cited on Wikipedia:
Someone close to me, who is voting for Hillary, sent me this article recently, thinking it did a great job of characterizing Trump voters as real people. And I was so mortified and incensed reading it, that I felt it necessary to respond with my own thoughts on this election, and who I will be voting for.
The article is a perfect example of virtue signaling as it relates to this election. Nowhere in the article does John Biggs, the author, indicate that he has actually spoken with any Trump voter who actually has anything positive to say about Trump himself or his proposed policies. Instead, the quotes are merely meant to symbolize angry conservatives who are voting against Hillary moreso than they are voting for Trump. It seems this Ohio native turned Brooklyn hipster has taken but one glance at the odds and surmised that since he believes Hillary is going to win, and since he has such a large following, it is his duty to begin reaching out to Trump voters to bridge the partisan divide. It seems as if he wants to unite everyone under a nation of corruption and crime for the leaders, but not for the general population. Seeing as how I regularly communicate with Trump voters, I felt it my duty to respond, and will preserve the anonymity of my contributors by speaking through my own voice.
The “multi-role” F-35, and its multiple, expensive failures are so big that they will set the Department of Defense back for the next fifty years. Its unsurprisingly behind schedule, way over budget price tag is sucking dollars away from every other DoD program, and it can’t even beat its replacements in many of their primary roles. Designed to replace many legacy aircraft nearing the end of their life cycles, it is the biggest weapons program ever, at $1.5 trillion dollars. The price tag could run the ENTIRE DoD for over two years, which makes the aircraft the poster boy for a military-industrial complex with no accountability. And, it just looks ugly, which as the best aircraft designers know, makes it likely to fly ugly. Why hasn’t it been cancelled yet?