Many documents require a signature verification by a notary public. But if you’re social distancing, going to the bank or your lawyer’s office is not something you want to do. But there’s an app for that: It’s called remote online notarization (RON). It is not clear, yet, whether this workaround will apply to the notary requirement that some states have for voting absentee. [Missouri’s secretary of state, for example, says that remote online notarization will NOT apply to ballots.]

In response to the coronavirus emergency, numerous states have put in place emergency measures that eliminate the requirement that documents be signed in person in the presence of a notary public. The details differ from state to state, but the intent is the same: to allow people to fulfill various signature requirements without breaking the social-distancing barrier.

RON is a major departure from tradition, and some notaries and government institutions were, initially reluctant to accept it. But with the problems presented by the coronavirus pandemic, that opposition has mostly dissipated, especially now that that face-to-face contact can be satisfied online using audiovisual technology such as a webcam. The signer can be in another town, another state or even another country.

How does a remote notary confirm a signer’s identity without being able to hold and examine an ID? One of the safeguards includes asking for knowledge-based authentication—known as KBA—in which the signer must correctly answer a set of computer-generated questions related to their life, and credit and financial history. If the signer cannot successfully pass the KBA, the notary will not perform the notarization. Another, simpler method to confirm the signer’s identity is for the signer to hold their ID up to the camera, allowing the notary to check that the signer looks like the person on the ID and that other details match the information on the ID.

A recent article published by the National Notary Association (NNA) gives the details of how it’s done, state by state. Some have allowed RON for several years; others are new to the game; some are allowing RON only for a limited time period during the pandemic. A map on the NNA website indicates that almost every US state authorizes some form of remote notarization.

On a broader scale, US Senators Mark warner (D-VA) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) recently introduced an act that would authorize remote online authorizations nationwide.

It’s just one more way that America is changing as a result of the pandemic of 2020.

The post Need a notary for your document, but quarantining? Do it online. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

John F. Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning book (with much help from speechwriter Ted Sorensen) , Profiles in Courage, focused on eight white men (yes, no women and no minorities) who stood up for principle at the expense of continuing their political careers. With one exception (James Comey), there seems to be no one who has served the administration of Donald Trump who would remotely qualify as a profile in courage.

Even before Trump was anointed president by the antiquated and anachronistic Electoral College, F.B.I. Director James Comey took unpopular stands in defense of what he thought was right. It was within the jurisdiction of his agency to investigate Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unconventional method of storing e-mails. Comey was caught between the proverbial rock and the hard place. One option was to stay silent and let Attorney-General Loretta Lynch announce that no indictment would be forthcoming. However, Comey knew that Lynch’s credibility was tainted. She had recently hosted a 30-minute private meeting with Bill Clinton on her plane at the Phoenix airport. With Lynch compromised, Comey took option two, stepping up to say that while there was not sufficient evidence to indict Clinton, her conduct had been “extremely careless.”

He irritated the Clintons and many of their supporters, but his honesty shined through when he recognized that he was in a conundrum and he spoke openly about not having any simple answers.

When Donald Trump became president, Comey utilized the same balanced thinking that made him such a straight shooter with Clinton. If Comey had not previously been aware of Trump’s emotional and mental inadequacies to be president, he learned quickly upon having private meetings in the White House. Donald Trump clearly did not understand the role of the F.B.I., of the Department of Justice, and how the White House related to both. More importantly, Trump gave no indication that his top priority was the well-being of the United States and the world in which we live. Rather it was his personal aggrandizement.

Once Comey met Trump, his primary concern was the well-being of the country. He had the audacity to take contemporaneous notes from his meetings with Trump. Ultimately, he shared them with a friend, who at Comey’s request, leaked to the media. Comey wanted American citizens to know about the dangers that lurked while Donald Trump was president. With this knowledge, he wanted Congress, and possibly the president’s cabinet, to consider legal actions to reduce or eliminate the threat that he presented.

In contrast to Comey, there is a man named Mad Dog. You may know him as former Secretary of Defense James Mattis. He was one of Trump’s original cabinet appointees and by all regards, acquitted himself well at the Pentagon. But by the end of his second year as Secretary, he resigned, saying that he objected to Trump’s precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Syria.

His departure from the Cabinet was very disturbing to those Americans who had serious concerns about Trump. Mattis was considered to be one of the adults in the room. Presumably he could talk truth to power, and if necessary, implement, or not implement, Trump orders in a way that minimized danger to the country.

Once Mattis left the Cabinet, and Trump’s position of Chief of Staff was filled with Trump worshipers, a huge vacuum was evident. There was no one in the higher reaches of government who could straight-talk Trump, and if necessary, leave the administration on principle.

Now we learn that General Mattis has written a book which includes accounts of his service in the Trump Administration. Unfortunately, he fails to include in the book or in any of his recent magazine articles and on-air interviews that Donald Trump was putting America further at risk.

Perhaps Mattis was not the adult in the room who we thought that he was. Perhaps his comfort zone is adhering to military protocol and following the line of his commander-in-chief.

To many “adults outside the room,” it is very disappointing that Mattis has not offered legitimate criticism of Trump. Instead, he is going on to be a lobbyist.

There are many on the left who hold a grudge against James Comey because his actions clearly hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming president. This may be true, but he stood alone among those who have “served” Donald Trump, because he publicly talked truth to power. Had he not, we probably would not have had a Robert Mueller and all the misdeeds revealed in his investigation. If only Mattis had been a little more like Comey.

The post A Tale of Two Jameses appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In the course of the day-to-day grind of covering the American presidency, journalists always have understood the difficulties and obstacles of seeking to gather the facts and to write with candor and objectivity about the policies and practices of our presidents. Since the election of Donald J. Trump, however, the relationship between reporters and the White House has become more deeply strained, more overtly combative, and more threatening to the job security and personal safety of journalists and writers than at any time in the modern presidency.

Just a few days ago, PEN America, an organization that was founded in 1992 and represents more than 7,200 writing professionals, took the most serious step yet in sending an unequivocal message to the Trump administration that they will take the fight in defense of freedom of the press to the courts. On October 16, 2018,  the organization, in cooperation with Protect Democracy and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, sent a clear message to the man in the Oval Office by filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court – Southern District of New York that names as defendant Donald J. Trump in his official capacity as President of the United States. In an open public letter, PEN explained the broader context of their concerns: “As an organization of writers, we at PEN America are deeply concerned to see the antagonism toward the press that we’ve long associated with authoritarian rulers around the world manifest here at home.”

The lawsuit itself states:

This complaint arises out of official acts by the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, intended to stifle exercise of the constitutional protections of free speech and a free press. Through retaliatory directives to officials in his Administration and credible public threats to use his government powers against news organizations and journalists who have reported on his statements, actions, and policies in ways he does not welcome, the President has violated the First Amendment and his oath to uphold the Constitution. President Trump has First Amendment rights and is free to criticize the press vehemently, but he is not free to use the power and authority of the United States government to punish and stifle it.”

If successful in being heard in federal court, this suit, which seeks to defend the protections of our democratic institutions and freedom of expression as originally framed in the Constitution, may in time wend its way to the newly constituted conservative majority on the Supreme Court. What will happen there could be a harbinger either of a further diminishment of the freedoms and rights of our democracy or a resounding rejection of the authoritarian and undemocratic impulses of a thoroughly amoral president and his enablers in the Republican Party.

Here is the full text of the letter PEN America published on October 16, 2018.

Today PEN America, represented by the nonpartisan nonprofit Protect Democracy and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. The suit seeks to stop President Trump from using the machinery of government to retaliate or threaten reprisals against journalists and media outlets for coverage he dislikes.

President Trump’s tirades against the press are not new. His cries of “fake news” are an almost daily occurrence. The White House has called for individual journalists to be fired, and the president has referred to the media as “the enemy of the American people.” This has created an environment of hostility toward the media wherein journalists have been subject to death threats, needed bodyguards to cover political rallies, and have faced attacks in their newsrooms. The president has also threatened book publishers and authors who have published critical volumes. While many media outlets are unrelenting in their robust coverage, individual writers may think twice before publishing pieces or commentary that could put them in the White House’s crosshairs. As you know, over the last 18 months PEN America has been doing research, reporting, advocacy, outreach events, and more to spotlight and call out the president’s assaults on writers and journalists.

Yet most of the president’s verbal attacks on the press are speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Our country’s broad protections for free speech allow the president to denigrate the press and even go after individual journalists by name. However, when President Trump crosses the line and threatens to use his authority to punish the media, or actually does so, it is vital for the courts to step in and affirm that such threats and reprisals are unconstitutional. [Editor’s emphasis.] We have worked closely with leading First Amendment scholars and practitioners in private practice and academia in order to hone a request to the court to do just that.

As an organization of writers, we at PEN America are deeply concerned to see the antagonism toward the press that we’ve long associated with authoritarian rulers around the world manifest here at home. We have forcefully raised concerns about free expression infringements during the Obama, Bush, and other prior administrations including, in some instances, by filing suit. Given our mission to defend free expression and support those who pay a price for its exercise, we are determined to rise in defense of the press freedom protections that are so fundamental to our society and democracy. With media organizations focused on their essential role of providing probing, objective coverage, PEN America is uniquely positioned in standing up to these encroachments on the work of those who cover and comment on the work of our government.

The post PEN writers’ group sues Trump over abuse of First Amendment appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Trump administration is holding children hostage. They can call it “family separation.” They can say that it’s meant as a “deterrent” to illegal border crossings. But, bottom line, this is a hostage situation.

It’s ironic—but not funny–that ICE agents and border patrol agents are yanking young children from the protective arms of their parents, many of whom are coming to the U.S. seeking asylum to protect their children from the harsh policies of other governments. They thought they were bringing their families to safety. Instead, they and their children are treated like criminals. Their only crime is trying to find a better life for their families.

These deplorable actions, under the guise of “zero tolerance” initiated by the Trump administration, can’t help but trigger flashbacks to the brutal policies of regimes that the United States has condemned in the past:  The Iran hostage crisis in 1979, for example. The worst image of all, of course, is the one that nobody wants to talk about: the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. I’m not saying that it’s a perfect parallel or the moral equivalent. But, seeing footage of children at our Southern border being pulled from their parents makes me shudder and conjures up images of “Sophie’s Choice.”

This new, cruel American policy is certainly wrong from a moral standpoint. Anyone with a shred of common sense—or with young children or grandchildren of their own—would recognize the pain that family separation would cause for parents and the emotional upheaval and damage it can cause for the children, for whom this is unfair, gratuitous punishment for crimes not committed. [They’d recognize it if they bothered to think about it, that is. But thinking about the human consequences is not something that Donald Trump or, apparently, his political advisers and policymakers do.]

Indeed, it appears that Trump and Sessions put in place “zero tolerance” not to meet a real problem, but as an expression of Trump’s own xenophobia and as a promise-kept to the white supremacists and America-firsters of his political base. [That political ploy may or may not be working: One of Trump’s staunchest media supporters—right-wing Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt—recently questioned the necessity of such inhumane treatment in an interview with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.]

It’s worth noting, too, that the United Nations human rights office  has issued a statement demanding the United States “immediately halt” the policy of separating children from their families when they cross the border without proper immigration documentation.” A spokesperson for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ravina Shamdasani, said there is “nothing normal about detaining children,” and charged that “border control appears to take precedence over child protection and care in the U.S.,” according to the Associated Press. “The use of immigration detention and family separation as a deterrent runs counter to human rights standards and principles,” Shamdasani said during a press briefing in Geneva, Switzerland. “The child’s best interest should always come first.”

[The U.N. High Commission For Human Rights usually issues these kinds of statements to countries that are brutalizing their citizens, engaging in torture and/or violating areas of human rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a founding document of the United Nations. That is now the company the U.S. is keeping, as a result of Trump/Sessions’ family-separation policy.]

The moral depravity of family separation is clear. But what about its legality? I’m not a lawyer, but I’m wondering if family separation could be construed as a criminal act. To me, what is happening sounds a lot like kidnapping—you might even call it institutional kidnapping. The online Legal Dictionary  defines kidnapping as:

…the crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or fraud, or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a later time.

And what about false imprisonment? According to Wikipedia:

False imprisonment occurs when a person is restricted in their personal movement within any area without justification or consent. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. False imprisonment is a common-law felony and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention.

I’ll leave further legal speculation and arguments to organizations who actually know the law. Earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] sued ICE for separating hundreds of migrant families. According to NPR:

“Whether or not the Trump administration wants to call this a ‘policy,’ it certainly is engaged in a widespread practice of tearing children away from their parents. A national class-action lawsuit is appropriate because this is a national practice,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

The ACLU said in its lawsuit that previous administrations “did not have a practice of forcibly separating fit parents from their young children.” It added that the parents involved in the lawsuit have never received negative accusations about how they care for their children.

Having observed how our Attorney General and his boss behave, I doubt that they’ve given any of these moral, legal or common-sense considerations a second [let alone a first, in the case of Trump] thought. Trump himself has been very public in his attempt to dehumanize people who try to enter the U.S. illegally—famously calling them “animals,” as well as “rapists and murders.”  That tactic—used by authoritarian and cruel regimes throughout history—has proven very effective in making inhumane treatment acceptable. And here we are.

If you’re old enough to remember the Iran hostage crisis in 1979, you’ll probably also remember that the crisis sparked the popularity of ABC News’ “Nightline.” Hosted by veteran journalist Ted Koppel, the show zeroed in on the hostage crisis, with daily updates, under the banner, “America Held Hostage,” and an accompanying tally of the number of days since Americans had been locked up in Tehran. We could use a show like that today, not just because children are being held hostage at our border, but also because we are all being held hostage to the lawlessness, the intentional chaos, the pervasive corruption and the erosion of democracy inflicted on America by the Trump administration.

The post The hostage crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border appeared first on Occasional Planet.

America’s gun laws are shot through with irony and illogic. Some would want you to believe that our national attitude regarding guns reflects a reverence for the Second Amendment. In reality, the gun laws passed—or should I say, not passed— in Congress and state legislatures are based less on ideology and more on the purely mercenary goals of the gun and ammunition manufacturers who are the true drivers of the NRA.

So, instead of a sane approach that acknowledges that gun deaths are a public health problem, we have an irrational patchwork of laws that often defy logic and do nothing to protect us. I’ve compiled some bullet points to illustrate the insanity of our gun laws:

• As we recently learned, via the Parkland tragedy, in Florida, you cannot buy a beer until you are 21. You can buy an assault weapon at 18.
• Florida and other states also have implemented strict ID requirements for voting, but none for buying an assault weapon.
•  You must be 25 to rent a car. You can buy an assault weapon at 18 in many states.
• In Iowa and other states, you must be 21 to by a scratch-off lottery ticket. You can buy a rifle in Iowa at 18, without a state permit.
• State legislatures have passed laws allowing guns in schools, churches, bars and public parks, while at the same time barring guns from the legislative chambers of their state capitols.
• In most states, you need a license to: use a scissors to cut people’s hair or trim their toenails; use a nail file to perform a manicure or pedicure; use a razor to shave a customer; use your fingers to braid someone’s hair. But you do not need a license to wield a weapon that, used for the purpose for which it was designed, can kill multiple people.
• In many states, you can bring a gun into a bar, but you cannot serve alcohol without a state license.
• In many states, under open carry laws, you can brandish a weapon openly, but if you are driving a car, you cannot have an open container of alcohol with you. By law, your child must be secured in a safety seat, but you can have a loaded gun concealed in the glove compartment or the console.
• Federal product-safety laws mandate safety standards for baby strollers and cribs, to prevent them from pinching a child’s finger or enabling a child’s head to get stuck between the crib slats. Similar protections—such as trigger locks on guns—are not required for guns in a bedroom drawer, in a purse, or in a closet.
• You can sue McDonald’s for serving too-hot coffee; you can sue a toy manufacturer, a food company or a lawn-mower company if you are accidentally injured by their product. You can sue a doctor or a hospital for malpractice if they prescribe the wrong dosage. Gun manufacturers and gun stores are protected, by federal law, from lawsuits stemming from injuries caused by their products.
• You need a state license to perform a healing massage, but—in many states—you do not need a permit to carry a gun into a spa.
• Right-wing, anti-LBGTQ fanatics consider the act of selling a wedding cake to a gay couple as tantamount to participating in the wedding, thus violating their religious “rights.” Selling a gun to someone who uses it to kill people is not seen as participating in murder.
• If you want to fly a drone or a model airplane, you must register it with the Federal Aviation Administration. No federal registration is required for buying or shooting a gun.
• After a would-be terrorist was found to have a non-functioning bomb wired into his shoes, the Department of Homeland Security mandated that all travelers have to remove their shoes for inspection at TSA checkpoints. After mass murderers armed with military assault weapons succeeded in killing of hundreds of people, laws regarding AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons remained unchanged.
• Pharmacies and supermarkets limit the number of Sudafed cold tablets you can purchase. You can buy as much ammunition for your handguns, rifles and assault weapons as you want to.
• Supermarkets now keep Tide detergent pods locked up, to protect children from swallowing them. After a scare in which Tylenol tablets were found to be contaminated, drug manufacturers were required to package over-the-counter and prescription drugs in “child-proof” packaging. Congress and state legislatures continue to reject the notion of mandatory gun locks that could prevent children from accidentally discharging guns.

This list is far from comprehensive—unfortunately. I welcome additions that further demonstrate the hypocrisy and madness. We live in a country where even the deaths of 20 first-graders don’t move the needle even one centimeter on gun laws. This is just plain crazy.

The post Gun laws: the irony, the agony, the insanity appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When a 94-year-old ex-president gropes your backside, is it sexual assault, sexual harassment, inappropriate touching or what? As women, at long last, feel confident enough and free enough to tell what has happened to them, and as we try to understand the scope of what has been happening for as long as men and women have existed, it seems that we need a better vocabulary to describe these situations. Fortunately, there is the Violence Against Women Lexicon, a resource created by the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children, based in Ontario, Canada.

The Lexicon offers a compendium of terminology, from “Abandonment” to “Youth Violence,” sourced from a wide variety of organizations that work with survivors of abuse and violence of all varieties. Much of what has been reported recently has been lumped under the vague term “sexual misconduct.” But there are better, more precise words, and they’re listed with detailed descriptions in the Lexicon.

Here are some of the terms included in the Lexicon. I’ve selected them [with edits for length] not to be comprehensive — or prurient — but to illustrate that there are nuances and degrees along the spectrum.  I’ve focused less on commonly understood terms, such as rape, and more on terms that are often thrown about without clear definitions, or on those that give precision to specific kinds of behaviors, or on  terms that I didn’t know existed. Some of the terms overlap, perhaps reflecting the lack of consistency in calling abuses by agreed-upon names. Also, in this lexicon, they focus on the abuse of women, but they apply to male victims, as well.

You’re going to cringe at some of these, and — unfortunately — you’re going to recognize many of them as describing some of the abuses we’ve been reading about lately. These terms would be useful, I think, in helping women, healthcare professionals, news reporters, commentators, and law enforcement personnel to be more accurate in defining what has occurred. For a complete—and very disheartening—list of terms about the vast varieties of abuses that continue to run rampant in modern culture, please take a look at the full Lexicon.

Abusive sexual contact: Intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person without his or her consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse. [9]

Aggravated sexual assault: A sexual assault that involves an injury to the victim or one in which her life is endangered.[15]

Child/Youth sexual abuse: A person under the age of 18 years old who has been involved in a sexual act with a person in a position of trust and authority by age, strength, or intelligence, including acts such as touching, fondling, exposing oneself, participation in prostitution and any participation or viewing of pornography. [12] Any sexual contact with a child or any activity undertaken with a sexual purpose. It can include genital fondling, digital penetration, or an invitation to sexually touch the perpetrator. [28]

Coercive sexual initiation: The use of persistent coercive strategies (i.e., psychological and emotional manipulation, verbal persuasion, or physical tactics) to initiate sexual contact…In some studies, sexual coercion includes the use of alcohol or drugs to decrease the victim’s inhibitions to obtain sexual contact…Other studies narrow the definition to include physical tactics such as continual attempts to sexually arouse the victim and removal of clothing.

Consent: Agreeing to sexual activity – for example, kissing, touching, intercourse – with another person.  Consent is voluntary.  Even if you consent to sexual activity, you can still change your mind (decide you want to stop).  Without permission (consent), it is sexual assault.[35]

Cyber Misogyny: The various forms of gendered hatred, harassment, and abusive behaviour targeted at women and girls on the Internet. [89]

Dating violence:  Abuse or mistreatment that occurs between “dating partners”, individuals who are having – or may be moving towards – an intimate relationship.1 Dating abuse or dating violence is defined as the perpetration or threat of an act of violence by at least one member of an unmarried couple on the other member within the context of dating or courtship. [21]

Digital Dating Abuse: When one partner in an intimate relationship uses technology (e.g. cell phone) and social media to harass or control the other. [89]

Drug Facilitated Sexual Assault: When alcohol or other drugs are used to sedate or incapacitate a person in order to perpetrate sexual assault. Proactive – a perpetrator puts a drug into a victim’s drink or gives a victim alcohol until she becomes inebriated and incapacitated. Opportunistic – a perpetrator targets a person who is already intoxicated or incapacitated. [83]

Emotional abuse: Includes verbal attacks, such as yelling, screaming and name-calling. Using criticism, verbal threats, social isolation, intimidation or exploitation to dominate another person. Criminal harassment or “stalking” may include threatening a person or their loved ones, damaging their possessions, or harming their pets.[50]

Harassment in the workplace: Any conduct based on age, disability, HIV status, sex, sexual orientation and other factors that is unreciprocated and unwanted and affects the dignity of men and women at work.

Incest: Any sexual behavior imposed on the child by a family member, including extended family members such as teachers or clergy. Sexual contacts may include a variety of verbal and/or physical behaviors; penetration is not necessary for the experience to count as incest. [11]

Intimate sexual violence: Physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. This type of violence can occur among heterosexual or same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy.

Invitation to sexual touching: For a sexual purpose, inviting, counseling or inciting a person under the age of 16 years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites.

Non-consensual sharing of intimate images: The distribution of intimate images to third parties without the consent of the person shown in the image. [89] Images are often distributed as a form of revenge against a former partner, and may have been taken without the victim’s knowledge or consent, or may have been shared consensually in the context of a former intimate relationship with the expectation that such images would be kept private.

Non-contact unwanted sexual experience: Unwanted experiences that do not involve any touching or penetration, including someone exposing their sexual body parts, flashing, or masturbating in front of the victim, someone making a victim show his or her body parts, someone making a victim look at or participate in sexual photos or movies, or someone harassing the victim in a public place in a way that made the victim feel unsafe. [65]

Partner assault: When a woman is repeatedly subjected to ANY type of intimidation by a husband, boyfriend or ex-lover. The purpose is to control her behaviour by putting her in a state of fear.[3]

Physical abuse: The intentional infliction of pain or injury by: Slapping, shoving, punching kicking, burning, stabbing and/or shooting, poisoning. “Caring” in an abusive way including giving too much medication, keeping confined, neglecting or withholding care, Using a weapon or other objects to threaten, hurt or kill. Sleep deprivation – waking a woman with relentless verbal abuse. [22]

Psychological and emotional abuse: The use of systemic tactics and behaviour intended to control, humiliate, intimidate, instill fear or diminish a person’s sense of self-worth, including: Verbal aggression. Forcibly confining a woman. Stalking/harassment. Deliberately threatening behaviours (e.g., speeding through traffic or playing with weapons). Threatening to harm or kill children, other family members, pets or prized possessions. Threatening to remove, hide or prevent access to children, or threatening to report the woman to authorities. Threatening to put the woman in an institution. Threatening to commit suicide/attempting suicide. Controlling a woman’s time, actions, dress, hairstyle, etc. Denying affection or personal care. Taking away a woman’s teletype writer (TTY), medication, hearing aids or guide dog. Belittling a woman through name calling or descriptions such as ” stupid”, ” crazy” or “irrational”. Accusing a woman of cheating or being promiscuous. Leaving a woman without transportation or any means of communication. [22]

Revenge porn: When a former partner posts images or videos created while the relationship was still intact or that were shared by a partner for private use in order to “get revenge”. [89] This can also include images or videos captured during incidents of sexual assault, recordings made with a hidden camera, or images stolen from personal computers.

Sexual coercion: Unwanted sexual penetration that occurs after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way. Sexual coercion refers to unwanted vaginal, oral, or anal sex after being pressured in ways that included being worn down by someone who repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, being told promises that were untrue, having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority. [66]

Sexual interference: For a sexual purpose, touching, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years. [76]

Sexual solicitation or advance: A person suggests that if you become sexually involved with him or her, he or she will give you a better grade or some other type of incentive. [17]

Unwanted sexual contact: Unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not sexual penetration, such as being kissed in a sexual way, or having sexual body parts fondled or grabbed.

Voyeurism: Surreptitiously, observing — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity; if the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity;  or the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose. [76]

The post A lexicon of sexual misconduct: There’s a word for what he did to you appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How unfit for the presidency is Donald Trump? The term “unfit” has been bandied about quite a lot since January 2017, when Trump was sworn in to office. But how, exactly, do we define “unfit”  as the term applies specifically to the presidency of the United States? We can look to the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but it lacks a clear definition, stating only that the President can be removed if he “is unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office.

We all know that Trump ran for president by saying that he was a great CEO and that he’d run the country like a business. I have my doubts about his effectiveness as a business leader. But even if he is somehow as good as he has bragged about, a president is not a CEO [he has yet to figure this out], nor is the White House a mob-family compound. Presidents of the United States need a completely different set of skills and personality traits from presidents of family owned real-estate conglomerates with no accountability, bosses of crime syndicates and “Dear Leaders” of authoritarian regimes.

But what are those skills? In a recent Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, psychiatrist Prudence L. Gourguechon describes her search through professional literature for definitions of leadership – a search that led to many descriptions of business leadership, but few that defined the characteristics needed to carry out  the “powers and duties” of the presidency.

She finally found what she was looking for in a most intriguing place: The U.S. Army’s Field Manual , which contains a 135-page subsection [FM 6-22, published in 2015] entitled, “Leader Development.” After studying the document [so we don’t have to], Gorguechon distilled the Army’s criteria for high-level, strategic leadership into the five categories quoted below.

While it’s tempting to cite examples of Trump’s unfit behaviors regarding each of these traits, there are simply too many to list — and even the most casual observer of the man’s words and actions knows what we’re talking about here. So, I’m going to quote Gorguechon without comment and let you remember your own favorite, illustrative moments from the Trump presidency so far.

Trust

According to the Army, trust is fundamental to the functioning of a team or alliance in any setting: “Leaders shape the ethical climate of their organization while developing the trust and relationships that enable proper leadership.” A leader who is deficient in the capacity for trust makes little effort to support others, may be isolated and aloof, may be apathetic about discrimination, allows distrustful behaviors to persist among team members, makes unrealistic promises and focuses on self-promotion.”

Discipline and self-control

The manual requires that a leader demonstrate control over his behavior and align his behavior with core Army values: “Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.” The disciplined leader does not have emotional outbursts or act impulsively, and he maintains composure in stressful or adverse situations. Without discipline and self-control, a leader may not be able to resist temptation, to stay focused despite distractions, to avoid impulsive action or to think before jumping to a conclusion. The leader who fails to demonstrate discipline reacts “viscerally or angrily when receiving bad news or conflicting information,” and he “allows personal emotions to drive decisions or guide responses to emotionally charged situations.”

Judgment and critical thinking

These are complex, high-level mental functions that include the abilities to discriminate, assess, plan, decide, anticipate, prioritize and compare. A leader with the capacity for critical thinking “seeks to obtain the most thorough and accurate understanding possible,” the manual says, and he anticipates “first, second and third consequences of multiple courses of action.” A leader deficient in judgment and strategic thinking demonstrates rigid and inflexible thinking.

Self-awareness

Self-awareness requires the capacity to reflect and an interest in doing so. “Self-aware leaders know themselves, including their traits, feelings, and behaviors,” the manual says. “They employ self-understanding and recognize their effect on others.” When a leader lacks self-awareness, the manual notes, he “unfairly blames subordinates when failures are experienced” and “rejects or lacks interest in feedback.”

Empathy

Perhaps surprisingly, the field manual repeatedly stresses the importance of empathy as an essential attribute for Army leadership. A good leader “demonstrates an understanding of another person’s point of view” and “identifies with others’ feelings and emotions.” The manual’s description of inadequacy in this area: “Shows a lack of concern for others’ emotional distress” and “displays an inability to take another’s perspective.”

In a political and cultural environment in which the military is revered nearly to the point of worship, the U.S. Army’s take on leadership is especially relevant, and it’s worthy of serious consideration. You have to wonder what the people who wrote this section of the Field Manual are thinking when they evaluate their current commander-in-chief against these principles, and as they try to instill these values into up-and-coming leaders. If they really believe in what they have written, the irony must be very, very painful.

The post Trump flunks US Army’s own leadership checklist appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Donald Trump has had trouble understanding the nuclear triad. He may now want to get a little more familiar with the triad that can bring down a president, because as of yesterday, we now have two of the three legs in place.

To put this in perspective, let’s look at the dynamics of what forced President Richard Nixon to resign in 1974. There were three separate but cooperative entities that were “out to get him,” a phrase that Nixon might have used. First, there was the ever-vigilant press. The morning of the Watergate break-in, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post was in court as the five alleged burglars were arraigned. Along with Carl Bernstein, Woodward knew that there was something fishy from the get-go because one of the suspected burglars had the name and phone number of a White House staffer in his possession. Woodward and Bernstein, with tremendous support of Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, followed lead after lead as the loose ends came together to point directly to President Nixon. We should not forget that there was also outstanding reporting from CBS News including Dan Rather, Lesley Stahl and Daniel Schorr.

But the media could not have done it alone. Much of the leads that they received came from direct information and leaks from the office of the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, and later Leon Jaworski. Additionally, leaked testimony from grand jury investigating all matters related to Watergate was essential. The office of the special prosecutor had the power to subpoena witnesses, to file charges and to plea-bargain. All of that was essential to getting to the truth.

Finally, there was the Select Senate Committee on Watergate, co-chaired by Sam Ervin (D-NC) and Howard Baker (R-TN). Information that was revealed by key witnesses such as John Dean and Alexander Butterfield led to the answer to Baker’s famous question, “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

The media, the office of the special prosecutor and the Select Committee each used its own sources and resources and when legal, they shared information with one another. Nixon was caught in the middle of a pincer movement coming at him from three sides. When the combined efforts lead to the release of White House tapes, most particularly the cover-up conversation on June 23, 1972, six days after the break-in, Nixon’s fate was doomed. The House of Representatives was moving ahead with impeachment proceedings, Nixon was the focus of grand jury proceedings, and the media was publishing the indisputable evidence. Nixon wisely chose to resign before being impeached and convicted.

With assistant Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein appointing independent counsel Robert Mueller to investigate any connection between the Trump presidential campaign / White House and Russia, we now have two legs of the triad filled. The media has done a remarkable job with special kudos to the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN.

What is missing is a select investigative committee of one or both houses of Congress. Republicans control both chambers and they are reluctant to launch a full-scale investigation of their Republican president. In the Watergate era, both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, so it was easier.

The Democrats already have a “star” in Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee. But so far, no Howard Baker has arisen among the Republicans. With the weak-kneed and highly partisan leadership of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, it will be difficult to get a powerful committee together to emulate the Senate Watergate Committee of forty-four years ago.

However, there are standing committees in both houses that are already investigating much of what has happened and continues to occur. There is an opportunity for a Republican to become a “star” like Howard Baker, but so far, none seem willing to step forward. But, from the perspective of Donald Trump, he is being “persecuted” from all sides. It’s time for Trump to not only learn about the nuclear triad, but also about the triad that may remove him from the presidency.

See special five-minute report on CNN about comparisons between Watergate and current situation.

The post Trump, it’s the triad again! appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When I woke up this morning, I was outraged to discover that $3,050 in Truman State University funds (taken from the non-optional “student activity fee” charged to all Truman students) was taken to hire one of the most prolific Islamophobes alive, Robert Spencer, to give a talk called “Exposed: The Truth About Radical Islam” despite his purported neo-Nazi ties and the fact that he has been banned from the United Kingdom for his radical agenda to defame Islam and spread hate and misinformation. This event is being funded by the University and hosted by the College Republicans and being held April 13th, 8:00pm in Violette Hall, Room 1000.

A quick google search of Robert Spencer reveals his “extremist profile” on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. They state that “As the director of the Jihad Watch blog and co-founder of Stop Islamization of America, Robert Spencer is one of America’s most prolific and vociferous anti-Muslim propagandists.” Continuing, they explain that Robert “insists, despite his lack of academic training in Islam, that the religion is inherently violent and that radical jihadists who commit acts of terror are simply following its dictates.” His writing was cited dozens of times in a manifesto written by the Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom as an extremist in July 2013” (Southern Poverty Law Center).

So, despite the fact that the United Kingdom has banned this man from entering their country because his views on Islam are incorrect and hateful, Truman State has not only invited, but is PAYING him to come our campus, using thousands of dollars in University funding. The FAC (Funds Allotment Council) has public records which prove that this funding was in fact, provided to the College Republican club to host this event. Those records can be found here: https://fac.truman.edu/slates/ under Spring 2017.

While outraged students have been writing letters to school administration and planning ways to stage nonviolent and peaceful protest at the event, which is scheduled for April 13th, 2017 at 8pm, online threats have recently surfaced advocating for the shooting, lobotomization, imprisonment and expulsion of students who disagree with Spencer or plan to protest. Attached below is an image of one such comment, however, it is just one of many. The rest can be seen on Robert Spencer’s personal website, here: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/04/truman-state-university-student-calls-for-violence-ahead-of-robert-spencer-lecture.

Many of these comments are also incredibly transphobic. Several Truman students are calling the event “tone-deaf” especially given the ongoing mental health crisis being experienced at Truman’s campus, with our current suicide rate 6.25x that of the national average at other Universities. A Truman student committed suicide just last week and with such a fragile and stressful campus environment at present, the last thing our University needs is additional stressors and events which incite violence, stress, and promote hate.

Furthermore, following Trump’s Muslim travel ban, University President Dr. Sue Thomas sent out an email ensuring that minority students would be protected and supported, yet by allowing and funding anti-Islamic speakers like Robert Spencer, they are doing precisely the opposite. Truman claims to promote an atmosphere in which diversity is respected and students of every creed, color, religion and culture can feel protected and safe. But their actions (and lack thereof) demonstrate otherwise.

While College Republicans and campus leadership (including University President Dr. Sue Thomas) argue that Spencer’s talk on campus falls under free speech, student Breanna Rigger stated in a public Facebook status,

“Look, it’s unethical to give fascists a platform. It’s not intolerant or hypocritical to deny them speech on campus. These people manipulate others with fear to support horrible policies and discrimination towards others. This fear can lead to violence towards targeted groups. If you use your first amendment rights to spread fears, lies, and violence then you shouldn’t have a platform.”

Furthermore, Robert’s rhetoric and platform has been characterized as “hate-speech” in the past which many feel should not fall under the definition of “free speech.” Furthermore, such speech is not appropriate on a campus that has falsely promised to stand up for minority students and help them feel safe and protected.

As a student who is personally concerned, I have reported the shooting threats to the proper authorities and expressed my concerns regarding the inappropriate nature of spending student activity fee money on hate speech, yet Truman State refuses to take action, telling students that this will promote “academic discourse.”

If the event is not canceled despite violent threats towards peaceful protesters and students who disagree with Spencer’s extremist, bigoted stance, there will be nonviolent protests staged by students who are standing in solidarity with our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters.

By continuing to host this event, despite an outpouring of outrage from the student body, Truman State is alienating and actively oppressing their Muslim student body. I would urge any Truman alumni to immediately call Truman and ask to be taken off donor lists and any high schoolers considering attending Truman State to keep the actions of the University at this time in mind.

The post Tension mounts with Islamophobic speaker scheduled at Truman State appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We’ve all heard that it’s better to deal with the devil you know rather than the one you don’t. In the United States, we have a system in which the nine individuals set policy for one of the three branches of government and they don’t have to tell us a damn thing about themselves when applying for the job.

Imagine any other job interview in which you didn’t have to answer the questions thrown your way. What if you could respond to a possible employer with words to the effect of “I don’t want to answer your hypothetical question about what I would do in that situation because I might actually be called upon to answer it when I’m on the job.”

This is the way that the Senate Judiciary Committee has operated with Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first nominee for the United States Supreme Court. But this is not a Trumpian – Republican-controlled Senate problem. This is a structural and procedural issue in governance that has existed through most of our history.

The mythology of our judicial system is that the bench is populated with judges who bring no pre-conceived notions to their jobs. Year after year, generation after generation, members of the elite Senate Judiciary Committee has continued to perpetuate this myth.

It’s a charade. Senators may ask Supreme Court nominees what their views are on Roe v Wade, or on affirmative action, or executive privilege, or virtually anything else of importance that might come before the Court. But the history of responses, and now the expectations of responses, is that the nominees are going to stonewall the questions. We learn nothing.

CNN reports:

Gorsuch declined to explain his legal views or offer an assessment of past Supreme Court cases. He said he decides disputes based only on the facts and the law. “There’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge,” he asserted. “We just have judges in this country.”

Gorsuch’s assertion that there are no Republican or Democratic judges is laughable when we look at perhaps the most important decision of modern times, Bush v Gore. It was a straight party-line vote, with Bush getting the votes of all five justices appointed by Republican presidents and Gore getting the votes from the four justices appointed by Democrats.

The Members of the Supreme Court tell us how it’s all about the law, not about the people who appear before the court. How can you possibly separate the two, especially when so many laws are poorly crafted, nefariously intended, and the brainchilds of legislators who shame the idea of the democracy that our founding fathers created?

Let’s be for real. The situations that come before the Supreme Court are tricky and they deserve the best kind of deliberation possible. Yes, the justices must take into consideration the laws and historical precedent, but equally important are the particular people involved in the case, and what the expected outcomes of their decision would be in contemporary society. The Justices need to apply a balance of reason and empathy to every case before them.

This is why Supreme Court nominees must not be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee when they don’t answer questions such as what their views are on abortion, euthanasia, affirmative action, the powers of the presidency, and more. Since the justices are nominated by partisan presidents, we should come to expect that the nominees will hold partisan views. That’s okay. What’s not okay is for us to not know how far to the left or right their views happen to be.

Neil Gorsuch might be the best we can get from Donald Trump. But senators are being asked to vote for him largely sight unseen. Democrats don’t have to oppose him because of the injustice done to Merrick Garland or because we’re about to learn more regarding Trump and Russia. Democrats have the opportunity to set a new standard for approval, one that will apply to their nominees as well. What better time than now to cut the BS and allow Senators and the American people alike to be informed voters. Make Gorsuch sit until he answers the questions.

The post Approve Gorsuch – contingent on him answering the questions appeared first on Occasional Planet.