Bertrand Guay/Getty Images

Charlie Hebdo’s racist editorial proves it should stick to cartoons.

The French satirical magazine, which was the target of a horrific terrorist attack in 2015 that left twelve dead, has long been the center of controversy. In recent years, in particular, it has been accused of stirring Islamophobia. Until now, it’s been possible for the the magazine’s defenders, including myself, to argue that the racism displayed in some of its cartoons reflected a failed aesthetic strategy rather than an ideology of bigotry

This defense has become harder to make after the publication of a new editorial by Charlie Hebdo contributor Laurent Sourisseau, which blames Muslims as a whole for the Brussels attack. Titled “How Did We End Up Here?”, the editorial surveys a few manifestations of perfectly lawful European Muslims: the philosopher Tariq Ramadan, a hypothetical woman on the street wearing a veil, and a hypothetical pious baker who refuses to serve ham.

The editorial concludes that all of these people made some “contribution” to the Brussels attack: 

And yet, none of what is about to happen in the airport or metro of Brussels can really happen without everyone’s contribution. Because the incidence of all of it is informed by some version of the same dread or fear. The fear of contradiction or objection. The aversion to causing controversy. The dread of being treated as an Islamophobe or being called racist.

While earlier Charlie Hebdo cartoons had an element of ambiguity about them, this editorial reveals the magazine’s worldview with a shocking bluntness: Muslims, simply by practicing their faith, are to be regarded as enemies not just of French secularism, but also collaborators in terrorism. It turns out that Charlie Hebdo is exactly what its critics have accused it of being: a bigoted publication.  

February 22, 2017

Saul Loeb/Getty Images

The bar for a sitting president has reached a new low.

President Trump’s rather perfunctory statement yesterday on the new wave of anti-Semitic attacks is earning him some qualified praise in the media.

From today’s Politico Playbook:

WELL, YESTERDAY didn’t go too badly. President Donald Trump went to the African-American History museum, where he disavowed racism and spoke out against a new wave of anti-Semitism. He didn’t tweet his thoughts until 6:23 p.m., when he said the “so-called angry crowds” at town halls around the country were “planned out by liberal activists.” There were no massive blowups to speak of. Sean Spicer seemed spry during his press briefing, too.

Here’s a sample of some headlines:

Is this the low bar we’ve reached? After the administration All-Lives-Matter’ed the Holocaust, Trump condemning anti-Semitism in a monotone voice counts as a comparatively good day. (The Times, to its credit, contextualized the remark by declaring it a “first.”) As for any praise of Sean Spicer being “spry,” this was the same day in which he pushed back against the Anne Frank Center: “I wish that they had praised the president for his leadership in this area.”

These rowdy town halls are really getting under Donald Trump’s skin.

The president last night embraced the GOP’s message for voters who are angry about the party’s plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act: The popular outrage is artificial.

Mitch McConnell similarly brushed off the protesters by declaring they “did not like the results of the election,” and that “winners make policy and the losers go home.” This was an attitude starkly absent from McConnell’s approach in the Obama years, when he very early on spearheaded a strategy of mass GOP opposition.

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley—who infamously said in 2009 that health care reform would have government “decide when to pull the plug on grandma”—saw that kind of talk come right back around. As a constituent told him: “With all due respect, sir, you’re the man that talked about the death panel. We’re gonna create one big death panel in this country—the people who can’t afford to get insurance.”

Elsewhere in Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst faced a hostile crowd, which booed loudly when she left the forum:

And Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA), who became a living symbol of Tea Party uprisings when he defeated former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Republican primary back in 2014, got his own taste of the new wave of liberal political resistance:

February 21, 2017

Milo Yiannopoulos’s pedophilia scandal has given rise to this weird new parlor game!

Concerned that his defense of adults who have sexual relationships with 13-year-old children might detract from his employer’s core mission of publishing racist agitprop, Milo resigned from Breitbart on Tuesday, just 24 hours after CPAC dumped him as a keynote speaker and Simon & Schuster canceled publication of his book.

His long overdue ejection from polite society has people wondering whether he will eventually repent (or simply disappear for a long time) ahead of a second act in public life.

Here are the best stabs at what that second act might look like.

1. Porn

2. Dancing with the Stars

3. President and CEO of Media Matters for America.

None of these outcomes would be defensible on their own terms, but might be worth it for humankind considering the plausible alternative where he becomes Donald Trump’s third or fourth national security adviser.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

A University of Chicago professor has gone off on Milo Yiannopoulis’s opponents, calling them “spineless c*nts.”

In a blog post, Associate Professor of Medieval History Rachel Fulton Brown frames Yiannopoulis as a messenger of truth preaching to a populace sick of lies. In this passage, she cites the orthodox “lies” that he challenges:

That women don’t need men. That all men are potential rapists. That women should aspire to something other than motherhood or they are wasting their lives. That women should like casual sex with strangers, hooking up just for the sake of the orgasm. That the children will be fine if their parents divorce. That abortion is morally good.

Elsewhere, Brown describes Yiannopolis’s message and its supposed impact:

“Gender roles work,” [Yiannopoulis] told them. “Feminism is cancer. Abortion is murder.” And the young women and men cheered for him, because they loved him for telling the truth.

Yiannopoulis has been accused of a form of “gay minstrelsy” in which he performs parts of stereotypical gayness in such a way that he shores up the beliefs of the hard American right. In the post, Brown appears to applaud him for just these traits:

The young man was an unexpected messenger. He talked all the time about having sex with other men. About wanting to be penetrated by black dicks. About how good he was at giving head. But he told the young women they were right to want babies and the young men they were right to want wives.

Professor Jeffrey Jerome Cohen of George Washington University tweeted a screengrab from Brown’s Facebook page earlier today, in which she compares Yiannopoulis’s cancelled book contract to the crucifixion of Jesus:

As Cohen and other medievalists (including myself) have observed, strong veins of conservatism run through the field. Despite the efforts of scholars like Suzanne Conklin Akbari and Geraldine Heng, contemporary white supremacists and gender traditionalists sometimes look to an imagined version of the Middle Ages for a “purer” time, when (they imagine) sexual, racial, and theological identities were simpler.

The New Republic contacted the chair of the University of Chicago history faculty Emilio Kourí to ask whether Brown’s blog post, which can be reached through her faculty page, could be considered part of her body of scholarship. Kourí responded that Brown is “entitled to express her opinions and to publish them,” explaining that “blogs are not part of any performance or promotion reviews in the History Department.”

Indeed, blogs are “by and large not scholarship and are not regarded as such,” in Kourí’s view.

This view defines scholarship very narrowly: An increasing number of academics engage with the media outside peer review, and it is certainly arguable that a scholar’s broader presence in the culture informs their intellectual identity. Young academics are encouraged to build a visible online presence when they are seeking jobs. Brown is tenured so she can do whatever she wants. I cannot imagine a new PhD feeling entitled to use the language Professor Brown does at her site.

Exploiting the full freedom conferred upon her by tenure, Brown ended her blog post with in italicized line, reading, “Shame on all of you. You spineless cunts. The bullies are YOU.

Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images

Donald Trump is taking anti-vaxxers mainstream.

Trump’s ascension to the presidency after years of suggesting vaccinations are unsafe, as well as his associations with the likes of Andrew Wakefield and Robert Kennedy Jr., have helped to bring a truly dangerous conspiracy theory into real influence. And this ideology is spreading to the states, too.

The Washington Post reports on a growing movement of anti-vaxxers in Texas, and an increase in personal exemptions in recent years. Jackie Schlegel, executive director of Texans for Vaccine Choice, told the Post: “We have 30 champions in that statehouse. Last session, we had two.”

As The Hill reports today, a bipartisan group of senators and House members are circulating a “Dear Colleagues” letter on the importance of vaccination. And they lay out some of the actual consequences of modern denialism:

Yet, already this year, states and communities around the country have reported outbreaks of measles, mumps, and whooping cough. The reasons for each outbreak vary, but we know that there are increasing trends around the country that have led to lower vaccination rates in some communities, allowing outbreaks of infectious diseases to take hold with increasing frequency.

While anti-vaxxers exist on both the hippie left and the black-helicopter right, the key difference is that liberals have never put an anti-vaxxer into a position of power. Conservatives have now done it—and many children and other vulnerable people will have to pay a price for that.

Saul Loeb/Getty Images

Dear President Trump: condemning antisemitism shouldn’t be a Sister Souljah moment. Yours, Captain Obvious.

Trump and his administration have a curiously hard time treating discrimination against Jewish people as a significant matter of historical fact. So it was notable when on Tuesday—after Jewish Community Centers around the country had faced bomb threats for weeks, and a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis was vandalized—Trump finally condemned anti-Semitism, and managed to do so without referencing or exaggerating his electoral college victory margin.

But he still failed this most basic test of western democratic leadership.

“Anti-Semitism is horrible and it’s going to stop and it has to stop,” he told MSNBC, before issuing a better-prepared statement from the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. “This tour was a meaningful reminder of why we have to fight bigotry, intolerance and hatred in all of its very ugly forms,” Trump said. “The anti-Semitic threats targeting our Jewish community and community centers are horrible and are painful and a very sad reminder of the work that still must be done to root out hate and prejudice and evil.”

Absent from either condemnation was any suggestion that federal law enforcement resources will be used to investigate these crimes. And when he spoke extemporaneously about the issue, he did so with the same “I alone can fix it” monomania that defined his campaign. His authority and power are in his mind the key agents of every human drama, even ones whose main antagonists going back centuries have been authoritarians.

Obama’s environmental legacy is toast.

If President Donald Trump’s first month has taught us anything, it’s this: Take his promises seriously. Sure, he may have broken 34 campaign promises on his first day in office. But the biggest, most controversial ones—banning Muslims, increasing deportations, repealing Obamacare—are already becoming reality. And this week, he’s expected to tackle another hefty campaign pledge: tearing up Obama-era environmental regulations.

Trump took a few steps toward fulfilling that promise last week, repealing a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining waste into streams and confirming EPA antagonist Scott Pruitt to lead that very agency. Now, The Washington Post reports Trump is preparing executive orders intended to weaken two of Obama’s most aggressive and controversial environmental regulations: the Clean Power Plan, which was created to fight climate change, and the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which was created to protect 60 percent of America’s waterways from pollution. Trump will also lift a ban on mining coal on public lands.

The policies Trump is seeking to undo here are the centerpieces of former President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Along with the Paris Climate Agreement—which Trump also wants to do away with—the Clean Power Plan was the biggest thing a president has ever done to reduce carbon emissions. What’s more, it represented a national strategy to prioritize climate action and renewable energy development over the revitalization of the coal industry.

Unraveling Obama’s entire environmental legacy won’t be as simple as signing a few pieces of paper. Completely undoing and rewriting regulations takes time. There will be legal battles and protests. But Trump is sending a message that these are campaign promises he intends to keep. Environmentalists should believe him.

Hulton Archive / Getty Images

A newly discovered Walt Whitman novel shows why he became a poet instead.

Zachary Turpin is becoming an expert in uncovering previously unidentified Walt Whitman writings. The University of Houston graduate student had previously discovered that Whitman was the pseudonymous author of Manly Health and Training, a self-help guide penned by “Mose Velsor” in 1858. Now Turpin has proven that Whitman was the anonymous author Life and Adventures of Jack Engle, a short novel that was serialized in the pages The Sunday Dispatch, a New York newspaper, in 1852.

The New York Times describes the novel as a “quasi-Dickensian tale of an orphan’s adventures, it features a villainous lawyer, virtuous Quakers, glad-handing politicians, a sultry Spanish dancer and more than a few unlikely plot twists and jarring narrative shifts.” The novel is available online, and while it deserves reading from Whitman aficionados, few will think this is a recovered masterpiece on par with Leaves of Grass.

Whitman wasn’t proud of his works of fiction, and he opposed plans to reprint them. “My serious wish were to have all those crude and boyish pieces quietly dropp’d in oblivion,” he wrote in 1882. Still, as the Whitman-loving James Joyce once noted, the errors of a genius are “portals of discovery.” Life and Adventures of Jack Engle is a window into who Whitman was before he discovered his mature voice as a bard, a marker of his path to his vocation.

Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images

Here are the best panel titles from CPAC.

On Wednesday, CPAC’s annual conference will kick off, now sans one Milo Yiannapoulos. But judging by some of the panels, the conference will still be ... dangerous. (Sorry.)

A few of the panels are NSFW.

  • “50 Shades of Property ... Or at Least 3”
  • “Prosecutors Gone Wild”

Some of the panels will really make you [thinking face emoji].

  • “If Heaven Has a Gate, A Wall, and Extreme Vetting, Why Can’t America?”
  • “FREE stuff vs FREE-dom: Millenials’ Love Affair with Bernie Sanders?”
  • “Black Lives Matter, so why does the Left not support Law Enforcement?”
  • “Banning Poor People from Jobs”

CPAC panel or Miss Congeniality sequel?

  • “Armed and Fabulous: The New Normal”

And then others are just tackling the impossible.

  • “How Not to Be a Hack During the Trump Administration: An Inside Industry Perspective on Media Coverage in a New Political Paradigm”

See the whole agenda here.

Slaven Vlasic / Getty Images

Uber is bringing in Eric Holder after a former employee’s complaints about sexism went viral.

In a staff memo Uber CEO Travis Kalanick announced that, along with Arianna Huffington and new human resources head Liane Hornsey, former Attorney General Holder will investigate recent allegations of the company’s sexist culture.

Two days ago, a former Uber engineer, Susan J. Fowler, posted a harrowing blog post detailing her experiences at Uber. Fowler wrote about tensions with HR after reporting instances of blatant sexual harassment. She also described a chaotic, Game of Thrones-like atmosphere in which women were often stymied or passed over. At one point, an HR representative suggested that Fowler herself might be to blame for her struggles at the company.

The HR rep began the meeting by asking me if I had noticed that *I* was the common theme in all of the reports I had been making, and that if I had ever considered that I might be the problem. I pointed out that everything I had reported came with extensive documentation and I clearly wasn’t the instigator (or even a main character) in the majority of them—she countered by saying that there was absolutely no record in HR of any of the incidents I was claiming I had reported (which, of course, was a lie, and I reminded her I had email and chat records to prove it was a lie).

Immediately after the post went viral, Kalanick ordered HR to begin an urgent “independent” investigation of the claims. Bringing on Holder makes some sense. During the Obama administration, he led investigations of mishandled sexual assault allegations on college campuses and took part in the White House interagency task force on sexual assault response at universities.

Whether it will be enough to repair Uber’s tarnished image is another question. Just recently, the ride-sharing service faced a #deleteUber campaign after its drivers broke a strike of New York City taxi drivers protesting Donald Trump’s Muslim ban. Last week, David Plouffe, another Obama White House veteran, was fined $90,000 for illegally lobbying Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, also a former Obama administration member, on behalf of Uber.