Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Why are conservatives drawing the line at Milo Yiannopoulos?

Milo, a rising star of the alt-right, has been disinvited from CPAC and lost his book deal with Simon & Schuster after a clip emerged of him endorsing sex between adult men and young teenage boys. His fall has a lot of people wondering just how conservatism reached such a low point that racist misogynists like Milo have become celebrities.

Matt Lewis writes in The Daily Beast of seeing young activists walk right past the legendary Phyllis Schlafly at CPAC years ago, apparently unaware of who she was, in order to check out the latest shocking personalities. He concludes:

It’s a long way from speakers like William F. Buckley, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Phyllis Schlafly to Milo Yiannopoulos, but who thinks that just because he was disinvited in 2017, the trend will end here? Will next year’s invite include Julian Assange, Richard Spencer, Piers Morgan, and Alex Jones? They may not be conservative, but it’ll make for a hell of a show. The conservative movement is a very big tent—a tent that now houses the greatest freak show on earth.

The real question, though, is when the freak show actually began. The late Phyllis Schlafly, as a key example, built her own political movement as a right-wing conspiracy monger railing against “the secret kingmakers” of the old Eastern establishment. In terms of the modern gender politics in which Milo has excelled in creating controversy, she was notable for opposing the very idea of marital rape as a legal concept: “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.” These are comments that would not be out of place on Breitbart today—and yet Schlafly is held up as some kind of grande dame of conservatism.

Buckley, of course, was a longtime champion of white identity politics. He endorsed segregation and black disenfranchisement in 1957; called for police to suppress the Selma marchers in 1965; and staunchly championed Apartheid-era South Africa in 1985.

So what new line, exactly, are the likes of Milo, Spencer, or Jones actually crossing?

March 22, 2018

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

John Bolton, who has advocated strikes against Iran and North Korea, is Trump’s new national security advisor.

We’ve known for months that H.R. McMaster, who replaced Michael Flynn as Trump’s national security advisor in February of last year, was not long for this administration. He and the president simply didn’t get along, and by the fall of 2017 McMaster had even lost the support of his closest allies in the cabinet, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and (now former) Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The last straw may have been a public fight about whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election, but it’s possible that the author of a book about how important it is for advisers to tell the president hard truths never had a chance.

McMaster’s replacement will be Bolton, the mustachioed cable news fixture. Bolton has been particularly vocal about the need for military action against both Iran and North Korea, suggesting that the nuclear agreement the U.S. signed with the former and the upcoming talks with the latter may be doomed.

Previously, Bolton had been accused of manipulating intelligence during the lead-up to the Iraq War when he worked in George W. Bush’s State Department. Bolton later served for two years as the Bush administration’s ambassador to the United Nations. A neoconservative who believes the U.S. is being infiltrated by Islamists, Bolton can be expected to ratchet up tensions around the globe—and to create disturbances with allies and with members of both parties in Congress.

Bolton’s appointment is the culmination of Trump’s cabinet shakeup. The Trump Cabinet 1.0 was filled with compromise picks aimed at winning over the Republican establishment. The second cabinet is filled with loyalists and extremist hawks.

Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Footage of the fatal self-driving Uber crash raises new questions about legal liability.

Last weekend, a 49-year-old woman was struck and killed by an autonomous Uber—which had an operator in the driver’s seat—while she was walking a bike across a road in Tempe, Arizona. As I wrote on Tuesday, it wasn’t clear who would be responsible for her death under current Arizona law, given the state lax approach to regulating  the new technology.

Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir told newspapers earlier this week that an initial probe showed no fault on Uber’s part because the pedestrian came into the street “like a flash.” Dash-cam footage released earlier today, however, paints a slightly different picture of events.

The footage cuts off before showing the car striking the pedestrian, but captures the events immediately leading up to the crash. Early reports suggested the woman had entered the road when the Uber vehicle approached, but the car’s headlights show her already in the middle of the road less than two seconds before the collision. That may have been too slow for a human driver to respond at those speeds, but it raises questions about whether or not the self-driving car’s sensors detected her at all.

One expert told the Associated Press that the short clip “is strongly suggestive of multiple failures of Uber and its system, its automated system, and its safety driver.” Another expert told CNN that, even in the dark, the pedestrian “should have been in [Uber’s] system purview to pick up.”

The footage could prompt Arizona officials to adopt new regulations for future tests in the state. It’s impossible to know if any single rule would have changed this accident’s outcome, but other jurisdictions had taken steps to prevent similar collisions. Under Nevada law, for example, self-driving cars undergoing open-road tests must be accompanied by a pilot car driven by a human operator.

Sacramento Police

Body-cam footage shows Sacramento police killing an unarmed black man.

In an article I wrote about the harms of jaywalking laws last week, I highlighted the case of Nandi Cain Jr., a black man beaten last year by a Sacramento police officer who had stopped him for crossing a street outside of a crosswalk. An investigation by The Sacramento Bee later found that the city’s black residents are five times more likely to be cited for jaywalking than other members of the community.

Cain ultimately survived his encounter with the police. Stephon Clark, a 22-year-old black man also from Sacramento, did not. Two police officers fatally shot him in his backyard on Sunday night while investigating reports of a man breaking car windows. Police initially told the Bee that Clark approached the officers while holding an “object,” which at first they said was a “tool bar” they had mistaken for a gun. Police later said that Clark was carrying a cell phone.

Body-cam footage released on Wednesday night shows only a brief encounter between Clark and the officers before they opened fire on him. The two officers yelled “Gun! Gun! Gun!” and “Show me your hands!” before firing 20 shots. (There was no gun.) The nighttime footage doesn’t show what Clark was doing when police opened fire. Helicopter footage, which only captured part of the encounter, shows Clark staggering forward while the officers shoot at him before he collapses to the ground.

There’s a connection between overpolicing—excessive low-level enforcement—and the rates of police shootings. Research shows that police officers are disproportionately likely to use force against black Americans. Communities of color are also more likely to be overpoliced, raising the overall number of encounters between black Americans and police officers. The confluence of those two forces can have tragic results. For Nandi Cain Jr., it was a beating. For Stephon Clark, it was his life.

Jim Lo Scalzo - Pool/Getty Images

The 71-year-old president is tweeting about fighting 75-year-old Joe Biden.

It’s been a typically chaotic week at the White House, as Donald Trump and Congress have struggled to finalize an omnibus spending bill and aides have dealt with the fallout from the president’s decision to congratulate Vladimir Putin for winning a rigged election. Facing these issues and a budding trade war with China, the president spent the early morning tweeting about how he would beat Biden in a fight.

Trump appears to be responding to a remark from Biden, who told a crowd in Miami this week: “When a guy who ended up becoming our national leader said, ‘I can grab a woman anywhere and she likes it’ and then said, ‘I made a mistake. ... They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I said no. I said, ‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.’”

As far as trash talk goes, it’s pretty convoluted: Biden says he would have beaten up Trump if the two were in high school together and Trump made the kinds of comments that he made in the Access Hollywood tape. In the same speech, Biden also took aim at Trump’s “locker room talk” defense, saying, “I’ve been in a lot of locker rooms my whole life. I’m a pretty damn good athlete. Any guy who talked that way was usually the fattest, ugliest S.O.B. in the room.”

Biden, who may be preparing to run for president in 2020, has a certain knack, I guess, for sinking to Trump’s level. But setting aside the very sad thought of two septuagenarians trading blows behind a high school gym, Trump’s tweets are revealing. He will respond to every challenge, no matter how dumb.

March 21, 2018

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The Austin bombing suspect was a homeschooled Christian conservative.

Mark Anthony Conditt, a 23-year-old white male from Pflugerville, Texas, blew himself up early Wednesday morning after a confrontation with police. Authorities have since confirmed that Conditt is responsible for the serial bombings that have plagued Austin since March 2, though they have not ruled out the possibility that he had help. Police haven’t released his motive, but we do know more about his background.

BuzzFeed reports that Conditt grew up in an evangelical homeschooling family in Pflugerville, and that the family was reportedly active in their local homeschooling community:

An acquaintance of Conditt’s, who did not wish to be identified, told BuzzFeed News that she and Conditt were in the same homeschool community in Pflugerville between the ages of 8 and 13. She said that she had playdates with Conditt, who “seemed like a regular boy who liked to have fun and play games.”

“His family seemed very nice,” she said. “I was completely shocked when I heard—I had no idea it would be someone I knew.”

Cassia Schultz, 21, told BuzzFeed News that she ran in the same conservative survivalist circles in high school as Conditt.

Schultz said they were both involved in a group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT), a Bible study and outdoors group for homeschooled kids that included monthly activities such as archery, gun skills, and water balloon fights. Conditt and his younger sister would usually attend the activities along with 15 to 20 other kids, according to Schultz.

RIOT appears to take its name from “Righteous Invasion of Truth,” a 1995 album by Carman, a Christian rock artist. It’s not unusual for homeschooling families to create organizations like RIOT that provide socialization and skills-building opportunities for their children. A blog confirmed to belong to Conditt indicates that he held socially conservative views as of 2012. But without more information about his motive for the bombings, it’s impossible to know how Conditt’s background influenced his violence, if it was an influence at all.

Pete Marovich/Getty

The EPA’s Scott Pruitt spends $2,261 per week on travel.

Or, if you prefer, $323 per day. That’s the rough average based on The Washington Post’s Tuesday report detailing seven months of travel costs for the Environmental Protection Agency administrator. Based on documents requested by House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, the Post revealed that Pruitt spent nearly $68,000 in taxpayer dollars on first-class flights and hotels from August to February. The figure “includes stays at high-priced hotels in New York City and Paris,” and “does not include the travel expenditures of the personal security detail and aides who typically accompany him.”

This report adds to Pruitt’s first-class travel scandal. He and his entourage racked up at least $120,000 in travel bills in two weeks last summer. Pruitt has been taking these trips to meet with the polluting industries he’s in charge of regulating, the Post reports:

The records also underscore how often and to what lengths Pruitt traveled to speak to industry groups. He addressed the Texas Oil & Gas Association in October before heading to Nebraska for media stops. First-class flights: $3,610. He headed to New Orleans to speak to the Louisiana Chemical Association. First-class flight: $2,265. In November, he flew to Chicago to address the Society of Industrial Gasoline Marketers annual conference, at a cost of $1,172. The next day, he headed to Charleston, S.C., for the American Chemistry Council. That brief trip cost $3,155.

Federal regulations dictate that government employees be “prudent” about travel and book “the least expensive class of travel that meets their needs.” The EPA is one of the smallest federal agencies in terms of budget, and Pruitt has defended slashing it even further. It should follow that his travel costs would reflect that, but the EPA has insisted that Pruitt needs to fly first class because of security threats. In the face of criticism, Pruitt has said he’ll now fly coach whenever possible. “There’s a change coming,” he told CBS News earlier this month. But the damage to his credibility has already been done.

Donald Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin because of course he did.

On Tuesday, Trump called Putin to discuss the Russian leader’s victory in a highly suspect election that has been criticized for a number of irregularities, including ballot stuffing and coercion. Because of international criticism of the election, Trump’s national security advisers apparently wrote “DO NOT CONGRATULATE”—in all-caps—in Trump’s briefing materials. And what did Trump do? Congratulate Putin, naturally. In the call, Trump also deviated from his briefing book by failing to address the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain.

Trump’s decision to congratulate Putin against the advice of, well, pretty much everyone, captures many of the pathologies of this administration. The fact that the details of their conversation leaked almost immediately suggests that the White House is just as porous as it was last January, when Trump’s phone calls with world leaders landed in the press within minutes of the president hanging up the phone.

Then, there’s Trump’s clear disregard for his aides, many of whom are expending an enormous amount of energy just trying to get him to follow rudimentary norms. “DO NOT CONGRATULATE” shows that advising the president is a hopeless task.

But the biggest problem is that Trump has a penchant for legitimizing dictators and strongmen. His affection for Putin is obvious. Given the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, you’d think that, for political reasons, Trump would try to score some easy points by distancing himself from Putin. But that hasn’t happened. Instead, Trump has dragged his feet on imposing congressionally mandated sanctions and taken nearly every opportunity to cozy up to Putin.

March 20, 2018

Ethan Miller / Getty Images

Stormy Daniels’s polygraph test doesn’t reveal anything.

The porn actress, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, reportedly took a videotaped polygraph test in 2011 for Life & Style magazine when it investigated her allegations that she and Donald Trump had an affair early in his current marriage to Melania Trump, according to The Wall Street Journal. That tape is now part of her lawsuit against Trump over a $130,000 nondisclosure agreement she signed before th 2016 election.

According to the polygraph, Daniels was “truthful” in responding “yes” two questions: “Around July 2006, did you have vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump?” Around July 2006, did you have unprotected sex with Donald Trump?” The New York Daily News claimed this “shows Stormy Daniels was truthful about having ‘unprotected’ sex with Donald Trump.” NBC News reported, without skepticism, that the “Lie Detector Test Shows Stormy Daniels Truthful About Trump Affair.

But polygraph tests don’t really detect lies. As Vox’s Joseph Stromberg noted in 2014, “lie-detector” tests actually measure anxiety in the test-taker, which may (or may not) be related to whether that person is telling the truth. Accordingly, polygraph tests are inadmissible in American criminal trials and the Supreme Court determined in 1998 that there “is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable.” Both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Psychological Association have concluded that there is little scientific research supporting the tests’ accuracy.

Thanks to its frequent appearances in popular culture, however, the device’s mystique endures. It’s certainly possible that Daniels had an extramarital affair with Trump in 2006. (If nothing else, the videotaped test from 2011 proves her version of events predates Trump’s political career.) Giving credibility to a device that hasn’t earned it isn’t the way to prove her story, though.


Trump can be personally sued in state court while he’s president.

A New York Supreme Court judge has denied President Donald Trump’s request to dismiss or delay a defamation lawsuit brought by one of the multiple women who have accused him of sexual misconduct.

Summer Zervos, a former Apprentice contestant, sued Trump in January 2017 for repeatedly describing her as a liar on the campaign trail. She told the court that she suffered emotional damage and financial losses as a result of his attacks on her reputation. Trump and his lawyers argued in December that allowing the case to proceed in New York’s courts would violate the Constitution’s supremacy clause. Placing a sitting president at the mercy of a state court would raise serious federalism concerns, they warned.

Judge Jennifer Schecter rejected that argument on Tuesday. “No one is above the law,” she wrote in an 18-page opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court previously held in the 1997 case Clinton v. Jones that a sitting president isn’t immune from civil lawsuits in federal courts pertaining to his non-official conduct; Schecter ruled that the high court’s logic applied to cases in state courts as well.

Zervos, who came forward in October 2016, alleged that in 2007 Trump “grabbed my shoulder and began kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast” without her consent. In stump speeches, Trump described the allegations made by Zervos and others as “100 percent fabricated and made up charges” and accused the women of seeking fame or acting at the behest of the Clinton campaign.

YouTube/Katrina Flemming

Jordan Peterson joins the club of macho writers who have thrown a fit over a bad review.

The New York Review of Books, which is famous for drubbing high-profile authors, was particularly harsh on Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson in a review published online on Monday. Surveying 12 Rules For Life, Peterson’s new book, critic Pankaj Mishra warned that the self-help guru “may seem the latest in a long line of eggheads pretentiously but harmlessly romancing the noble savage,” but that he draws on a tradition of writers like Carl Jung who were prone to—as the headline put it—“fascist mysticism.” Peterson, who claims to offer an example of mature masculinity that can help troubled young men, responded to the review with a fantasy of violence:

Since Peterson loves to categorize the world into Jungian archetypes (the devouring mother, the dragon-slaying hero), it’s worth noting that this tweet fits an age-old pattern: the hyper-masculine writer who is unhinged by critical words.

In 1933, Max Eastman wrote a scathing review in The New Republic of Ernest Hemingway’s Death in the Afternoon, accusing the bullfight-loving author of “wearing false hair on his chest.” Four years later, the two met in the New York offices of their shared publisher, Scribner. “What do you mean accusing me of impotence?” Hemingway asked, before trying to beat up Eastman. The two men had to be separated by editorial staff. The same year, Hemingway assaulted the poet Wallace Stevens, twenty years his senior, for saying that Hemingway was “not a man.”

In 1971, Gore Vidal wrote a scathing essay on Norman Mailer for The New York Review of Books. “The Patriarchalists have been conditioned to think of women as, at best, breeders of sons, at worst, objects to be poked, humiliated and killed,” Vidal wrote. “There has been from Henry Miller to Norman Mailer to Charles Manson a logical progression.” Enraged, Mailer slammed his head into Vidal’s face in the dressing room of The Dick Cavett Show. Five years later, Mailer was still looking for revenge. At a dinner party, he threw a drink at Vidal before tackling him to the ground. “Once again, words fail Norman Mailer,” Vidal quipped, while still on the floor.

In 2000, the critic Dale Peck went after Stanley Crouch in The New Republic, writing that Crouch’s novel Don’t the Moon Look Lonesome “is a terrible novel, badly conceived, badly executed, and put forward in bad faith; reviewing it is like shooting fish in a barrel.” In 2004, still stinging from the review, Crouch confronted Peck at Tartine, a Manhattan restaurant, and slapped him.