"Toobin said in a statement to Motherboard: 'I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers. I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video".... 'Jeff Toobin has asked for some time off while he deals with a personal issue, which we have granted,' CNN said in a statement."
Vice reports, referring to this as the "Zoom Dick Incident."
Who believes he thought he was off camera? Even if he thought he had "muted the Zoom video," how could he not make absolutely sure before bringing his penis out and why would that be something he'd do during a Zoom call anyway?!
ADDED: The headline at The Washington Post is "The New Yorker suspends writer Jeffrey Toobin after accidental Zoom exposure," and the highest rated comment is: "How do you know it was 'accidental'? Wouldn't more neutral language be to just say he exposed himself and quote him as saying it was inadvertent? Isn't it for the investigation to determine whether it was an 'accident' or not?"
AND: There's an update — a hell of an update — at Vice now: "This piece has been updated with more detail about the call and the headline has been updated to reflect that Toobin was masturbating."
Two people who were on the call told Motherboard separately that the call was an election simulation featuring many of the New Yorker's biggest stars: Jane Mayer was playing establishment Republicans; Evan Osnos was Joe Biden, Jelani Cobb was establishment Democrats, Masha Gessen played Donald Trump, Andrew Marantz was the far right, Sue Halpern was left wing democrats, Dexter Filkins was the military, and Jeffrey Toobin playing the courts. There were also a handful of other producers on the call from the New Yorker and WNYC.
Both people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely, noted that it was unclear how much each individual person on the call saw, but both of the people we spoke to said that they saw Toobin jerking off.... The sources said that when the groups returned from their break out rooms, Toobin lowered the camera. The people on the call said they could see Toobin touching his penis. Toobin then left the call. Moments later, he called back in, seemingly unaware of what his colleagues had been able to see, and the simulation continued....
And the stimulation did not continue (one presumes).
This may be the stupidest thing I have seen in 17 years of blogging.
PLUS: "seemingly unaware" is funny. I'm picturing: He realizes he's on camera, leaves the call, hoping it might work to call back and act like nothing happened. Oh, hello...
ALSO: Heh...
Crazy story, can't believe they had Jane Mayer as their stand-in for Republicans. https://t.co/b8xCNt41s6
“America is an idea, not a race,” the South Carolina Republican said, adding that diversity is a strength and not a weakness.... “I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals.”
Graham deserves credit for rebuking the president... America isn’t a race. But it’s not an idea either. It is, rather, a nation. It is a nation whose identity is more bound up with political ideals than most nations: ideals such as equality before the law, self-government and freedom of religion. But those ideals are part of a national culture that is not reducible to them.
"Nondenial," like "nonapology," is clearly understood to be different from "undenial" (and "unapology"). "Undenial" would seem to be taking back a denial, and "unapology" would seem to be taking back an apology. A "nondenial" is something you say that seems to be in the place of a true denial, but that might work as a denial for people who don't look closely. It's denying without lying, when you really did do it. Similarly, a "nonapology" — such as "I'm sorry that anyone was offended" — is a way to apologize without providing what most of us think of as necessary elements to an apology, conceding that you did what other people are offended by and that you, like them, know it was wrong.
Ponnuru's point is:
If he admits it, especially in this moment of righteous anger against male sexual entitlement, pressure to resign will mount.... If he denies the accusations, on the other hand, he will be at least implicitly attacking his accusers....
Franken keeps responding by talking about feelings: his feelings, the women’s feelings, and his feelings about their feelings... Listen, without believing, or disbelieving. Without, that is, taking their claims seriously. It is a rhetorical strategy as clever as it is shameless. At the moment it appears to be working.
I just want to say I am going to take time to reflect on this, to educate myself daily, and to strive towards a more enlightened path. I want to ensure that all voices around me are heard, and that everyone is treated respectfully and empathetically. More than anything, I want to create an environment that is a better, safer and fairer place.
I had to Google to see which of the many nonapolgizers Meade had patterned that on, and I found out and said:
My link goes to a November 13th piece in Vanity Fair, "Louis C.K.’s Former Manager Dave Becky Apologizes for 'Perceived Cover-Up'/Becky issued a mea culpa for chastising the two female comedians who first came forward about Louis C.K.’s predatory behavior." From that article:
Becky, who dropped C.K. as a client shortly after the comedian confirmed the allegations, says that he initially thought Wolov and Goodman were spreading a rumor about the two of them having a consensual sexual encounter with C.K., who was then a married man.
“Albeit enormously embarrassing, in no way did I interpret the interaction as threatening or nonconsensual,” he wrote. “I misperceived the casual way the story was portrayed to me—instead I should have recognized that it must have been a mask for their unease and discomfort in the face of his detestable behavior.”
ADDED: Becky takes the blame for what he portrays as the deceitfulness of the women. They wore "a mask" and seemed "casual," and he took their outward presentation to convey their inner feelings and concluded they'd had "a consensual sexual encounter with C.K." Now, Becky is saying he was wrong not to realize that women wear "a mask." He should have "recognized" the mask and seen through it to "their unease and discomfort in the face of his detestable behavior."
So was it even possible for anyone to consent to watching Louis C.K. masturbate? Was the behavior objectively detestable, and if a woman came forward to say, I thought it was hilarious and raw and that's what I love about Louis, and I was touched to be included in his intimate, revelatory moment, that woman would be wrong?
Or is it that the woman is never wrong, and the man is going to need ever more time to reflect on this and educate himself daily and ensure that the voices around him are heard. This hypothesized woman must be treated respectfully and empathetically. As you create an environment that is a better, safer and fairer place, you'd better be sure you don't assume she's wearing a mask for her unease and discomfort. You'd be descending into the sexist stereotype of women as full of guile and never telling a straight story.
And since we're talking about a "mask for their unease and discomfort," why don't I take you into the endless labyrinth of language and ask you whether it might perhaps be nonease and noncomfort, or at least unease and uncomfort... or is it disease and discomfort...? And before you answer, you'd better remember that I am a woman, and you'd better take time to reflect and educate yourself. Ask whether you are striving towards a more enlightened path... or I've got to say "striving" is too masculine and to treat me respectfully and empathetically, you need to meander and stop now and then to sniff the flowers as you traipse toward a more enlightened path. Be creative! Create an environment that is a better, safer and fairer place.
ANTHONY SALVANTO, CBS NEWS ELECTIONS & SURVEYS DIRECTOR: [The people who were conditional supporters of Trump have] an increasing feeling of nervousness that they say that they feel this is back to the idea that -- that this relates -- this investigation relates to the president's judgement and temperament…. But that said, everyone that we re-interviewed [was] increasingly nervous, saying that's the word they consistently use, that they're getting more and more nervous about what the administration is doing… [F]olks who were on the fence are sort of coming over to that firmer opposition, in part because of... that nervousness....
MOLLY BALL, "THE ATLANTIC": … I spent most of my week talking to Republicans on Capitol hill and their staff and people around the Congress and… they're very nervous when -- when Anthony was talking about the -- the nervous Trump curious voters out there in the country, that was very much the vibe I got from Capitol Hill Republicans. They really still want him to be something that he hasn't been so far. They are incredibly nervous by all of these things happening….
RAMESH PONNURU, "THE NATIONAL REVIEW": [O]ne of the things that's happening with congressional Republicans is, look, they've got this feeling in the pit of their stomach. They wish the president would act in different ways, but they are keenly aware that the vast majority of Republican voters across the country, including the voters in their districts, still supports this president. And you will see a pattern where the House Republicans who are in swing seats are more nervous. The senators who are in blue or purple states are more nervous. But the bulk of Republicans don't fit into either of those categories and they're nervous but they're still going to be supporting this president....
JOHN DICKERSON, HOST: [T]hey're nervous and what about the agenda? Are they nervous about that too?… They're nervous about an unpredictable president, but what about the future in terms of getting stuff done?
"... and not just in operational terms. If you think about what President Trump said in discussing these strikes, he said, America has to stand for justice. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said earlier in the week that we needed to act on behalf of the international community. That fits squarely in a liberal internationalist and neoconservative foreign policy establishment that Trump seemed to reject root and branch during the campaign. If you take that rhetoric of this week seriously, then the sort of things Senator McCain is saying, follow from it. If we really are going to stand for justice, we need to have a broader intervention in Syria. Is Trump willing to take his own words to their logical conclusion that way? I’m not sure that he should, but -- and I’m not sure that he will."
Said Ramesh Ponnuru on "Face the Nation" today when he was invited to explain what Trump's strike in Syria tells us about whether he's still an America-first nationalist, as he seemed to be during his campaign, or had gone neoconservative.
It seems to me Trump has said all along that he wants to keep everyone guessing.
Many news outlets accused Trump of misrepresenting Clinton’s position by bringing up the possibility of killing “the baby on the ninth month on the final day.” This does not happen, said the fact-checkers. But go back and read the transcript: What Trump said (in two iterations) was that “if you go with what Hillary is saying in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.” That is the logic of her position on late-term abortion, which is that an abortionist should be free to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy if there is a health reason for it, including a reason of emotional health. Some journalists were touting this criticism of Trump’s comments and defense of Clinton’s position, which ends up saying that abortions at the very end of pregnancy never happen but should still be legal because of the principle of the thing. Trump grasps that logic and says he objects to it. “Now you can say that that’s okay and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me.” You can agree with Trump or you can agree with Clinton, but you can’t truthfully say that there’s no difference between their stated positions.
The link at "this criticism" goes to a blog post by Dr. Jen Gunter, "Donald Trump confuses birth with abortion and no, there are no ninth month abortions." I'm reading that now. She quotes Trump's "I think it’s terrible if you go with what Hillary is saying in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby." Her first objection is is: "we don’t rip anything in OB/GYN." They use sharp instruments and make neat cuts.
Perhaps we can forgive Donald Trump for not knowing this as it is hard to believe that a man who bragged that he doesn’t change diapers and said he wouldn’t have had a baby if his wife had wanted him to actually physically participate in its care would have attended the birth of his own children. It’s certainly not for the faint of heart as there is, after all, lots of blood coming out the “wherever.”
That's amusingly written — if you're in the mood to be amused on this subject — but it's willfully ignoring Trump's motivation to use inflammatory rhetoric. He's not purporting to accurately describe a medical procedure but to dramatize the perspective of the baby who is getting killed. To be fair, it probably feels better to get killed with sharp instruments than to be ripped apart. And yet "partial-birth" abortion is illegal under federal law and the Supreme Court upheld that ban precisely because there is another method of late-term abortion, and that method — if I may believe Justice Kennedy's opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart— does involve ripping:
The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed....
That grabbing and ripping is the the method that remained legal after the "partial-birth" abortion ban. (Gunter eventually describes this procedure: "The fetus is essentially taken apart with a D and E to fit through the dilated cervix." But, she says, this is not "ripping," but "simply surgical technique.")
Gunter says:
Trump’s statement, as incorrect as it may be, supports the fallacy of the due-date abortion.
Supports the fallacy. In other words, he didn't say doctors were agreeing to perform abortions as late as the due date, but he caused people to picture this nonexistent event. His words, as Ponnuru observes, are about Hillary's philosophical principles: Hillary sees no role for the law to do anything in the hypothetical situation. Hillary, for her part, doesn't defend herself by saying we don't need laws about things that are not happening in the real world. She rests on the belief in the woman's autonomy. (As I would put it: The woman has sovereignty over the interior of her own body and the only legitimate law is her law.)
Back to Dr. Gunter:
Talking about abortion from a medical perspective is challenging when you are not a health care provider. Even someone familiar with the laws can get confused. For example, Mrs. Clinton made an error speaking about late-term abortion when she said it was a health of the mother issue. Typically it is not (it’s almost always fetal anomalies).... I don’t know where Mrs. Clinton got this “bad news at the end” of the pregnancy being about maternal health.... [N]o one is performing health of the mother abortions at 38 or 39 weeks we just do deliveries. It’s called obstetrics.
Was Clinton confused? It might be a political choice not to talk about destroying a defective child.
Gunter proceeds to school us in birth defects, which, she says, are the reason for 80% of abortions that take place after 21 weeks. The defects, she says, "could range from Down syndrome to anomalies incompatible with life." Gunter shifts quickly to abortions that take place after 24 weeks, considered the point of viability, after which the woman no longer has a constitutional right to have an abortion for any reason. She writes:
After 24 weeks birth defects that lead to abortion are very severe and typically considered incompatible with life.
Typically. What's hidden behind that word? Are we still destroying children with disabilities that do not mean that they'll die before birth or soon after? After 24 weeks, Gunter tells us, the doctor can either induce labor (after killing the fetus with an injection so that the "partial-birth" approach to removing the fetus won't violate the federal law) or use the ripping (it's not ripping!) method described above (which is called "dilation and extraction").
I’ve never heard of a dilation and extraction for any other reason than severe birth defects and often it is for a woman who has had two or three c-sections for whom inducing labor might pose other health hazards, like uterine rupture. Are we to force women to have c-sections for a pregnancy that is not compatible with life?
A good question. I've had 2 c-sections myself, and the second one was recommended because, after the first one, there was a danger of uterine rupture. But what I don't understand here is why wouldn't waiting for a natural birth be the alternative to a c-section? It is natural birth, not abortion, that is parallel to a c-section, since it is intended to keep the baby alive. Gunter doesn't even seem to notice the ethical question why would we accept the deliberate destruction of the fetus at this point? Is it euthanasia (because the fetus is suffering)? Is it for the mental peace of the woman once she knows that this pregnancy is not going to result in a healthy baby? Does it matter whether the disability is fatal? Remember Gunter wrote of birth defects that are "typically considered incompatible with life." So some but not all of these babies would, if not actively killed, go on to die a natural death.
Gunter tells us that some women "might think they can make it to term and then at 34 weeks cave and ask to be delivered because they just can’t bear one more person asking them about their baby":
Do they just smile and walk away or say, “Well, actually, my baby has no brain and will die at birth?” Some women go to term and others can’t. To judge these women for requesting an early delivery is cruel on so many levels. I wrote more about it here if you are interested. Regardless, terminations for birth defects isn’t ripping “the baby out of the womb in the ninth month.” At 38 or 39 weeks it’s always an induction and is simply called a delivery.
Notice the language glitch: It's "isn't ripping" because it's "called a delivery." Of course, the official terminology avoids the ugly word "ripping." But calling it "delivery" aligns with calling it "partial-birth," which is what horrified people more than the dilation and extraction method and produced the federal law that the Supreme Court upheld in Carhart. Gunter has talked about both methods, above, but she switched to speaking only of the delivery method (with isn't illegal when the body is already dead because of the injection). But Gunter has shifted to talking about abortions after 38 or 39 weeks and now she's telling us there is no longer a choice between the 2 methods. So in that sense, there is no "ripping."
But Trump's use of "ripping" wasn't technical. It was dramatic rhetoric expressing how horrible it is to deliberately kill a human being who is this far along in development. Dr. Gunter is interested in presenting medical practitioners as expert and ethical, but she's not very attuned to the way clinical terminology can sound heartless or deceptive. I'm not convinced by her effort to skewer Trump on his use of the word "rip." Her better argument has to do with how unlikely it is that any baby is killed on the last day of a full term pregnancy, but Ponnuru deals with that argument well: Trump is testing Clinton's principle. Nevertheless, Trump is making people think about the reality, not merely a hypothetical. He's distracting us if he's alarming us about things that aren't happening. I'd like to see the candidates concentrate on the matters that genuinely will occupy their attention if they get into office.
Clinton was also confused or dishonest, as Gunter explains. I suspect that she doesn't want to delve into the ethical questions surrounding the disabled, especially if we're talking about anomalies that begin with Down syndrome.
I suspect that Hillary Clinton feels most comfortable and most politically effective talking about the feelings of women and seeming to empathize with their struggles, referenced abstractly, before scrambling to the high ground of individual autonomy.
Obama’s plan makes tax credits available to people who get health insurance from exchanges set up by state governments. If states don’t establish those exchanges, the federal government will do so for them. The federal exchanges, however, don’t come with tax credits: The law authorizes credits only for people who get insurance from state-established exchanges.
The idea seems to have been to get the states to set up the exchanges, but many — opposed to health care reform — have declined, despite the incentive. So the federal government will have to provide the exchanges, but without the tax credits, people won't be able to afford to buy the insurance.
States have another incentive to refrain from setting up exchanges under the health-care law: It protects companies and individuals in the state from tax increases. The law introduces penalties of as much as $3,000 per employee for firms that don’t provide insurance -- but only if an employee is getting coverage with the help of a tax credit. No state exchanges means no tax credits and thus no employer penalties. The law also notoriously penalizes many people for not buying insurance. In some cases, being eligible for a tax credit and still not buying insurance subjects you to the penalty. So, again, no state exchange means no tax credit and thus fewer people hit by the penalty.
Ponnuru's analysis meets an obstacle: "In May, the Internal Revenue Service decided it would issue tax credits to people who get insurance from exchanges established by the federal government." But his response to that is that these companies and individuals who are set to avoid the penalty will now get stuck with it, so they will have legal claims to challenge the IRS policy. The statute clearly says no tax credits, and there's an expensive consequence for them if the IRS deems the credits into existence.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Mga Post
