Blogs

Caitlyn Jenner Just Delivered this Kickass Speech About Acceptance

| Thu Jul. 16, 2015 10:11 AM EDT

Caitlyn Jenner received the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at last night's ESPY's in Los Angeles, and used the opportunity to deliver a powerful speech urging fellow athletes and celebrities to understand the immense challenges trans people, especially teenagers, face everyday.

"It's not just about one person," Jenner said. "It's about thousands of people. It's not just about me, it's about all of us accepting one another. We're all different. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. And while it may not easy to get past the things you don't always understand, I want to prove that it is absolutely possible if we only do it together."

The award, presented by ESPN, recognizes individuals who "transcend sports," and is named after the late African-American tennis champion Arthur Ashe, who was known for fighting discrimination in the sport and raising public awareness about AIDS.

Looking ahead, the former Olympian said she would use her fame to push for transgender rights. Jenner mentioned 17-year-old Mercedes Williamson and 15-year-old Sam Taub, both trans teenagers who killed themselves earlier this year, to illustrate the urgency of the challenges facing teens.

"They're getting bullied," Jenner said. "They're getting beaten up. They're getting murdered. And they're committing suicide."

She concluded her speech with a message for her critics and those questioning the motives behind her public transition.

"If you want to call me names, make jokes, doubt my intentions, go ahead because the reality is I can take it," she said. "But for the thousands of kids out there coming to terms with being true to who they are, they shouldn’t have to take it. So for the people out there wondering what this is all about, whether its about courage or controversy or publicity, it's about what happens from here."

Jenner's transition made national headlines after she sat down with Diane Sawyer for an exclusive interview in April, in which she detailed her journey. She made her public debut with a June cover shoot for Vanity Fair.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Another Fatal Police Shooting Caught on Video—and More Questions About a Dispatcher's Role

| Thu Jul. 16, 2015 6:00 AM EDT

On Tuesday, a federal court ordered the release of video showing a June 2013 police shooting in Gardena, California (a city in southern Los Angeles County) in which an unarmed man, Ricardo Diaz-Zeferino, was killed and another unarmed man wounded. Previously, an internal review by the Gardena Police Department had concluded that the shooting was justified, and prosecutors in Gardena decided not to pursue criminal charges against the officers involved. In May, the City of Gardena agreed to pay $4.7 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed by the family of Diaz-Zeferino. But the newly released police dash cam footage, first posted by the Los Angeles Times, has raised questions about the events leading up to the fatal encounter—including the potential mishandling of a 911 call, an issue that has come up with other officer-involved killings.

According to the Los Angeles Times, there may have been a miscommunication by the police dispatcher:

The shooting occurred about 2:30 a.m. on June 2, 2013, after a bicycle was stolen from outside a CVS Pharmacy on Western Avenue. A police dispatcher mistakenly told officers that the crime was a robbery, which usually involves a theft using weapons or force, and officers headed to the area in search of two suspects.

Gardena police Sgt. Christopher Cuff saw two men riding bicycles east on Redondo Beach Boulevard. The men were friends of the bike theft victim and were searching for the missing bicycle. Mistaking them for the thieves, Cuff ordered the men to stop and put their hands up, according to a district attorney's memo written by a prosecutor who reviewed the police videos.

The Gardena killing is the latest in a string of high-profile police shootings captured on video, which have brought scrutiny on police tactics and procedures. With the Tamir Rice shooting in Cleveland, evidence emerged that the dispatcher who relayed the 911 call did not include potentially key details about the suspect, as Mother Jones previously reported. And according to a recent Washington Post data investigation of police shootings of mentally ill suspects, "officers are routinely dispatched with information that is incomplete or wrong."

Reddit's Former CEO Is Fed Up With the Site's Vindictive Trolls, But Not Its Anonymous Gun Dealers

| Thu Jul. 16, 2015 6:00 AM EDT
Custom AR-15s were produced for Redditors with the company's permission.

As turmoil continues at Reddit, former CEO Yishan Wong has been defending ousted leader Ellen Pao, in part with a schadenfreude-tinged post on Tuesday in which he informed the trolls populating the site's controversial hate-speech forums that their days are likely numbered. But when I questioned Wong on Tuesday night on Twitter about another controversial corner of Reddit—a de facto national market for assault weapons called r/GunsForSale that we exposed in a Mother Jones investigation last year—he was of a different mindset. As Wong had put it earlier on Tuesday, the new CEO now had "the moral authority to move ahead with the purge" of Reddit's darkest reaches. I wondered whether that might now also apply to a forum where anonymous gun dealers revel in the prospect of profiting from the mass murder of first graders and boast about selling firearms with zero regulatory scrutiny.

Reddit wasn't just allowing this gun market to thrive on its platform when we broke the story, it had also put its stamp on it—literally. The company had licensed its official alien logo for use on a bunch of custom AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, produced for and purchased by the site's users. Turns out Wong, who was CEO at the time, was himself a fan. In his response to me on Tuesday night he wrote in a series of tweets:

Ironically the sensationalist, leading questions you sent us when "researching" this muckraking piece sparked my interest in guns, which later led me to buy an AR-15. Wish I could get one of those reddit-stamped lower receivers though. Seriously, the hi-res pictures you included made those rifles look amazing. It was almost an advertisement for them.

A fresh look at r/GunsForSale this week revealed plenty of Bushmaster AR-15s and Glocks with high-capacity magazines—the weapons of choice for mass shooters in Charleston, Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, and so many other places—continue to be available from unidentifiable sellers eager to do deals in person. As in: Meet me in the parking lot, show me the money, no questions asked.

"I'd prefer to sell this face to face. I am in North Florida." From a July 14 gun listing on Reddit

There is now hot debate about a regulatory process that let the Charleston killer purchase his Glock after three days from a gun store, despite his disqualifying criminal record. But forget about how licensed retailers should operate: With sites like r/GunsForSale brimming with product, including in South Carolina, that whole conversation may really just be moot.

Rah Rah Rah! California Just Passed a Law Protecting Cheerleaders

| Wed Jul. 15, 2015 6:33 PM EDT
The Raiderettes and other pro cheerleaders now will make minimum wage in California.

Here's a reason to cheer: Today, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that guarantees better pay and working conditions for professional cheerleaders. Introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, the new law was inspired by a series of recent lawsuits in which NFL cheerleaders, including the Oakland Raiderettes, alleged that they received less than minimum wage, had to make unpaid appearances, and were fined for things like bringing the wrong pom-poms to practice. (For more on these degrading working conditions, check out our coverage of NFL cheerleaders and NHL ice girls—which Gonzalez says was "essential" for gaining support for her bill.)

Under the new law, professional sports teams will be required to pay cheerleaders minimum wage as well as provide paid overtime and workers' comp. It protects professional mascots as well, though most mascots, most of whom are male, are already granted basic employee rights. (According to Gonzalez, the average mascot makes about $30,000 per year.)

A former college cheerleader, Gonzalez describes the law as a "no-brainer" that addresses basic gaps in equality and pay. "We would never tolerate shortchanging of women workers at any other workplace," she said in a statement. "An NFL game should be no different​." Gonzalez hopes the law will inspire national change; earlier this year, New York lawmakers introduced a similar bill. 

GOP Candidates Pile On to Praise Planned Parenthood Sting

| Wed Jul. 15, 2015 6:17 PM EDT

Yesterday, an eight-minute undercover video alleged that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of contraceptive and abortion services, profits off the sale of "baby parts," catching the attention of abortion foes everywhere.

Speaker John Boehner called for President Obama to "denounce, and stop, these gruesome practices."

Now conservative presidential hopefuls are weighing in. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has announced the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals will investigate the claims made in the video, in part because Planned Parenthood plans to open a $4 million clinic in New Orleans. Texas Gov. Rick Perry called the video "A disturbing reminder of the organization's penchant for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life."

House Speaker John Boehner called for Health and Human Services Secretary Slyvia Burwell and President Obama to "denounce, and stop, these gruesome practices." In a short written statement, he said: "Nothing is more precious than life, especially an unborn child. When anyone diminishes an unborn child, we are all hurt, irreversibly so. When an organization monetizes an unborn child—and with the cavalier attitude portrayed in this horrific  video—we must all act."

There's just one problem: It's not clear whether key revelations in the video, which has cleared 1 million views on its YouTube page, are accurate. In it, Planned Parenthood Senior Director of Medical Services Deborah Nucatola is shown having a meal in a restaurant and discussing the tissue donations with what the nonprofit claims are "actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company." She says the clinics "absolutely" want to accommodate patients who want to make donations. "They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'This clinic is selling tissue, this clinic is making money off this,'" she says in the video.

But Media Matters, a a nonprofit "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in U.S. media," found that key elements of Nucatola's conversation were cut out.

Key parts of the Planned Parenthood director's conversation were cut out from the video.

Nucatola discusses pricing for tissue in the video, giving the impression that there is a profit involved. "You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved," says Nucatola. "It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that’s going to be doing everything . . . is there shipping involved? Is someone going to be there to pick it up?" 

Media Matters notes that the unedited footage shows a nearly eight-minute conversation regarding the basic reimbursement costs for the legal donation process in which Nucatola also says, "Nobody should be selling tissue here. That's not the goal." This statement does not appear in the viral video. In the unedited version of the video, Nucatola repeatedly refers to the process as "tissue donation," not "tissue sale." In its statement on the video, Planned Parenthood notes that only the actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue, are reimbursed, which is the standard in the medical field. 

The group behind the video is the Center for Medical Progress, a nonprofit associated with the Life Legal Defense Foundation, an anti-abortion group that "supported" the undercover project and regularly aggregates abortion horror stories and anti-abortion legislative victories.

In its statement, Planned Parenthood said that the "well-funded group" operates solely to damage Planned Parenthood, and that the video "falsely portrays Planned Parenthood's participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research." This is not the first such "sting video" the abortion provider has confronted—Live Action, a conservative anti-abortion group, has been making similar videos since 2007.

The Center for Medical Progress describes itself as an organization composed of citizen journalists "dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances." A blog post dated July 6, 2015 is the first sign of its existence and introduces the organization and conveyed its mission to create "a world in which medical practice and biotechnology ally with and serve the goods of human nature and do not destroy, disfigure, or work against them."

Planned Parenthood, meanwhile, explained in its statement that fetal tissue has been an essential part of significant medical studies because of its rapid cell division and its adaptive nature. A version of the rubella vaccine came from fetal tissue, and the 1954 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to scientists who used the tissue to develop a polio vaccine using cultures from fetal kidney cells.

"In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases," it said. "Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue...just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent and under the highest ethical and legal standards."

Photo of the Day: A Tiny Little Piece of Pluto -- In Hi-Res!

| Wed Jul. 15, 2015 3:28 PM EDT

Here it is: the first high-res frame of Pluto from yesterday's flyby. Apparently all the frames will be available on Friday, at which point we'll have high-res imagery of the entire planet.

Yes, planet. Anyone want to take a look at this and still claim that Pluto is just a second-rate little dwarf? Come on. Grumpy is a dwarf. Pluto is a planet.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Obama Hits Back at Critics of Iran Nuclear Deal

| Wed Jul. 15, 2015 3:07 PM EDT

A day after Iran and six world powers announced a historic deal aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear capabilities, President Obama took questions from reporters to defend it from congressional critics who say the plan fails to eliminate the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

"This nuclear deal meets the national security interest of the United States and our allies," Obama said at a press conference on Wednesday. "It prevents the most serious threat, Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems that Iran may cause even worse. That's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure."

Tuesday's announcement from Vienna follows years of diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Iran and capped off an 18 day marathon conference led by Secretary of State John Kerry to finalize the plan's details.

The deal, which is now subject to congressional scrutiny, was met with strong condemnation from conservatives both in the United States and Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a mistake and warned lifting economic sanctions in Iran would only "fuel their terror and military machine."

On Wednesday, Obama specifically hit back at such criticism, suggesting rejections from members of Congress were primarily focused on playing politics rather than on the national interest.

Acknowledging that "legitimate concerns" surrounding Iran remain, Obama said, "For all the objections of Prime Minister Netanyahu and some of the Republican leadership that has already spoken, none of them have presented to me or the American people a better alternative."

"We don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in Iran, but we do have the leverage to ensure they don't have a weapon. That's exactly what we've done."

In a statement shortly after the deal's announcement, Obama vowed to veto any legislation blocking the plan's implementation.

Former Reddit Leader Explains Why Trolls Will Soon Regret Taking Down Ellen Pao

| Wed Jul. 15, 2015 2:55 PM EDT
Former Reddit CEOs Yishan Wong and Ellen Pao

Reddit's latest CEO Steve Huffman might be about to do what former CEO Ellen Pao never dared: Purge the site's notoriously freewheeling discussion boards of hate speech. Posting to the site Tuesday night, former Reddit CEO Yishan Wong argued that Pao was actually the last best hope for radical free speech on Reddit—a claim that, if true, is deeply ironic given that the denizens of Reddit's most racist and sexist discussion boards were some of the loudest voices calling for her ouster. "I don't think there's a place for such [hate speech] on reddit," Wong says Huffman once told him. Huffman, who on Friday replaced Pao, is expected to announce a new content policy for the site tomorrow.

Wong, who ran Reddit between 2012 and 2014, has been defending Pao in recent days. Earlier this week he blamed the decision to fire popular Reddit employee Victoria Taylor—the event that precipitated Pao's resignation—on the site's other cofounder, Alexis Ohanian.

Here are the key parts of Wong's post from last night, which is worth reading in its entirety:

[T]he most delicious part of this is that on at least two separate occasions, the board pressed /u/ekjp [Ellen Pao] to outright ban ALL the hate subreddits in a sweeping purge. She resisted, knowing the community, claiming it would be a shitshow. Ellen isn't some "evil, manipulative, out-of-touch incompetent she-devil" as was often depicted. She was approved by the board and recommended by me because when I left, she was the only technology executive anywhere who had the chops and experience to manage a startup of this size, AND who understood what reddit was all about. As we can see from her post-resignation activity, she knows perfectly well how to fit in with the reddit community and is a normal, funny person - just like in real life - she simply didn't sit on reddit all day because she was busy with her day job.

Ellen was more or less inclined to continue upholding my free-speech policies. /r/fatpeoplehate was banned for inciting off-site harassment, not discussing fat-shaming. What all the white-power racist-sexist neckbeards don't understand is that with her at the head of the company, the company would be immune to accusations of promoting sexism and racism: she is literally Silicon Valley's #1 Feminist Hero, so any "SJWs" [social justice warriors] would have a hard time attacking the company for intentionally creating a bastion (heh) of sexist/racist content. She probably would have tolerated your existence so long as you didn't cause any problems - I know that her long-term strategies were to find ways to surface and publicize reddit's good parts - allowing the bad parts to exist but keeping them out of the spotlight. It would have been very principled - the CEO of reddit, who once sued her previous employer for sexual discrimination, upholds free speech and tolerates the ugly side of humanity because it is so important to maintaining a platform for open discourse. It would have been unassailable.

Well, now she's gone (you did it reddit!), and /u/spez [CEO Steve Huffman] has the moral authority as a co-founder to move ahead with the purge. We tried to let you govern yourselves and you failed, so now The Man is going to set some Rules. Admittedly, I can't say I'm terribly upset.

Obama on Bill Cosby Allegations: If You Drug a Woman and Have Sex With Her, It's Rape

| Wed Jul. 15, 2015 2:45 PM EDT

On Wednesday, President Obama responded to a question about Bill Cosby's ongoing rape allegations, specifically as to whether the comedian's Medal of Freedom award would be revoked.

"There is no precedent for revoking a medal. We don't have that mechanism. And as you know I tend not to comment on the specifics of cases where there might still be, if not criminal, civil issues involved," he said.

But after a brief pause, and without specifically naming Cosby, Obama issued a strong condemnation of the allegations.

"If you give a woman or a man without his or her knowledge a drug and then have sex with that person without consent that's rape. And I think this country and any civilized country should have no tolerance for rape."

Last week, a judge unsealed documents from a 2005 legal deposition in which Cosby admitted to giving Quaaludes to a woman and then having sex with her.

The Technical Experts Weigh In, And They're Pretty Impressed With the Iran Deal

| Wed Jul. 15, 2015 1:09 PM EDT

Arms control guru Jeffrey Lewis has long been skeptical that we could conclude a nuclear deal with Iran. Now that we have, he's pored through the entire document and he says he's impressed:

Max Fisher: Why is this a good deal?

Jeffrey Lewis: It's a good deal because it slows down their nuclear program — which they say is for civilian purposes but could be used to make a bomb, and which we think was originally intended to make a bomb. And it puts monitoring and verification measures in place that mean if they try to build a bomb, we're very likely to find out, and to do so with a enough time that we have options to do something about it.

There's a verifiable gap between their bomb option and an actual bomb. That's why it's a good deal.

....Max Fisher: A lot of what you wrote throughout 2014 was skeptical. Not of the idea of the Iran deal, but rather skeptical that they could make it work, that they would get there in time, that they would have all the right conditions.

Jeffrey Lewis: That's right. I had no faith whatsoever that they could pull this off.

Max Fisher: Now that we're here, what grade would you give it?

Jeffrey Lewis: I would give it an A.

....Max Fisher: We did a post just rounding up tweets from arms control analysts on what they're saying about the Iran deal, and it was really hard to find arms control analysts who seem to be critical of the deal on the non-proliferation merits. Maybe there are some we just missed, but it seems like the consensus was overwhelmingly positive, which was so interesting to me because it's very different from the conversation among Middle East policy analysts, which is much more divided. Why do you think that is?

Jeffrey Lewis: ....As a deal, this is what deals look like. Actually, they usually don't look this good....I see it as a really straightforward measure to slow down an enrichment program that was going gangbusters.

So you ask, "Does it slow it down?" Yes. "Does it slow it down in a way that is verifiable?" Yes. "Does it slow it down more than bombing it would?" Yes. "Okay, good deal."

This is the kind of feedback I've been waiting for. Do technical experts who actually understand the nuances of the deal language think this is a good agreement? And apparently most of them do.

Conversely, the critics have mostly been focused on the fact that the deal eventually lifts the economic sanctions on Iran that have been in place for the past few years. This will improve the Iranian economy and give them more money to support terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis.

This is true, of course, but it was the whole point of the negotiations from the start. To oppose it on those grounds is basically to say that we should simply keep the sanctions in place forever. But that's not even remotely feasible. Sanctions never last forever, especially when they have to be upheld by the entire international community. If the US flatly refused to negotiate, eventually the Chinese and Russians would drop out of the sanctions regime, followed by the Europeans, and then we'd be the only ones left. And sanctions from the US alone just wouldn't have much impact on Iran.

In other words, the arguments in favor of the treaty are looking a whole lot more thoughtful and realistic than the arguments against it. But it's primary season for Republicans, so I suppose that doesn't matter all that much. Iran is bad, therefore a deal with Iran is bad. It's good enough for the campaign trail.