Like Maria Said Paz

Friday, December 04, 2020

Georgia and SUPERINTELLIGENCE

We recently discussed how figures like New York Times columnist Tom Friedman calling on people to move to Georgia to rig the vote in favor of a Democratic takeover of the Senate. It did not seem to matter to either the newspaper or Friedman that he was encouraging the commission of a felony. Yet, Friedman is not a lawyer. What is more disconcerting is that lawyers are alleged to be involved in such efforts. Recently, Georgia officials confirmed that they are investigating The New Georgia Project — a group founded by lawyer Stacey Abrams — for allegedly seeking to register out of state voters and deceased individuals. On the Republican side, Florida attorney Bill Price is facing a more direct and serious investigation than Abrams (who has not been personally implicated in such actions). Price is shown in a video boasting of his own registration in Georgia at the home of his brother and encouraging others to do the same.

That really is disgusting. It's especially disgusting that Stacey might have been part of it. As a resident of Georgia, I would hope she would want to protect her state's votes. There is no excuse for any Democrat or Republican to be doing this. It is appalling and part of the stick-your-nose-into-everything partisan hypocrisy that is really harming the country.

Not "destroying" the country. The United States can survive these fools, we've survived fools before. But it's disgusting and it's harmful.

"TV: The end of the road?" (Avan and C.I., THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):

SUPER INTELLIGENCE is Melissa McCarthy's new film that debuted on HBO MAX last week on Thanksgiving Day.

The reviews for the film have been brutal. We were expecting something unwatchable. It's actually a funny film and we're wondering how much sexism factored into the reviews? We're not talking GHOSTBUTERS ARE WOMEN NOW sexism. We're talking the sexism no one ever wants to acknowledge -- the sexism we've been combatting here forever.

In the 80s and early 90s, it was the sexism aimed at Goldie Hawn. In the '00s, it was the sexism aimed at Meg Ryan. In the 60s, it was aimed at Doris Day. Movie stars play types. That's how it always has been -- and one reason that neither Laurence Olivier nor Meryl Streep ever made it as a movie star. Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, Mae West, Diana Ross, Judy Garland, Richard Pryor, etc. They played a type.

And it's a sexist world where you get women called out for that after ten or fifteen years but never the men. Critics made it their point to attack Doris Day for playing a type (a type that they usually didn't even get right) but they looked the other way on John Wayne. They led an attack on Doris that never let up. Then they started in on Goldie in the 80s. Silent in the seventies? Women were hardly working in films in the 70s. It was big news, in the fall of 1977, when films starring two women -- JULIA with Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave and THE TURNING POINT with Shirley MacLaine and Anne Bancroft -- were released within weeks of each other. While Goldie was being called out for playing characters that some saw as similar, Clint Eastwood was treated as a god despite also playing a type over and over. There is a scorn that's heaped on a Meg Ryan, for example, that never is aimed at Tom Hanks.

So we think part of the problem some reviewers have with the film is that Melissa is playing a type. It's not the same character -- nor were Judy Benjamin, Sunny Davis and Molly McGrath the same character. But it is a type and, again, that's what movie stars do. They sell tickets -- or did before the pandemic -- and do so by playing a type that the audience responds to.

Melissa plays a floundering Carol Peters who has a habit of hitting the road when things get difficult -- work, a relationship, what have you. A newly aware artificial intelligence contacts her and Carol has to guide it to try to prevent the end of the world.

It has many brilliant moments -- including the job interview -- and certainly delivers on the laughs. It may work even better, as a film where the fate of the world is at stake, during a pandemic.

Regardless, it's a funny movie and will entertain you. Now would be a good time for those people who supposedly care about sexism to say enough to the attacks on Melissa.

I watched SUPERINTELLIGENCE and, like them and like Rebecca ("superintelligence"), I really enjoyed it.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, December 3, 2020. Joe Biden's picks just get worse while the press ignores Moqtada al-Sadr's assault on people and one reporter rushes in to explain that others did report it, honest!, forgetting that she was supposed to report it for her own paper.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST speaks with Iraq and Afghanistan War veteran Scott Spaulding.

The wars go on. And so does the incompetence of Joe Biden who, please remember, helped start the illegal war and continued it. He's putting together a cabinet and it's a cabinet of eye sores. Neera Tandem, for example, presided over a toxic work culture at the Center For American Progress where women were repeatedly harassed on the job and where their complaints were not taken seriously. Neera finally 'addressed' the issue after the media reported on it -- she did so by holding a staff wide meeting where she outed one of the women who had gone to the press.

That should mean the end of any career in management Neera might have. But Joe looked at it and said, "Hey, she's my kind of girl. I'm accused of harassment by multiple women and accused of assault by one woman. I could send a strong message that I will not tolerate harassment in my administration but, what the hell, let's run with Neera instead."

I don't believe Gina Raimondo tops Neera but she's certainly just as bad. Julia Rock and Andrew Perez (DAILY POSTER) report:

Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo has presided over one of the deadliest COVID outbreaks in the country — and new documents obtained by The Daily Poster detail how she helped nursing home lobbyists shield health care companies from coronavirus-related lawsuits.

Now, Raimondo — a former Wall Street executive — is reportedly being considered for the nation’s top health care policy job in the incoming Biden administration.

Politico reported last week that Raimondo, who made her name slashing state workers’ pensions, is one of the finalists to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President-elect Joe Biden. Raimondo was also previously considered for Treasury Secretary, according to the American Prospect.

As governor, Raimondo has slammed proposals to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Amid the pandemic in August, her administration approved health insurance companies’ steep premium increases that were criticized by the state’s Democratic attorney general as “unnecessary and ill-advised.” Health insurers have been raking in record profits, with fewer people seeking care because of the pandemic.

Raimondo has also pushed for Medicaid cuts that nursing home workers warned would result in unsafe staffing levels — and in April, she issued an executive order sought by health care industry lobbyists that shielded nursing homes from lawsuits when their business decisions injure or kill people. The order was later expanded to shield nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers.

While the Biden transition is reportedly considering Raimondo for HHS Secretary, residents and workers in Rhode Island’s nursing homes have faced deadly consequences. Documents obtained by The Daily Poster show that Raimondo quickly responded to lobbyists’ demands for an executive order granting them legal immunity during the pandemic.

“What immunity has done is allow nursing homes to act unreasonably without accountability,” one personal injury lawyer told the Providence Journal last month.

Rhode Island currently has one of the highest coronavirus death rates by population in the country, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). More than 70 percent of COVID-19 deaths in the state have been linked to long-term care facilities — only two other states have seen similar nursing home death rates, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The state’s hospitals are completely full. On Monday, patients were admitted to field hospitals for the first time in Rhode Island during the pandemic.

There are many qualified women -- and men -- the ones Joe continues to pick are not qualified. At BLACK AGENDA REPORT, Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III points out:

When you look at Biden's cabinet announcements it takes me to former Giant's coach Bill Parcels who said, "you are what your record says you are." In this case, you are what your cabinet says you are. It is the people who make the policy; policy does not make itself. The history of many of these nominees reflects America’s darkest impulses not its better angels.

“Biden has it backwards.”

What was good about America “green lighting” the NATO bombing of Libya and the resulting execution of Muammar Gaddafi? This led to the destabilization of the country and the region. According to The Atlantic , “The Libya intervention marked the third time in a decade that Washington embraced regime change and then failed to plan for the consequences.” America’s better angels? I think not.

What good has come from America “green lighting” Saudi Arabia’s invasion in Yemen and the continuing logistical support for what the UN has called the worst man-made humanitarian crisis in the world? Per the UN, after nearly six years of conflict, “14.3 million people are classified as being in acute need, with around 3.2 million requiring treatment for acute malnutrition; that includes two million children under-five, and more than one million pregnant and lactating women.” If America were winning the battle of our better angles, we would stop our support of the Saudi’s and provide these starving people food, water and medicine. Instead, America is losing the battle to the MIC, big oil and its darkest impulses. These impulses convince you that it is more important to sell weapons and take resources than provide humanitarian aid.

America’s imperialist, hegemonic and evil regime change policies did not make themselves. Again, it is the people who make the policy. Look at the record of some of Biden’s cabinet nominees and their involvement in these atrocities.

“America is losing the battle to the MIC, big oil and its darkest impulses.”

Biden’s choice for Secretary of Defense is projected to be Michele Flournoy. She was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy during the Clinton administration. During her tenure she authored the May 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The founding principle of this document is that the unilateral use of force is acceptable to defend any US interest the US deems important and the US is the sole arbiter of these issues. She is the proponent of permanent war or as she calls it, “full spectrum dominance.” As the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy during the Obama administration, she was instrumental in designing the horrific regime change policies that led to the invasions of Libya and Syria.

Biden’s choice for Secretary of State is Tony Blinken. He was a top advisor to then Sen. Joe Biden who was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They played a major role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq.

We can also thank Avril Haines, Biden’s pick to be Director of National Intelligence for her role in the Yemen, Libya and Syria policies. Haines also supported arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

On the domestic policy front, Biden has named Neera Tanden as his nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget. It should be troubling that a nominee for this position has advocated for cuts to Social Security and other vital social safety net programs. During a pandemic, an economy in recession and 30-40 million Americans facing eviction, austerity is not the appropriate response.

“Flournoy is a proponent of permanent war.”

Tanden also has a hawkish foreign policy side. Leading up to the Libya bombing she was advocating taking Libya’s oil as repayment for the US backed bombing of the country. “If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn’t seem crazy to me…” This is the same mindset that Trump articulated in Syria.

In his speech, “Time to Break Silence” Dr. King warned us about austerity, “A few years ago…it seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor…through the poverty program…Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.” Just replace Vietnam with Afghanistan, Syria or Yemen, etc. We are still “a society gone mad on war”.

At WSWS, Kevin Reed observes:

In the three weeks since former Vice President Joseph Biden and Senator Kamala Harris declared victory in the 2020 presidential election, it has become clear that the Democrats are assembling a right-wing administration that represents the interests of corporate America, the financial elite and US military-intelligence.

The truth of this assessment is demonstrated by the tech policy of the president-elect, which has been articulated in policy statements, media reports and comments made by Biden himself prior to the November 3 elections.

Although tech policy is not identified as a top priority on the Biden-Harris transition website, it is evident that the relationship of the new administration with Silicon Valley is a critical element of the overall of strategy of the Democrats.

According to a report by CBS News on November 11, the Biden transition team is being advised by a “cadre of tech industry types, including executives with political data company Alloy, formed by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, and Google chairperson Eric Schmidt’s firm Rebellion Defense.”

After leaving Google in 2019, the multi-billionaire Eric Schmidt has become an evangelist for the integration of big tech with the US military. Schmidt sits on at least two government advisory boards that promote the use of artificial intelligence technologies by the Defense Department and he has invested in military tech startups such as Rebellion Defense.

Rebellion Defense is a Pentagon contractor that specializes in analyzing video filmed by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The company website says, “Artificial Intelligence is redefining the art of the possible. Consumers worldwide benefit from it—but our adversaries are using it against us. Our national defense urgently needs to harness Silicon Valley’s best technologies and talent to address this challenge. We help our defense and national security agencies unlock the power of data across all domains. … Rebellion Defense builds for the warfighter.”

Meanwhile, members of the incoming Biden-Harris cabinet are being drawn from private consulting and investment firms with deep ties to the technology sector and the military. According to a report in the New York Times on Sunday, both Biden’s choice for Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, and one of the leading candidates for defense secretary, Michele Flournoy, are co-founders of WestExec Advisors.

The Times report says that among WestExec’s clients is a firm called Shield AI, “a San Diego-based company that makes surveillance drones and signed a contract worth as much as $7.2 million with the Air Force this year to deliver artificial intelligence tools to help drones operate in combat missions.”

Jimmy Dore offers the following commentary on Biden's picks.

THE KATIE HALPER SHOW offered the following discussion.

Looking at this landscape, Osita Nwanevu (THE NEW REPUBLIC) argues:

It’s been noted elsewhere that the left has responded much more quickly and aggressively to Biden’s selections than it had to Obama’s as he put together his first presidential cabinet. If so, it doesn’t seem like the flurries of statements, social media posts, and articles that have been written to counter every stray rumor and announcement have mattered very much at all—the process is chugging along and Biden’s nominees are just a couple of notches left of the Obama team; activists might take a small victory in torpedoing an Emanuel nomination. There was never good reason to expect more. This is partially because a Republican Senate, should Democrats lose in Georgia’s runoff elections next month, will be an obstacle to the confirmation of even moderate nominees. But it’s more substantially because the moderates in the Democratic Party don’t share the left’s policy goals and would oppose giving them a meaningful presence in the Biden administration even if they could.

The conventional wisdom about the left’s relationship with the Democratic Party has fully reversed itself in the space of six to eight months. As the Democratic primary ended, it was often argued that Sanders and the left lost because they had marginalized themselves—anti-establishment rhetoric, refusals to accept compromise, and the toxicity of prominent voices had alienated not only most of the Democratic electorate but also Democratic elites who might have otherwise been won over. “Twitter isn’t real life,” it was said. But naturally, after election day, Democratic underperformance down-ballot from Biden was blamed mostly on the left’s influence. Democratic elites, it’s said now, were persuaded by the left into taking on or accepting unpopular messaging about socialism and policing—thanks in part, evidently, to the awesome and terrible power of tweets from left activists, writers, and podcasters.

Both arguments are wrong, but the first was closer to the truth than the second. The left’s influence on Democratic elites has indeed been extremely limited. This is less a consequence of any particular feature of the Sanders era—over many years, many different progressive candidates with many different political styles and orientations toward the party establishment have similarly failed to move it—than of elite hostility to the left and their policies, which they consider substantively bad, politically risky, or both.

And while elites and major candidates have shifted noticeably on several issues in recent years—the minimum wage, healthcare, climate, and so on—those shifts, which are unlikely to make their way into federal legislation, are probably best understood as the product of specific conditions. First, a remarkable decade in organizing spurred in part by a massive financial crisis helped a left-wing candidate turn in a surprisingly strong performance in the 2016 Democratic primary. And second, Clinton’s narrow loss led to a wide-open primary this year in which multiple candidates made self-interested efforts to appeal to the constituency that Sanders revealed and activated. The period from the launch of his first campaign in April 2015 to his concession this past April was an unusual half-decade in American politics, and a window of opportunity for the left that has now closed. Another will not open for another eight years at an absolute minimum. Yes, a left-wing candidate might mount a challenge to Biden or Kamala Harris in 2024. But it is almost certain that they will lose, as incumbent challengers in the modern primary system always have.

[. . .]

So much, then, for voice. But what about exit? The structural barriers that would limit the viability of another alternative left-wing party in the United States have been written about extensively elsewhere and won’t be repeated here. That said, it seems fairly clear at this point that the left should, somehow, put itself at a more meaningful remove from the Democratic Party—that it should abandon the notion it might significantly move Democratic elites from below, and instead build out a detached movement adjacent to the Democratic Party that might interact with it only when it makes strategic sense to do so. Democratic socialists refer to this as an “inside-outside” strategy; frankly the inside portion of the term should probably be dropped. After all, a party that’s unwilling to turn over the reins even to younger moderates ideologically aligned with leadership isn’t ripe for further ideological transformation on a timescale adequate to meeting the crises the country faces, including, obviously, climate change.

Meanwhile, over at THE NATION, Jonathan Smucker is insisting the answer is not to abandon the party but to take it over. Smuchker? Schmucker? At any rate, the scmuck seems to think he's just invented the wheel when the idea he's advocating is the same idea that's been repeatedly advocated. The student left of the sixties? Remember when they were going to take over and change everything. That never happened. It never happens so maybe schmucky can tell us in his following column exactly how the latest attempt will end any differently?

Maybe he can ponder that during all the time THE NATION takes off from covering Iraq? The Iraq War continues. The violence continues. It's just the press coverage that ceased.

We'll note this Tweet:

Dhi Qar: The activists of the October Revolution are preparing to stage large demonstrations next Friday; In response to the attacks targeting them by (Muqtada al-Sadr) militias.

4:02 PM · Dec 2, 2020

The November 30th snapshot detailed the assault Moqtada al-Sadr organized and implemented against the peaceful protesters in Nassariya. He set his cult loose on them and they killed and wounded many. Some reports have put the dead at 18 and over eighty were left injured. Where is the coverage?

Joel Wing notes:

Was coverage of the initial attack but nothing afterward Associated Press, “Demonstrators in Iraq take to street unmasked amid pandemic,” 11/27/20 Reuters, “Three killed in Iraq as Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s followers stormed protest camp,” 11/27/20

2:06 AM · Dec 3, 2020

Louisa Loveluck weighs in with this Tweet:

Just for the record - AFP, Reuters, AP and Al Jazeera did quick and sterling work on this. Others too I believe, but this is off the top of my head.

2:15 AM · Dec 3, 2020

No, Louisa, they didn't. REUTERS and AP were first out of the gate with their stories filed on Saturday. REUTERS offered a bit stronger story than AP. AFP followed. ALJAZEERA waited two days to file and largely just picked through the reporting of AP, REUTERS and AFP. They do have reporters on the ground in Iraq, ALJAZEERA does. Is there a reason that they didn't have a truly original report? Is there a reason that it took them so many days to compile?

Is there a reason that Louisa ignores ARAB WEEKLY's coverage?

More to the point, Louisa, you work for who? THE WASHINGTON POST? Don't you find it strange that there's no story from THE POST? Especially since you're the one who should be writing it for the paper?

Does it get more feather brained than that? A question is rightly raised about the lack of coverage in the western press and Louisa, the Iraq reporter for THE WASHINGTON POST, rushes in to say, "Hey, other outlets covered it!"

The following sites updated:

Wednesday, December 02, 2020

The crazy

Jonathan Turley:

We have been discussing the rising threats against Trump supporters, lawyers, and officials in recent weeks from Democratic members are calling for blacklists to the Lincoln Project leading a a national effort to harass and abuse any lawyers representing the Republican party or President Trump. Others are calling for banning those “complicit” from college campuses while still others are demanding a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to “hold Trump and his enablers accountable for the crimes they have committed.” Now, Daily Beast editor-at-large Rick Wilson has added his own call for “humiliation,” “incarceration” and even ritualistic suicides for Trump supporters in an unhinged, vulgar column. Wilson declared “[o]nly exposure, pain, humiliation, and (inshallah) incarceration will lead to a moment of reckoning for the GOP.”

Not surprisingly, Wilson is a key advisor to the Lincoln Project which was blocked recently on Twitter for abusive doxxing efforts directed at Republican lawyers. His column captures the level of hateful rhetoric fueled by the Lincoln Project, which is funded by thousands of lawyers despite its attacks on fellow members of the bar for their representation.

“Remember, the Trump GOP is shorn of all ideological and philosophical pretense, and even when Trump leaves office, it’s not over. ‘His cultists’ reign of terror will shape elected GOP members as long as he and his foul spawn walk the earth unpunished. Only exposure, pain, humiliation, and (inshallah) incarceration will lead to a moment of reckoning for the GOP. It should start at the top and work down from there.”

Wilson notes that he is not interested in the “reconciliation” part of “truth and reconciliation,” declaring a “hearty f— no” to people calling for reconciliation. Inside he called for the “motherf—ers” to consider “seppuku.”

I believe the term we're looking for is "unhinged."

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Tuesday, December 1, 2020. All you writer boys? Can you just cup your groins and shut your mouths for a few minutes? As usual, your critiques of Neera Tandem miss the point and, yet again, feminists have to step up to cover what you refuse to see or at least refuse to emphasize.

Starting and staying in the US with Neera Tanden. Neera cannot be made OMB. Will she be? It's very likely. But there is one main reason she should not be. We've noted multiple videos since Team Biden announced that Neera would be Joe's nominee for OMB:

If someone in the above has stressed the point I'm about to make, my apologies. I don't have time watch everything that I'm asked to highlight here. I have read a great deal of written commentary about Neera. The main point is either ignored or glossed over.

Neera's Twitter rages are well known and that might be the only good thing about her becoming OMB -- that Joe would insist she stay off Twitter. But there's no way feminists can support Neera. Nor can they remain silent.

We've already collectively sent a bad message with some of us supporting Joe in the face of Tara Reade's credible allegations of Biden assaulting her. I believe Tara. If you do and you're a feminist who supported Joe, shame on you. You sent a message -- the same way Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan sent a message when they refused to stand with Phyllis Chesler when she was raped. Instead of supporting her, they made excuses for her rapist Davidson Nicol. In 2020, you have said you believe a woman who says Joe Biden assaulted her but that that woman can be sacrificed.

In doing so, you've made girls and women collateral damage. Supposedly, on the left, we decry that term and we loathe it being used to justify the US government killing innocents. However the soap boxes some of us are standing on currently? They're caving in a little bit and may collapse shortly. Because we have no right to call out the US government's justifying deaths as "collateral damage" when we ourselves are turning girls women into just that.

Neera is a woman. She is not a feminist and she should not have the support of any feminist in the United States. Walter Bragman (JACOBIN) writes of Neera's attempts to gut Social Security. So what? Do I agree with that? Hell no. But Walter's already documented -- throughout the primary -- Joe Biden's stance and it's in keeping with Neera's stance. I don't think you defeat her the way Bragman's trying.

You defeat her by making the case that she's either incompetent or flat out hostile to other women. She has demonstrated that she should not be in a position of authority.

Sarah Mimms (BUZZFEED) 2018:

Two days after BuzzFeed News unveiled allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation at one of the nation’s top liberal think tanks, the Center for American Progress's president, Neera Tanden, met with staff to restore confidence in the organization’s ability to handle the issue and ensure that employees feel safe.

But during the meeting Wednesday afternoon, Tanden named the anonymous victim at the center that story — a revelation that a CAP spokesperson said was unintentional — and what began as a tense meeting became what three staffers in the room described as a textbook example of the organization’s failures to appropriately handle sexual harassment cases.

"There is literally one thing you cannot do in this meeting and that is out the victim and Neera did it multiple times...It also destroys whatever small level of confidence in the system remained," one CAP employee who was in the room said in a text to BuzzFeed News. “As a manager I don't know how I can tell staff to trust the system when the head of the organization just outed the victim in front of the entire organization. It is impossible to trust her.”

“Neera lost the organization today,” another CAP employee who was in the meeting said. “There was so much angst in that room. She outed the victim, and the subtext of every question was a lack of confidence in her leadership and ability to create trust within the organization.”

Let's note this from Sarah's earlier article:

The Center for American Progress, the politics and policy hub for the Democratic establishment, has put out four different policy proposal papers on handling sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as data on how pervasive the issue is “across all industries.”

The organization’s president, Neera Tanden, has vehemently criticized Republicans for their reaction to the accusations of sexual misconduct against President Donald Trump and wrote in a tweet still pinned to her profile, “I don't think the country has understood how psychologically wounding it was to so many women that Trump won after the Access Hollywood tape.”

But only an hour after the Access Hollywood tape was made public, top officials at CAP received an exit memo from a young woman who'd just quit detailing the sexual harassment she experienced from Benton Strong, a manager on her team — harassment, she wrote, that management already knew about — and how she faced retaliation for reporting it.

In the email, the junior staffer, who asked that BuzzFeed News refer her to as Mary, which is part of the woman’s formal name, wrote that “on several occasions, myself and others on the team felt as if reporting had been a mistake and that the retaliation, worsening of already tenuous team dynamics, and treatment by supervisors outweighed the seemingly positive act of reporting sexual harassment in the workplace.” When contacted about this story, the woman confirmed the authenticity of the exit memo, but declined to comment further, except to respond on Saturday to a statement from CAP.

“CAP’s culture obscures its mission,” Mary wrote, toward the end of her memo. “All of this to say, I surely expected better out of an organization that housed a national campaign on sexual assault.”

Get it and grasp it: Harassment took place repeatedly at CAP while Neera was the head of it. The harassment was known by management and the women being harassed were not assisted in anyway by Neera. Instead, she made a point to look the other way. Once Sarah Mimms reported what was going on, Neera immediately called a meeting and outed a woman being harassed.

That's what Neera did.

In terms of management skills? She has none. She is not fit to be in any position let alone the head of the OMB. What she did would not fly in corporate America.

Glenn Greenwald writes a very long article. But like everyone else, he's not addressing actual issues. Oh, Neera was mean to Bernie!!!! Do you think the Congress is going to give two s**ts about that? Do you think every action Joe's taking right now isn't already spitting in Bernie's face?

Can we focus on reality? Joe wants to put Neera in charge of an agency, a federal agency. But Neera's history -- and we're only going back two years, demonstrates that she is not up to being in management. She had one duty at CAP: To protect her employees. And she failed. And when her failure was exposed, she outed the woman who spoke to BUZZFEED about the harassment.

In corporate America, that would be it for Neera. Not saying others don't do worse and get away with it. But anyone in corporate America who did what Neera did and the press covered it? That person would be dismissed immediately.

That Joe has nominated Neera goes to just how much we have collectively failed as feminists. Joe's not a clean slate. Even those of us who set aside Tara Reade (I don't, I believe Tara) have to admit Joe's pattern of harassment. Amanda Arnold and Claire Lampen (THE CUT) detailed some of the other harassment of women:

Ahead of former vice-president Joe Biden’s expected 2020 presidential bid, women are speaking out about their personal interactions with him — alleging he physically touched them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable. Last week, the Cut published an essay by Lucy Flores, a former Nevada lieutenant governor nominee, who wrote that Biden smelled her hair and kissed the back of her head at a campaign event in 2014. In the week since, several more women have come forward.

Below, here’s a running list of the allegations against Biden.

Lucy Flores
On March 29, in the aforementioned essay published on the Cut, former Nevada lieutenant governor nominee Lucy Flores alleged that Biden smelled her hair and gave her “a big slow kiss” on the back of her head at an event for her 2014 campaign. In that moment, she wrote, she felt “embarrassed” and “shocked.”

“I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me,” she continued. In response to the essay, Biden claimed that he had no memory of having “acted inappropriately,” but added that if he was in the wrong, he would “listen respectfully.”

Amy Lappos
When Amy Lappos was a congressional aide for U.S. representative Jim Himes in 2009, she claims that Biden touched and rubbed his nose against hers during a political fund-raiser. “It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head,” she told Hartford Courant on April 1. “He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.”

After the incident, Lappos didn’t file a formal complaint. “He was the vice president,” she told the Courant. “I was a nobody.”

D.J. Hill
D.J. Hill was one of two women to come forward with allegations in the New York Times, which referred to Biden’s conduct as “tactile politics” in a report published on April 2. At a 2012 at a fundraising event in Minneapolis, Hill alleges that Biden rested his hand on her shoulder, and then started to move it down her back, which left her feeling “very uncomfortable.”

“Only he knows his intent,” she told the Times, adding, “If something makes you feel uncomfortable, you have to feel able to say it.”

Caitlyn Caruso
In the same Times report, a woman named Caitlyn Caruso claimed that after sharing the story of her sexual assault at a University of Nevada event in 2016, Biden hugged her “just a little bit too long” and laid his hand on her thigh.

“It doesn’t even really cross your mind that such a person would dare perpetuate harm like that,” she told the Times. “These are supposed to be people you can trust.”

Ally Coll
On April 3, Ally Coll told the Washington Post that at a 2008 reception, Biden squeezed her shoulders, complimented her smile, and held her “for a beat too long.” A young Democratic staffer at the time, Coll said her initial reaction was to shrug it off. But she told the Post she now feels the alleged incident was inappropriate, adding, “There’s been a lack of understanding about the way that power can turn something that might seem innocuous into something that can make somebody feel uncomfortable.”

Sofie Karasek
In 2016, Sofie Karasek was photographed holding hands and touching foreheads with Biden at the Oscars, where she stood alongside 50 other sexual-assault survivors during Lady Gaga’s performance. It was a moment that soon went viral, and was described then by the Post as “powerful.” But in the Post’s report published this week, Karasek says she believes that Biden violated her personal space. She also told the Post that she wasn’t impressed with Biden’s two-minute-long video response to the growing unwanted-touching allegations against him — in which he never says he’s sorry — as he “didn’t take ownership in the way that he needs to.”

“He emphasized that he wants to connect with people and, of course, that’s important,” she told the publication. “But again, all of our interactions and friendships are a two-way street … Too often it doesn’t matter how the woman feels about it or they just assume that they’re fine with it.”

Vail Kohnert-Yount
In the same Post report, Vail Kohnert-Yount alleged that when she was a White House intern in the spring of 2013, Biden “put his hand on the back of [her] head and pressed his forehead to [her] forehead” when he introduced himself, and that he called her a “pretty girl.” She was “so shocked,” she said, “that it was hard to focus on what he was saying.” Though she told the Post that she doesn’t believe Biden’s conduct constituted sexual misconduct, she described it as “the kind of inappropriate behavior that makes many women feel uncomfortable and unequal in the workplace.”

If you remember, many rushed forward with garbage about 'that's just Joe' or 'he's just touchy.' What he did was unacceptable. It was wrong. It caused enough of a problem for him that he taped a video 'apology' (even before the pandemic, he was refusing to deal with the press with regards to tough issues). And then what happened? Seth McLaughlin (THE WASHINGTON TIMES via AP):

Speaking at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers construction and maintenance conference in Washington, Mr. Biden opened his remarks by assuring the audience that the hug he gave IBEW President Lonnie Stephenson before taking the stage was consensual.

“You know as the say in parts of my old neighborhood in Scranton, you guys brung me to the dance, you really did, and I just want you to know I had permission to hug Lonnie,” Mr. Biden said with a grin, sparking laughter and applause from the crowd.

These jokes came two days after his so-called apology. Sabrina Siddiqui (GUARDIAN) noted:

On Wednesday, Biden pledged in a video to change his behavior.

“Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I’ve heard what these women are saying,” Biden said. “Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful of personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it.”

Speaking to reporters after Friday’s event, Biden was asked if he would apologize to the women directly.

“I’m sorry I didn’t understand,” he said. “I’m not sorry for any of my intentions.”

Joe got a pass and he learned nothing. This goes to what his administration will be. He has offended women -- I think even non-feminists can agree with that -- and his actions since have not demonstrated that he's the great supporter of women.

And yet here he is nominating a woman who presided over an unsafe work culture, who did not address the workplace harassment until after BUZZFEED exposed it and who then outed a victim of the harassment to the entire workplace.

Neera's actions are outrageous, offensive and go to how she's not fit to preside over any agency. But equally true, that after Tara has accused Joe of assault, after eight other women have detailed harassment, Joe has learned nothing and is willing to nominate someone who is the poster of a workplace harassment.

This is offensive and shame on anyone -- feminist or not -- who doesn't speak out.

I wanted to cover Iraq and the assault Moqtada carried out. But as often happens, my dreaming hours were on a problem and the solution popped up. Neera is unqualified to head an agency.

Yet our left -- and, let's be honest, it's our left men -- wants to tear her down because of Social Security (I don't support her position but it's in keeping with Joe's position) or because she was mean to Bernie or because she's a conspiracy nut or because . . .

At what point, Walker and Glenn and all of you, at what point do you value women? At what point do you see someone who presided over a toxic workplace and refused to address it until the press exposed it? That goes directly to whether or not she's qualified to run anything -- let alone the OMB?

Glenn and Walker aren't the only ones at fault. There should be hyperawareness about harassment in the workplace. But we spent too much time in 2019 and 2020 minimizing Joe's actions.

Neera's unfit. What does it say about Joe that he's nominated her?

It calls into question his own judgment and it certainly tears at his pose of being the great supporter of women.

Girls lives matter. Women's lives matter.

We have treated women and girls, over and over, as collateral damage. We've said it's for the greater good. It's not.

It's not for the greater good of any girl or woman because the message is repeatedly sent that assault is okay if it's just a girl or just a woman.

We need to rise up and make it clear that we will not be your collateral damage. Our lives matter.

And excusing an attack or an assault on one of us is excusing an attack or assault on all of us.

I want to be clear, as I've noted before, that some feminists don't believe Tara. That's fine. We all have to make the judgment ourselves. If you didn't believe Tara and you're a feminist, did you not believe Lucy? If you didn't believe Tara and you're a feminist, are you okay with toxic workplace leader Neera being put in charge of a government agency?

There's no excuse for this nomination. It is appalling. And if we are feminists, we need to be calling it out. Loudly.

Last Wednesday, we noted The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. We focused on the violence aimed at women in Iraq and the US. Did anyone else?

I didn't see men rushing to cover the topic.

And now we've got Neera nominated to head an agency after she failed employees and I'm not seeing men stepping up and tackling this. They should be. It goes to her qualifications -- her lack of them. But they'd rather zoom in on any other topic.

This is the topic. How can she head an agency when she's already demonstrated that she's a failure and that those under her are at risk?

This is the issue and it's always feminists that have to raise it. There's no greater issue that goes to why she's not fit to head the OMB but look at the discussion and grasp how men are using anything and everything to go after her except for her actual appalling record.

The following sites updated: