Children are keen to get back to school, apparently. Sorry, what?

In my day, you were supposed to hate school. 

That was the point of it

MARL STEEL 2/25/2021

We’d have scoured the world for a variant that made your nose explode, then coughed it round the town so the lockdown would have to carry on for another year
(Getty)

Apparently, millions of kids are eager to get back to school. This is a complete puzzle to me. When I was at school, we’d have done anything to keep the schools shut. We’d have broken into Pfizer and squirted cat sick into the vaccine, or painted all the frogs it was tested on, so it looked like it turned you purple.

We’d have scoured the world for a variant that made your nose explode, then coughed it round the town so the lockdown would have to carry on for another year.

You were supposed to hate school. That was the point of it. If Ofsted had been around, they’d have written reports on some schools that went: “Some of the children seemed interested and appeared to enjoy the lessons. For this reason we have no choice but to fail the school and shut it down immediately.”

So it’s marvellous that parents now say: “My kids can’t wait to go back, they miss their friends.” It shows how much school has improved, because no one at my school who was off for any reason, ever said: “I miss Jimmy Bennett, who walks up beside you and rams his knee into your thigh with extraordinary precision to kill the entire nervous system of your lower body, leaving you unable to move for 10 minutes as you lay on the concrete while he shouts, ‘dead leg, my son’. I miss him so much mummy, PLEASE can you make the lockdown end.”

There was a game played in the class next to me, called “Beat Your Head In”. The rules were quite complicated. About 12 boys sat in a circle, while another boy held a pack of cards. In turn he dealt a card, face up, to each player, and when he turned over a jack, everyone shouted “beat your head in”, and they all beat that player’s head in. Hopefully one day it will be included in the Olympics, and we’ll hear commentators yelling: “THERE’S the jack and WHAT wonderful stamping from the Belgian.”

Back then, if you liked school, you were an oddity. You would be the equivalent of someone who had a fetish, and enjoyed lying naked in the garage while someone drove over you in a go-kart. Maybe there are places you can go, where you’re ushered into a dungeon to sit behind desks copying from a book about Cardinal Wolsey.

So it’s joyous that now kids are begging to go back to school, which shows the whole concept of school has changed. For example, now an email is sent to all parents if there’s an issue in a class about bullying. At my school, the guards from Guantanamo Bay could have set up a torture centre outside the changing rooms, with full waterboarding facilities, and if you complained to a teacher they’d say: “If you spent as much time worrying about fractions as you do about having a damp rag stuffed in your mouth to the point of suffocation, you might do better in your maths exams, Steel.”

It was even rarer for parents to complain to the school, because if you told your dad that someone had hit you, he’d say: “Hit him back.” If I’d told him I was a bit frightened during lunchtime, because there was a sniper in the dinner hall, he’d just have said: “If he shoots you, shoot him back.”

But a combination of pressure from teachers, and people who have studied how to teach things, has transformed education. Violence is now generally discouraged, kids learn about each other’s cultures and how to respect each other, and every child is seen as an individual, at least in theory.

Lessons are less likely to involve a teacher ordering the kids to learn a series of dates of monarchs, or meaningless lists in which they all have to recite every town in Finland in alphabetical order. So now most kids miss the social side of school, which not only means they have a positive childhood, but they must learn more in that environment.

And that must be why most ministers and half the country’s commentators scream in rage that we must get back to the old days, when we had PROPER education, with the emphasis on the most important aspects of developing a human being, such as being dragged by the ear into an office for walking too quickly in a corridor.

Every day there’s fury that kids today are taught rubbish, such as how the Hindu religion works, rather than essentials such as grammatical rules for when to say “whomsoever” after a verbial pronounicated geranium.

Every review of education insists we put more emphasis on testing, rather than on politically correct distractions, such as imagination. Every education minister pledges to return to the great traditional educational values of boredom, pain and pointlessness.

If these people heard kids saying they were eager to get back to school, they’d be horrified, and scream: “They’re not there to enjoy themselves, they’re supposed to be learning how to calculate the area of the bruises they’ve got from being dead-legged by Jimmy Bennett.”

It isn’t helped that we’re now run by people whose experience of school is, “One chap in my form had the misfortune to mispronounce the Latin for bumblebee, so he was locked in the swampatarium with the school crocodile for three days. Came out a bit chewed but it did him no harm. Now he’s a junior minister in the Foreign Office, proposing that refugees should be employed as fireworks.”

And Jimmy Bennett was probably a chief negotiator for Brexit.

Do all pupils really want to get back to school now? In my day you would give anything for a reason not to go

Gail Walker BELFAST TELEGRAM

Exams: pupils are regarded as more than results fodder

February 27 2021

Amidst the cacophony of anguish, protests and Green/Orange political debate about how soon children in Northern Ireland can be got back into the classroom, it strikes me there is one significant voice missing.

That of the pupil who doesn't want to return. Ever.

Maybe it's indicative of how schools have changed since I was a teenager, but it's astonishing that every pupil vox-popped on the subject seems to be grief-stricken at not being back in 5B.

BEHIND PAYWALL

Gail Walker, Editor-at-Large: Do all pupils really want to get back to school now? In my day you would give anything for a reason not to go - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

USA

 New guidance for federal hiring and firing puts less emphasis on marijuana use as a disqualifier

By ERIC YODER | The Washington Post | Published: February 27, 2021

WASHINGTON — Federal agencies should not automatically disqualify job applicants or take disciplinary actions against current employees for using or possessing marijuana, the government's central personnel agency has said.

A memo from the Office of Personnel Management released Friday lays out additional considerations for what the government calls "suitability" decisions related to marijuana for both new and continued employment.

Federal employees remain bound by a federal law defining marijuana as a controlled substance, even though growing numbers of state and local jurisdictions have decriminalized it for medical or recreational purposes.

"As more state laws have changed, federal agencies are increasingly encountering individuals whose knowledge, skills, and abilities make them well-qualified for a position, but whose marijuana use may or may not be of concern when considering the suitability or fitness of the individual for the position," the memo says.

The new guidance for federal hiring and firing puts less emphasis on marijuana use as a disqualifying factor and gives agencies considerable discretion.

It says that use or possession of marijuana can disqualify an applicant or merit the firing of a current employee on grounds of illegal use of a controlled substance or of criminal conduct. "However, OPM's suitability regulations do not permit agencies to automatically find individuals unsuitable for federal employment based on either factor," it says.

Similarly, it said that for job applicants, those regulations "do not permit agencies to automatically find individuals unsuitable for federal service on the basis of marijuana use prior to appointment."

"Rather, when agencies consider the suitability or fitness of an applicant or appointee for a position, the individual's conduct must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the impact, if any, to the integrity and the efficiency of the Government," it says.

In an emailed statement, OPM said the memo "does not represent a change to OPM's suitability/fitness policy. However, it does affirm that regulations do not permit agencies to automatically find individuals unsuitable for federal employment based on use or possession of marijuana."

The guidance from the Biden administration replaces a policy issued in 2015, during the Obama administation, also telling agencies to make case-by-case judgments, based on the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the circumstances and "contributing societal conditions."

The new memo adds considerations including the nature of the position the person is applying for or is employed in; when the conduct occurred; the age of the person at the time; and whether the person has made "efforts toward rehabilitation." Such efforts can include "evidence that use will not occur again, the passage of time without use, or completion of (or current participation in) treatment or counseling."

It adds that agencies are to take those factors into account even regarding the issue of criminal conduct, telling them to "exercise special care before making a determination of unsuitability" on those grounds.

John Mahoney, a Washington-based lawyer who represents federal employees, said that when taking actions against employees for positive drug tests, agencies already consider a range of factors but that some "are pretty hard-core in disciplining employees."

"It is significant in that OPM is putting less emphasis on past marijuana use in terms of suitability determinations," he said in a phone interview. "This does mark the beginning of a trend in the federal sector of moving toward a less strict standard vis-à-vis marijuana use, and I expect that trend to continue."

He added, though, that federal applicants and employees still should understand that under the government's drug-free workplace policy, current marijuana use is prohibited and could be the basis for firing.

The OPM policy does not apply to determinations of eligibility for access to classified information or for employment in sensitive national security positions. A stricter policy issued in 2014 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence applies in those cases.

The new guidance "does open paths to great adjudication of suitability issues once marijuana use is disclosed. However, until the security clearance rules change, this is a non-starter for many federal employees," said John Gniadek, a senior associate with the Tully Rinckey law firm in the District of Columbia.

"The next crack to appear will come in the medical use category, whether employees using canniboids solely for medicinal purposes can be [suitable] for employment. Until that hurdle is cleared, it is unsafe for federal employees or applicants to smoke," he said in an email.

Marines knew infantryman shared extremist content months before investigation, records show 

LONG READ

The main gate at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base 

on June 16, 2006, in Oceanside, Calif.
SANDY HUFFAKER, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES


By ANDREW DER | The San Diego Union-Tribune | 

Published: February 28, 2021


(Tribune News Service) — When Marine Corps leaders first found out a Camp Pendleton-based infantryman was claiming to be chairman of a nationalist organization and was sharing extremist material on social media, they counseled him to leave the group and remove some his posts but kept him among their ranks and sent him on deployment, recently released documents show.

Six months later — one day after the San Diego Union-Tribune asked about the Marine, then-Lance Cpl. Thomas Cade Martin — the Corps launched a formal investigation which determined his actions violated military rules against extremism, reduced him in rank, then separated him from the military, documents show.

Marine Corps regulations say it's mandatory that any Marine found to be participating in extremist activities be processed for separation following the first substantiated case of misconduct. That process includes an administrative board hearing that can decide whether or not to remove him from the Marines.

Martin was the subject of a March 15, 2020, Union-Tribune report. Earlier this month, the newspaper obtained Martin's investigation documents via the Freedom of Information Act. A large part of the report, 39 of 133 pages, was completely redacted.


A Marines spokeswoman said Martin's case was handled appropriately by his chain of command when his actions came to their attention in August 2019, and again after the Union-Tribune's inquiry in February 2020 which, documents show, is what kicked off the formal investigation.

But some say this case shows the military's hard line on extremism is not absolute, that there is wiggle room in the policy for commanders to retain troops despite evidence of extremist activity — at least until their cases become public.

Much of the social media activity cited by the investigation that led to Martin's separation already was published on his accounts when his activity first came to his chain of command's attention during the summer of 2019, Martin said during an interview.

Martin, now out of the Marine Corps, said he thought at the time that the Marines had given him a second chance, which they revoked because of the Union-Tribune story.

"The military had already disciplined me," Martin said. "If (the Union-Tribune) hadn't reached out and jumped the chain of command I probably would have just been NJP'd — I woulda been fine. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably still be in the Marines."

NJP stands for non-judicial punishment, which can be meted out by a commanding officer. It often includes such punishments as a loss of pay, restrictions and reduction in rank.

According to Pentagon regulations, military members are not allowed to advocate "supremacist, extremist ... doctrine, ideology, or causes ... or otherwise advance efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights."

Martin's posts on his social media accounts included materials that experts — and eventually the Marine Corps — say indicate white supremacist ideology.

Martin frequently wrote about protecting his lineage, for instance, and he "liked" a friend's comment alluding to "the 14 words," a notorious white supremacist slogan about protecting the future for white children.

In one post he posed in uniform with a rifle, with the caption "dreaming about my future blue eyed blonde haired mistress."

Those posts have since been removed. And there were other posts that Martin was ordered to erase long before the investigation began, Martin said.

Martin said he is a nationalist but not a white nationalist. He was listed as chairman of The U.S. Nationalist Initiative, a group that maintained a website and a Facebook page that had more than 1,400 followers last year. Experts who reviewed the group's page last year said it displayed indicators of white supremacist messaging.

The U.S. Nationalist Initiative's website is no longer online but an archived version is viewable on the Wayback Machine.

The Marine Corps investigation documents show Martin's superiors were aware of his online activity as early as August 2019, more than a year before he was discharged.

That August, after Martin's platoon and company commanders learned he was the chairman of a nationalist organization, they sought legal advice from a reserve staff judge advocate on how to proceed, the documents show, and they briefed the battalion commander.

On the advice of the reserve JAG officer, they ordered Martin to leave the nationalist group because "others could perceived [sic] the group as an extremist organization," the investigation document says.

The names of the Marines and the JAG were redacted from the documents.

On Sept. 1, 2019, Martin's platoon sergeant counseled Martin in writing about his social media pages which "display opinions and comments that have been received as racist, sexist, and not keeping with good order and discipline," the document says.

In the comment section of the counseling form Martin wrote, word for word, the "about" section of the U.S. Nationalist Initiative's website, where the organization claimed not to discriminate based on race.

Even so, he was ordered to remove any questionable material from his social media, the investigation says.

On Sept. 9, Martin's platoon sergeant gave him follow-up counseling. This time the sergeant wrote that Martin had removed the offending content from social media and tightened his privacy settings from public scrutiny, and there were "no concerns that any violation of the UCMJ (was) being committed," the sergeant wrote, referring to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The counseling form was signed by his platoon commander, whose name also was redacted.

A few months after his counseling, the Marines sent Martin on deployment with his battalion to the Pacific.

The formal investigation into Martin began on Feb. 29, 2020, after a Union-Tribune reporter sent to the Marines questions and links to Martin's accounts and screenshots of what he was sharing.

The investigation ended on April 30 and received a final endorsement by the commanding general of III Marine Expeditionary Force on June 15. Martin received non-judicial punishment and was reduced to private first class.

He was administratively separated in September.

Several of the posts cited as evidence against Martin were dated before August 2019. A photo illustration of Adolph Hitler at the Eifel Tower cited in the investigation was shared publicly on Martin's personal Instagram account on Oct. 21, 2018. A Patriot Front meme cited in the investigation was shared publicly on his personal Facebook page on Nov. 22, 2018.

Other exhibits cited in the investigation were shared on the U.S. Nationalist Initiative Facebook page from late 2018 through July 2019.

Martin said his leaders had not asked him to remove those posts; they had him remove others that came to their attention in August 2019.

Don King, a retired Navy captain who most recently served as a senior Navy appellate court judge, said the actions of the Marines when Martin's activity first came to their attention raise questions about how his case was handled.

"If one part of an organization finds something not to be supremacist and another part of it finds that same information is — that raises questions," King said. "Why the different conclusions?"

King said Martin's commanding officer would have to conclude the junior Marine's actions met the Marine Corps' definition of participation in supremacist activity in order to have him separated. But the wording of Martin's paperwork leaves some room for interpretation, he said.

Martin's 2019 counseling paperwork said Martin's social media pages had "been received" as racist and sexist and that they "could" be detrimental to good order and discipline — wording that didn't conclusively substantiate misconduct, King said.

When asked about Martin's case, a spokeswoman for the Camp Pendleton-based 1st Marine Division defended the battalion leadership's decision to first counsel Martin instead of immediately processing him for administrative discharge.

Maj. Kendra Motz said in an email that Martin's leaders acted appropriately when they discovered his social media posts in August 2019 and that he was eventually held accountable via non-judicial punishment, which shows that disciplinary action did not stop at the platoon level.

"In this case, Thomas Martin's leadership were made aware of and appropriately documented Martin's unacceptable behavior in a timely manner," Motz said. "Further, the leadership correctly directed the Marine to make immediate changes, to include removing himself from the group and deleting posts that were detrimental to good order and discipline. Additionally, when it learned of further violations in February 2020, the command initiated a detailed investigation."

However, in his recent interview with the Union-Tribune, Martin said he thought he was in the clear after being written up in September 2019. He hadn't expected further disciplinary measures — not until his social media accounts became news.

Motz did not answer questions about whether the Martin's counseling worksheet amounted to "substantiated misconduct" in 2019 or whether his battalion commander appropriately followed Marine regulations about mandated separation processing after the first substantiated instance of extremist-related misconduct.

Motz also did not answer follow-up questions about the genesis of the formal investigation into Martin which, the investigation says, began after a "Twitter dispute" and the emailed questions from the Union-Tribune.

"This case was investigated, adjudicated, and the Marine was separated from the Marine Corps," Motz emailed in response to the Union-Tribune's questions.

Martin said other Marines in his unit were supportive of him after the first story about him was published in March 2020.

"They joked around and kind of made fun of me," he said. "A lot of people really didn't care. My peers were a huge support structure for me during that time."

Martin's case shows that front-line military leaders need to be prepared to address extremism in their ranks, said U.S Rep. Sara Jacobs, D- San Diego in an interview. She said extremism in the military is "a pervasive problem."

Jacobs sits on the House Armed Services Committee, where she also serves on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Addressing extremism in the military will be a main focus of the subcommittee, she said, because having extremists in uniform damages the vast majority of those who serve honorably.

"It's because of them we need to address this issue," Jacobs said. "It doesn't just affect national security, but it does damage to other members of the military to have extremists in their ranks."

A 2020 Military Times survey found more than one-third of all active-duty troops have seen signs of white nationalism in their ranks. More than one-half of minority troops saw the same.

In recent years several members of other extremist and white supremacist organizations have been booted from the military. And more recently, in the wake of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III has made addressing extremism in uniform a top priority. He ordered every unit across the department to pause and address the issue during a series of stand-downs over the next two months.

However, the process for addressing extremism and separating military members found in violation of the service's policy isn't always cut and dry. Despite Pentagon regulations against service members advocating extremist ideology, the Marines and other military branches have not been consistent about how they handle such cases.

In August 2019, a Marine reservist was reduced in rank but not discharged after sending a photo of Marines forming a swastika with their boots to Marine veteran and "Terminal Lance" cartoonist Maximilian Uriarte.

Three months later, in an unrelated case, an Air Force master sergeant was first demoted but not discharged after being outed as an active member of the defunct White nationalist group Identity Evropa. He was eventually discharged from the service over his hate group affiliation in August 2020 but, unlike the Marine Corps in Martin's case, the Air Force did not release his investigation report, the Air Force Times reported.

In another case, in 2019, two Marines were investigated at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar after sharing a video of the two of them in black charcoal pore-cleansing masks in uniform. One of the Marines says "blackface" and the other renders a salute. The first Marine then says "hello monkey."

The investigation into that incident, also obtained by the Union-Tribune via the Freedom of Information Act, found that while the two Marines violated social media policies, their actions did not meet the criteria for separation processing under the rules governing extremist behavior. The investigation notes that one of the Marines was already being processed for separation at the time. The investigation was heavily redacted and the reason for the Marine's separation was not disclosed.

Proposals are in the works to create laws addressing extremism in the military. Rep. Jackie Speier, D- San Francisco, proposed a measure to create a new section in military law explicitly making extremism a crime last year, but it was stripped from the final defense bill in December.

Recently Rep. Pete Aguilar, D- Redlands, introduced a bill in the House called the Shielding Our Military from Extremists Act, that seeks to prevent extremists from joining the military. It does not address failures of the services to identify extremists already in uniform, however.

(c)2021 The San Diego Union-Tribune
Visit The San Diego Union-Tribune at www.sandiegouniontribune.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Spanish navy ship stops in Guam, marking 500 years since Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation


The Spanish Navy training ship Juan Sebastian De Elcano arrives at Naval Base Guam, Friday, Feb. 26, 2021. Its visit commemorates the 500th anniversary of the Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation.
VALERIE MAIGUE/U.S. NAVY


By MATTHEW M. BURKE | STARS AND STRIPES

Published: March 1, 2021


CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — The Spanish navy training ship Juan Sebastian De Elcano has arrived in Guam on its journey to retrace the first circumnavigation of the globe 500 years ago.

The four-masted ship — named for the explorer who finished the voyage after the death of Ferdinand Magellan — was greeted at Naval Base Guam on Friday by Gov. Lou Leon Guerrero, Lt. Gov. Joshua Tenorio and Rear Adm. John Menoni, commander of Joint Region Marianas, Indo-Pacific Command said Friday in a news release.

Magellan, a Portuguese explorer sailing for Spain, was killed in the Philippines in 1521. Elcano, a Basque navigator, was the last in a series of men who took charge of the expedition and completed the journey in September 1522 with two of the original five ships, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. Just 17 of the original 243 crew members survived the trip.

The party stopped in Guam in March 1521, a month ahead of Magellan's death.

Midshipmen of the Spanish navy train aboard the vessel, which has taken them across the Atlantic to Argentina, through the Straits of Magellan and across the Pacific to Guam. They sail next for the Philippines on their way back to the Spanish port of Cádiz.


The Spanish Navy training ship Juan Sebastian De Elcano arrives at Naval Base Guam, Friday, Feb. 26, 2021. Its visit commemorates the 500th anniversary of the Magellan-Elcano circumnavigation.
VALERIE MAIGUE/U.S. NAVY

The ship, built in 1927, is the third largest tall ship in the world. It was greeted by a flotilla of canoes from seafaring organizations upon its arrival off Oka Point in Tamuning, on its way toward Apra Harbor, on Friday, the Pacific Daily News reported that day. The crew waved to those who gathered to welcome them.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic, the sailors won't be interacting with locals during their brief stay, the Pacific Daily News said, citing Guerrero. However, a small delegation from Spain’s King Felipe VI will attend several events, including a historical tour of the island over the weekend.

The ship will remain at Guam until Tuesday, the Pacific Daily News said. The crew will attend a ceremony at the Port Authority of Guam before heading to the Philippines.

Magellan landed on Guam on March 6, 1521, while leading an expedition trying to find a sea route to the East Indies. He was killed by a poison arrow during the Battle of Mactan in modern-day Cebu Province on April 27, 1521.


Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in July 2018 declared Magellan’s killer, a warrior named Lapu-Lapu, a national hero. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Duterte asked why a statue of Lapu-Lapu was smaller than Magellan’s, according to a Philippine News Agency report in 2018.

The circumnavigation was called "the most important maritime voyage ever undertaken," by Laurence Bergreen in his 2003 book "Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe."

The Spanish navy frigate Mendez Nunez also visited Guam in 2019 to retrace the Magellan-Elcano circumnavigational route.

burke

Report:

 US wasted billions on cars, buildings in Afghanistan


Birds flyover the city of Kabul, Afghanistan on Feb. 1, 2021. The United States wasted billions of dollars in war-torn Afghanistan on buildings and vehicles that were either abandoned or destroyed, according to a report released Monday, March 1, 2021, by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, a U.S. government watchdog.
RAHMAT GUL/AP


By KATHY GANNON | Associated Press | Published: March 1, 2021


ISLAMABAD — The United States wasted billions of dollars in war-torn Afghanistan on buildings and vehicles that were either abandoned or destroyed, according to a report released Monday by a U.S. government watchdog.

The agency said it reviewed $7.8 billion spent since 2008 on buildings and vehicles. Only $343.2 million worth of buildings and vehicles "were maintained in good condition," said the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, which oversees American taxpayer money spent on the protracted conflict.

The report said that just $1.2 billion of the $7.8 billion went to pay for buildings and vehicles that were used as intended.

"The fact that so many capital assets wound up not used, deteriorated or abandoned should have been a major cause of concern for the agencies financing these projects," John F. Sopko, the special inspector general, said in his report.

The U.S. public is weary of the nearly 20-year-old war and President Joe Biden is reviewing a peace deal his predecessor, Donald Trump, signed with the Taliban a year ago. He must decide whether to withdraw all troops by May 1, as promised in the deal, or stay and possibly prolong the war. Officials say no decision has been made.

Meanwhile, Taliban insurgents and the Afghan government have been holding on-again-off-again talks in the Gulf Arab state of Qatar but a deal that could bring peace to Afghanistan after 40 years of relentless war seems far off.

Analyst Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal said the findings by SIGAR are not surprising. The reasons for the financial losses include Taliban attacks, corruption and "throwing money at the problem without considering the implications," he said.

"It is one thing to build a clinic and school, it is another to operate, maintain, and in many cases defend this infrastructure from Taliban attacks," said Roggio. "Additionally, the West has wildly underestimated the impact of Afghan corruption and in many cases incompetence. It was always a recipe for failure."

U.S. agencies responsible for construction didn't even ask the Afghans if they wanted or needed the buildings they ordered built, or if they had the technical ability to keep them running, Sopko said in his report.

The waste occurred in violation of "multiple laws stating that U.S. agencies should not construct or procure capital assets until they can show that the benefiting country has the financial and technical resources and capability to use and maintain those assets effectively," he said.

Torek Farhadi, a former adviser to the Afghan government, said a "donor-knows-best" mentality often prevailed and it routinely meant little to no consultation with the Afghan government on projects.

He said a lack of coordination among the many international donors aided the wastefulness. For example, he said schools were on occasion built alongside other newly constructed schools financed by other donors. The construction went ahead because once the decision was made — contract awarded and money allocated — the school was built regardless of the need, said Farhadi.

The injection of billions of dollars, largely unmonitored, fueled runaway corruption among both Afghans and international contractors. But experts say that despite the waste, the need for assistance is real, given the Afghan governments heavy dependence on international money.

The worsening security situation in Afghanistan also greatly impeded the monitoring of projects, with shoddy construction going undetected, said Farhadi, the former Afghan government adviser.

"Consult with the locals about their needs and sustainability of the project once the project is complete," he urged U.S. funding agencies looking to future projects. "Supervise, supervise, supervise project progress and implementation and audit every single layer of expenditure."

Going forward, Roggio said smaller, more manageable projects should be the order of the day. To build big unmanageable projects that Afghanistan has neither the capacity nor technical expertise for after 40 years of relentless war "feeds into the Taliban narrative that the government is corrupt, incompetent, and incapable of providing for the Afghan people," he said.

At least take down the razor wire: DC residents, lawmakers chafe at Capitol fence


Riot fencing topped with razor wire near the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 4, 2021.
JOE GROMELSKI/STARS AND STRIP

By MEAGAN FLYNN AND JULIE ZAUZMER | The Washington Post |

 Published: February 28, 2021

WASHINGTON — It was a modest plea from D.C. residents to the Capitol Police during a virtual town hall: If they couldn't take down the 7-foot fence surrounding the Capitol, could they at least remove the razor wire?

"It could be the beginning of normalcy," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's nonvoting delegate in Congress, suggested to Assistant Police Chief Chad Thomas at the Feb. 11 meeting.

But days went by, and the razor wire and fencing installed after the Jan. 6 breach of the Capitol remains. Norton, District residents and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have grown more irritated with the unsightly barriers closing people out of the Capitol — and, in the view of at least some lawmakers, closing some in.

"It's kind of like working in a minimum-security prison right now," Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., told acting Capitol Police chief Yogananda Pittman during a Thursday hearing before the House Appropriations Committee.

Pittman and Timothy Blodgett, the House's acting sergeant-at-arms, said they are awaiting several security reviews before making a decision about the fence, but that it would remain at least through President Joe Biden's first address to Congress because of threats of violence from militia groups.

The date of Biden's address has not been announced. Pittman did not describe the source or credibility of the intelligence, and some lawmakers questioned whether the threat is concrete enough to justify what increasingly feels like the new normal in Washington.

Residents' commutes and recreational activities — bike riding, dog walking, picnics — have been disrupted. They have signed petitions, put up signs and contacted their local representatives. Jay Adelstein, an advisory neighborhood commissioner, noted that the fencing surrounds much more than the Capitol itself.

"We have a botanical garden on Independence by the Capitol that is inaccessible. We have the beautiful outdoor Bartholdi Park, which is a gem of the Capitol, that is inaccessible," he said. "No tourist is going to want to come to the Capitol or to Washington, D.C., with the city in such a locked-down state."

Reminiscing about the days when he would take his daughters to sled on the Hill, a childhood rite of passage in this neighborhood, Adelstein said, "We've given up too much for too long."


Fencing topped with razor wire near the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 4, 2021.
JOE GROMELSKI/STARS AND STRIPES

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Pittman and Jennifer Hemingway, the Senate's acting sergeant-at-arms, briefed lawmakers on Wednesday and also mentioned threats by extremist groups, but without any details.

"I don't think vague allegations about threats cut it and suggest we need to just leave this razor wire up indefinitely," Kaine said. "Senators were asking on that call: OK, well what's the plan? Give us the date. Give us a timeline. Let us all have an understanding of what's going on. They wouldn't do that."

Both Kaine and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said the Jan. 6 riot was largely a failure of intelligence, rather than infrastructure. "The idea of just making a permanent fortress or a permanent fence is too much of a knee-jerk solution," Van Hollen said.

Norton has introduced a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Ted Budd, R-N.C., and Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., to prohibit the use of federal funds for any permanent fencing, and city officials have joined her inthe fight.

D.C. Council member Charles Allen, D-Ward 6, who represents Capitol Hill, spearheaded a council letter to congressional officials opposing permanent fencing. He said the security measures are unnecessary and harmful to the city, particularly the closure of parts of Independence and Constitution avenues, two major east-west thoroughfares that are crucial for both traffic and emergency vehicles.

"It's already having a massive impact. To me, it is beyond insulting for the Capitol complex to continue to do this," Allen said. "They do it with no regard, none, for the 700,000 residents of the District."

Council member Christina Henderson, I-At Large, said many residents' commutes — including her ordinarily quick drive from her toddler's day care on Capitol Hill to her office at the Wilson Building — are a maze of long ways around the fencing. She cast doubt on whether a fence was really necessary to protect the Capitol during Biden's speech.

"We've been able to do how many State of the Unions in the past without that massive type of fence?" said Henderson, who was an aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., until she ran for the council last year. "It has never required permanent fencing in order to keep that type of event safe."


article continues below

Alan Hantman, who oversaw security enhancements after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when he was architect of the Capitol, said similar debates played out then and after other violence: how to balance public accessibility with public safety.

Many of today's physical security measures in Washington, including bollards and planters at federal buildings, can be traced back to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, he said. After the fatal shooting of two Capitol Police officers in the Capitol in 1998, and again after 9/11, officials sought new security enhancements — including the construction of the Capitol's visitors center, which Hantman oversaw.

But debates were always more nuanced than simply whether to build a wall or not, he said. Security officials and urban planners are expected to find creative architectural solutions to address potential threats.

"I don't think we want to see concrete or steel walls around the United States Capitol, because we have this imperative of openness in this free and open society," he said. "This is not Baghdad. What an image that would be around the world to have us fencing ourselves in from our own people."

Still, Hantman said he could understand the need for a temporary fence. He recalled some security measures, including the presence of the National Guard at major intersections and the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House, dragging on for months after 9/11. "Eleanor Holmes Norton sent us letters and pressed us, just as she is right now," he said.

Norton said her strategy is to start small, by asking for the razor wire to be removed.

She said she was fine with the fence remaining through Biden's address or as long as credible threats warranted it. But the razor wire "makes our country appear unable to protect its own Capitol unless it is fortified like a prison," she wrote in a letter to the Capitol Police Board on Feb. 22.

"I can't say enough what an open Capitol symbolizes for our democracy. You can talk about the White House. You can talk about the Monument. But it's (the Capitol) that really symbolizes what our democracy is," Norton said in an interview. "We cannot let it be fenced in, in this way.

KARMA IS BITCH
A rooster stabbed a man to death with a knife during a cockfight
Julie Gerstein

People place a knife to a rooster's leg before a cockfight at The Tampak Siring Temple in Bali, Indonesia on January 18, 2018. Cockfight is an old tradition in Balinese Hinduism. It is a part of the Tabuh Rah ritual, a religious purification to expel evil spirit through animal sacrifice via the blood of the roosters. Cockfights without a religious purpose are considered gambling in Indonesia. Mahendra Moonstar/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

An Indian man died after being stabbed by a rooster he was training for cockfighting.

The rooster had been outfitted with a three-inch knife on its leg.

Though cockfighting is illegal in most countries, it continues to attract fans.


A rooster fitted with a knife around its foot stabbed its owner to death during practice for an illegal cockfight in India.

Thangulla Satish, 45, died of blood loss after the rooster repeatedly stabbed him in the groin with a three-inch knife that had been tied around the animal's leg, according to the Associated Press.

Satish was among 16 people organizing the cockfight in the village of Lothunur in the Indian state of Telegana, the AP reported.

Authorities are currently searching for the other 15 organizers, who could be charged with manslaughter. They each face up to two years in prison, according to Al-Jazeera.

Animal rights activists say the sport is especially cruel because it takes advantage of the birds' natural survival mechanisms in forcing them to fight.

To make matches gorier, some cockfighting trainers fit their birds with what's known as a "gaff" – a long, dagger-like knife attached to the animal's foot. Birds often will have many of their feathers plucked out before matches to make it more difficult for their opponents to attack, according to the ASPCA.

They are also sometimes drugged with methamphetamines to enhance their aggressiveness.

Even birds that win their matches often suffer injuries so severe that they, too, are killed.


Despite India's Supreme Court outlawing the practice in the 1960s, cockfighting continues to be popular in many of the country's southern states.

In the US, cockfighting is considered a felony in 42 states, though federal authorities continue to regularly break up fighting rings around the country. In August of last year, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department busted a ring with more than 2,000 birds, USA Today reported.

Authorities in New York — in a 2014 sting they dubbed "Operation Angry Birds" — arrested more than 70 people and confiscated more than 3,000 birds, the New York Post reported.

This is not the first time a bird handler has been killed by a gamecock. Last year, a 55-year-old Indian man from Andhra Pradesh died after a gamecock slashed him in the neck and abdomen during a match held to mark the Hindu festival of Makar Sankranti. And in 2018, a 34-year-old man from Rajavaram, India, bled to death after a rooster gaff pierced his thigh and testicles.

 

GENDER AND WHITE SUPREMACIST VIOLENCE

Women’s March in October 2020. Photo courtesy of Mobilus In Mobili.

• BYELIN BJARNEGÅRD AND JENNIFER M. PISCOPO 
• January 21, 2021

Guest post by Elin Bjarnegård and Jennifer M. Piscopo

Political leaders, media commentators, and academics have swiftly and accurately called those who stormed the US Capitol on January 6 what they are: white supremacists. They are also mostly men, seeking to reclaim privileges based on race—and gender. For instance, one attacker gleefully reported scratching his balls inside Nancy Pelosi’s office suite while other rioters tore her nameplate off the wall, chanting “get her out.” 

The link between white supremacy and misogyny is well noted, but it’s worth being precise about “where the gender is” in the political violence that occurred in the US capital—and that many fear will be repeated during and after the inauguration. In our framework for analyzing gender and political violence, we focus on gender’s presence or absence in three elements of an attack: the motives, the forms, and the impacts. This precision helps law enforcement prosecute crimes and protect vulnerable groups, and helps policymakers understand how political violence shapes the degree to which women and girls feel safe enough to stand for and hold elected office.

In the case of the storming of the US Capitol, gender doesn’t appear to have been an explicit motive. The perpetrators’ primary aim was not to suppress women’s political participation or drive women from politics. Rather, attackers aimed to halt the confirmation of Joe Biden as the next president of the United States, preserving the office for Donald Trump, who has become the standard-bearer of white nationalism. In this sense, the attackers didn’t target Nancy Pelosi just because she is a woman—they targeted her because she leads the party that opposes Trump’s agenda. Their enemies included anyone seen as insufficiently loyal to Trump, even the vice president, about whom they chanted, “Hang Mike Pence.”

The attacks did, however, include gendered forms and gendered impacts. The perpetrators performed hypermasculinity and their actions sent distinctive, even chilling messages to women politicians about their place in a white supremacist world. 

The insurrectionists’ masculinity ideals and views of women may well have shaped the form of attacks they carried out. Research demonstrates that individuals with sexist attitudes are not just more prone to violent extremist views and religious intolerance, they are also more likely to support and choose to participate in political violence. 

Indeed, many of the attackers have a history of abusing women, from sending angry messages about women in power to protesting at abortion clinics. It is no accident that Richard “Bigo” Barnett attempted to reassert masculine dominance by scratching his genitalia in Nancy Pelosi’s office. The insurrectionists also touted their masculinity in other ways, parading through the Capitol bare-chested or in full combat gear. 

The attackers’ masculine performance shows how white supremacy and heteropatriarchy go hand-in-hand. White nationalism cannot be separated from the nostalgia that its partisans feel for an imagined era where ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ+ minorities, non-Christians, and other marginalized groups knew their place. 

The victims know this. Pelosi’s daughter, Democratic strategist Christine Pelosi, responded to an article titled “Misogyny in the Capitol: Among the insurrectionists, a lot of angry men who don’t like women,” by distinguishing between the attackers’ political motives and their gendered enactment. She writes, “They tried to kill her because she’s the Speaker whom Trump opposes; they took extra gleeful vengeance because she is a powerful woman.”

Women interpret these attacks as speaking to them because women politicians are no strangers to uncivil behavior, hateful messages, and death threats that use gendered slurs or express misogynist viewpoints. Similarly, two leading congresswomen of color—Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—described the Capitol assaults as particularly chilling, given white supremacists’ stated aim to visit violence upon Black and brown bodies. For these congresswomen, their experiences with political violence cannot be separated from their gendered and raced identities.

When leaders like Pelosi, Pressley, and Ocasio-Cortez receive hateful messages, the senders are not just angry about their political views. They are angry that women or women of color dare to claim political power. Research shows that women politicians who are more powerful and publicly visible, and those who are nonwhite, draw disproportionate amounts of abuse, relative to men politicians and to other women in office. These patterns tell us that while politics is frequently unpleasant and occasionally harmful, the abuse that many women politicians experience is more than “business as usual”—it is political violence amplified and even driven by misogyny and racism. 

It’s not surprising, then, that feminist commentators swiftly recognized the gendered dimensions of the disrespect shown in Pelosi’s office suite, or connected this behavior to the widely circulated image of a destroyed display case that contained books about women in politics. (Though it’s worth noting that many parts of the Capitol building were damaged, not just those imbued with gendered meaning.) Given that gendered harassment and abuse already drives women away from politics and discourages other women from entering in the first place, the latest violence may further convince US women and girls that politics is not safe for them.

The interconnected nature of white supremacy and misogyny makes gender central to discussions of white nationalist violence, but as with any political violence, gender shapes the different elements of attacks in different ways. In the case of the US Capitol insurrection, the perpetrators’ motives were not explicitly gendered, but hypermasculinity, sexism, and misogyny shaped their performance and their messaging. 

As Washington DC, state capitals, and other large cities brace for more political violence from Trump supporters, understanding how gender operates within white supremacist violence will help law authorities protect vulnerable groups. Attackers may aim to occupy buildings or disrupt events in order to protest the Biden presidency, but women—especially women of color—may draw attackers’ particular attention and therefore face heightened risk of pursuit or assault. Women’s family members, staff, and property might be similarly targeted. Targeting women aims to keep politics an all-male, all-white space.

Preventing political violence during the presidential transition is only a short-term solution. The long-term solution lies with countering white supremacists’ exclusionary vision, and ensuring that individuals of all genders, backgrounds, and faiths can run for and occupy political office safely and freely.

Elin Bjarnegård is Associate Professor of Political Science at Uppsala University. Jennifer M. Piscopo is Associate Professor of Politics at Occidental College.

40% of people do not understand  

coercive control – survey

Safeguarding Ireland is calling for laws on coercive control to be expanded.

Just over a quarter of a representative sample

 of 1,000 adults said that they understood it

 (Dominic Lipinski/PA)


By Cate McCurry, PA

February 28 2021 


Greater public awareness of coercive control has been called for after new research found that 40% of people do not understand this type of abuse.

The research, commissioned by Safeguarding Ireland and carried out by RED C, found that 25% of adults said they were not familiar with coercive control at all, while 15% said they had heard the term but did not understand it.

Just over a quarter of a representative sample of 1,000 adults said that they understood it.

When then provided with an explanation of coercive control, 30% said they had witnessed this happening to someone they knew and 13% said they had experienced it themselves.

However, Safeguarding Ireland chairwoman Patricia Rickard-Clarke said she believes coercive control to be even more prevalent because of the low level of understanding, particularly in relation to it happening to vulnerable adults.

30%

Percentage of adults who say they had witnessed coercive control happening to someone they knew Red C

“Domestic abuse within an intimate couple is widely reported to have increased significantly during Covid-19 and this is generally what is understood to be coercive control,” Ms Rickard-Clarke said.

“However, coercive control is much broader than physical assault, can be subtle and can occur in any close adult relationship, with vulnerable adults particularly at risk.

“Coercive control could be detaining a vulnerable person at home, keeping their phone from them, controlling their money or medical care, preventing contact with family and friends, or constant undermining of a person’s independence and making decisions on their behalf.

“It is the use of threats, humiliation, intimidation, or assault to make a person dependent, to isolate them in order to exploit and deprive people of their rightful independence.”

The RED C research found that almost a quarter of cases witnessed happened outside of intimate relationships, including between frail older people and family members, or in the care of people with intellectual or physical disabilities either at home or in an institution

Our current laws only recognise coercive control as an identifiable crime in the setting of an intimate relationship between a couplePatricia Rickard-Clarke

Ms Rickard-Clarke said the law also needs to change to recognise that coercive control occurs outside of intimate relationships.

“Our current laws only recognise coercive control as an identifiable crime in the setting of an intimate relationship between a couple,” she added.

“However, this research shows that despite a low level of understanding of coercive control, people can still readily recognise significant levels of this abuse in settings outside of intimate relationships.

“I suspect that, if understanding of coercive control was higher, people would identify an even higher incidence of it occurring, particularly involving psychological abuse of vulnerable adults.

“Safeguarding Ireland is calling for our laws on coercive control to be expanded to include the coercive control of another person as a crime in any close adult relationship. This is particularly important for vulnerable adults.”

More information on coercive control is available on the Safeguarding Ireland website at safeguardingireland.org


PA

THE OTHER QANON GOP REP

At CPAC, Gun-Toting Rep. Lauren Boebert Rails Against Metal Detectors and Pelosi
By Kristen Doerer | February 28, 2021 

Rep. Lauren Boebert released an ad on Jan. 3, 2021

 declaring, "I will carry my glock to Congress." (Screenshot)


Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado joined her comrades from the so-called Stop the Steal rallies Saturday for a panel on the Second Amendment at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida. The American Conservative Union-endorsed congresswoman used the elevated stage as an opportunity to promote her gun-toting image and rail against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“We are in the gunshine state,” moderator Dana Loesch told the assembled crowd to kick off the panel, before introducing Republican Reps. Andy Biggs and Boebert and former Georgia state Rep. Vernon Jones.

The three politicians had spoken at numerous Stop the Steal rallies and used the campaign’s language and messaging in contesting the 2020 presidential election. Jones was a fixture of Stop the Steal rallies, particularly those in his home state of Georgia, while QAnon-supporting Boebert spoke at the first “Million MAGA March” in Washington, D.C. Biggs, meanwhile, was cited by far-right activist and lead Stop the Steal organizer Ali Alexander as one of three congressmen who helped plan the D.C. rally that immediately preceded the insurrection at the Capitol. (Rep. Paul Gosar, who was another, spoke at last night’s far-right alternative to CPAC before taking CPAC’s main stage this morning.) Loesch herself had spoken at an early Stop the Steal rally in Texas in November.

“For the first time ever, I don’t think I’m the biggest fire starter on the stage,” Loesch said, as Biggs pointed to Boebert. “Thank you, Congresswoman Beobert.”

“Are you worried about your safety in D.C., in the Capitol, both?” Loesch asked Boebert, referring to the congresswoman’s declaration that she would carry her glock to Congress. Boebert released a viral ad on Jan. 3 showing her walking around in an alley of a wealthy D.C. neighborhood spouting claims about violent crime and declaring that “I am my best security.”

Boebert went on to tell viewers how after a man was beaten to death in her hometown of Rifle, Colorado—the only town named after a gun, she noted—she started openly carrying in her restaurant and encouraged her waitresses to do the same. In response to questions about proposed gun legislation, Boebert turned the discussion to what she really wanted to talk about: her battle with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who ordered the installation of metal detectors in the House chambers following the Capitol insurrection and reports of Congress members giving large tours days before.

Boebert has tried to circumvent the metal detectors—as has Biggs—and bring her gun on to the House floor, claiming she needed it to protect herself should there be another insurrection; she was granted a conceal carry permit earlier this month. As Right Wing Watch wrote at the time, “Despite the fact Boebert was allied with the very activists who breached security and stormed the Capitol, she is now trying to use the insurrection as justification for being allowed to carry a gun in Washington, D.C., and in Congress.”

“Speaker Pelosi has called us the enemy within. There’s metal detectors,” Boebert said. “I am there to defend our Second Amendment rights. This isn’t about attacking my gun; this is talking about taking your gun and I will stand up for your God-given rights every single day.”

“In Washington D.C., I wouldn’t be surprised if we start quartering soldiers in the committee hearing rooms. There are plenty in the parking garage at ‘Fort Pelosi,’” Boebert said. “Maybe we could unreasonably start seizing and searching members of Congress. Oh wait. We’re already doing that on the House Chambers. Yes, yes. We are. With the metal detectors and all that.”

Later, she was more direct: “I cannot wait until they take that gavel from Speaker Pelosi in 2022.”

The conversation at another point veered to legislation introduced by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida to prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

“Well, what’s the definition of domestic terrorist? Does it mean that Vernon Jones, if I go to the United States Capitol, and I want to protest peacefully, now I’m under terrorist watch, and I haven’t done anything wrong? Wait a minute, something’s not right,” Jones said, before likening himself to the late civil rights icon John Lewis who was put on a no-fly list. “So what is a terrorist? You and me could be a terrorist in their definition, and that legislation doesn’t define what a terrorist is.”

“They want us to be called domestic terrorists and be put on lists,” Boebert said at another point. “Well then, aren’t we all domestic terrorists?