At Last!!! Something Truly Damaging About Mr. Trump!!!

I originally wrote this as a reply to Booman’s post Why Kneecapping Trump Won’t Work. I asked…

“How about skullcapping?”

Really. This one is truly strange. Middle America won’t like it. Brilliant satire, and with the added value that it appears to be true!!!

Read on:

Is Donald Trump’s Hair a $60,000 Weave? A Gawker Investigation

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has generated an unceasing torrent of press attention that some estimate to be worth roughly $2 billion. Yet the central mystery at the very core of his persona–his inscrutable hairdo–has somehow, impossibly, remained unsolved. Until, perhaps, now.

A tipster who claimed knowledge of Trump’s hair recently came to Gawker with a potential solution to the enigma: Trump’s hair is not his own, costs tens of thousands of dollars for installation and upkeep, and comes from a man as mysterious as Trump is bombastic.

This solution that Trump, our tipster says, sought for his hair woes is a little-known, patented hair restoration treatment called a “microcylinder intervention.” It’s only performed by one clinic that we know of–Ivari International–where our source once sought treatment, and where he says he learned of Trump’s apparent patronage. What’s more, Ivari’s New York location was inside Trump Tower–on the private floor reserved for Donald Trump’s own office.

—snip—

It goes on. Worth reading in its entirety for the sheer strangeness of it. A thoroughly researched piece about sheer, self-loving idiocy. I laughed my ass off. This kind of mockery will work, I think. It s kinda like that thing with John Edwards preening in front of a mirror while the soundtrack plays “I Feel Pretty.”

That was the true beginning of the end for John Boy.

Real ‘Muricans like the Trump followers ain’t gonna elect no dude who goes this far…and this expensive…to end up looking like a latter day Gorgeous George. (Start watching at about 1:03 in.)

It just ain’t…manly…if y’know what I mean.

Delightful.

I said a year ago regarding Trump that you cannot laugh a clown offstage.

Maybe I was wrong. If the clown appears to take himself too seriously? Maybe I was wrong.

Kudos to Ms. Feinberg. Brilliant…and hurtful…comedy.

Later…

AG

Operating Without the Weight of Evidence

I’m glad that Jonah Goldberg found an opportunity to use “Aristotelian” in a sentence, but his overall point is wasted in the context in which he provides it. While it is true that some people would prefer a shopping mall to a public park, and vice-versa, that doesn’t mean that we can’t rely on scientists to give us the most reliable answers to scientific questions. Neil deGrasse Tyson cannot tell us whether it is better to encourage exercise or commerce, but he can explain the cosmos better than the editorial staff at the National Review.

Likewise, scientists and medical professionals can tell us how safe the abortion procedure is, or whether it will be beneficial to women’s health to insist that doctors providing abortions have a medical facility suitable for brain surgery. The Supreme Court looked at the evidence and concluded that right-wing legislators are passing laws with the sole purpose of driving abortion-providing clinics out of business. That wasn’t some aesthetic call. It wasn’t taking the side of the green spaces people over the mall shoppers. It was a correct conclusion based on data and expertise in the field of medicine and the careful collection of evidence.

Finally, it won’t do to insist that whatever the people decide must be correct and that anything contrary to the wishes of the people (as expressed by a snapshot of their will in one election season) is undemocratic. We will always have a governing elite, and we will always have experts who know the most about important things. Democracy is how we tell these people that they’re doing a bad job. It’s not a way for us to make decisions for them.

When our elites fail us, the whole system breaks down, and the surest way for them to fail us is for them to stop believing in the very idea of knowing the most about important things. That’s what has happened on the right in this country. And one of the consequences of that is that we’ve lost the freedom to vote people on the left out of office for doing a bad job.

Sorry, but you don’t put a blabbering schizophrenic patient in charge of the hospital surgery team because the team in place is making too many mistakes. You just grin and bear it, and hope things somehow take a turn for the better.

The brain of the right is out to lunch and it doesn’t appear that it will be returning in the afternoon. And, yet, folks like Jonah Goldberg keep making excuses for their abdication of duty.

Why Kneecapping Trump Won’t Work

The American Research Group (ARG) gets a C+ grade in Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings. They are punished modestly for having a slight Republican bias, and punished heavily for only calling the correct winner in 75% of the 260 polls that Silver analyzed. In other words, they’re less partisan hacks than just crappy pollsters. They do not appear to be good at their jobs.

This could explain why they are the only polling outfit that sees Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire with a lead in her reelection bid against Democrat Maggie Hassan. ARG gives Ayotte a comfortable nine-point lead, outside the margin of error, while three other recent polls have shown the race essentially tied (Public Policy Polling: Hassan +2, WBUR/MassInc: Hassan +1, Boston Herald/FPU: Ayotte +1).

In any case, Ayotte’s reelection prospects are a thin reed to rely on if you want to rationalize Mitch McConnell’s kneecapping of Donald Trump as an essentially rational decision to cut bait on the Oval Office and focus on preserving his Senate majority. Here’s Allahpundit of the right-wing blog, HotAir:

Let’s recap McConnell’s choicer soundbites about Trump over the past two months. On May 4th, the day after Trump won Indiana and Cruz and Kasich dropped out, McConnell endorsed him, albeit tepidly. A month later, after watching Trump spend several weeks talking about the “Mexican” judge in his civil suit instead of Hillary Clinton, McConnell urged him at a press conference to get on message. Three days after that, he tore Trump apart in an interview with Bloomberg, admitting “it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues” and hinting that he might yet rescind his endorsement. After that, he stopped taking questions about Trump at his weekly press briefings altogether. Then, two days ago, he was asked on “This Week” whether Trump is qualified to be president. He dodged, saying that’s for voters to decide. And so we arrive at today, with McConnell responding to a question about whether he thinks Trump is a “credible” candidate for the presidency with this withering backhanded reply: “He’s getting closer.”

Question: Does Mitch McConnell want Trump to win? Before you answer, note that when he was asked about Hillary Clinton in this same interview, he described her as “intelligent and capable.” If I told you that Mitch the Knife had described one candidate in a certain race as capable and the other as not quite credible (yet), which one would you assume he’s supporting?

The obvious explanation for his hedging on Trump is that he’s trying to protect his caucus. He had to endorse him for the same reason Paul Ryan did, because it’s unthinkable for a Republican congressional leader to hold out for long on a Republican nominee, but I’m sure McConnell cares more about retaining a Senate majority than he does about Trump winning the White House. If Trump falls far behind Clinton later this summer, McConnell and other top Republicans will shift quickly to a “Save the Senate!” message encouraging ticket-splitting. He’s laying the groundwork for that now: If you’re an independent who’s disgusted with Trump, well, just know that your friendly neighborhood Republican majority leader shares your disgust and strongly believes you shouldn’t punish Republican incumbents for Trump’s sins. So far, it’s working!

The evidence Allahpundit provides that this strategy is working is the aforementioned ARG poll and a generic congressional preference poll from NBC/Wall Street Journal that shows the public tied 46%-46% between Republicans and Democrats. Yet, the overall Real Clear Politics polling average on this question gives the Democrats a two point advantage, and the latest Fox News poll gives the Dems a five point edge.

To his credit, Allahpundit seems to understand that McConnell is engaged in risky business:

The more McConnell and other big-name Republicans badmouth Trump, the more Republican voters who are skeptical of Trump may take it as a green light to abandon him at the top of the ticket so long as they vote in congressional races. We’ve seen several polls lately showing that Trump’s support among Republicans has begun to lag Clinton’s support among Democrats, making his task this fall that much harder. He needs a unified party to stand a solid chance of winning, but the more unified the party is, the easier it’ll be for Democrats to connect Republicans down-ballot to Trump. McConnell’s trying to play a game right now where he both is and isn’t behind the nominee, having endorsed him formally while spending nearly every opportunity since then tearing him down. He’s taking a serious gamble in betting that attacking Trump will somehow inoculate the Senate instead of helping to send Trump crashing to a landslide defeat that ends up dragging the whole party down with him. I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating that I don’t think the GOP leadership can be “half-pregnant” towards their nominee. Either they’re all-in for a big win or it’s time to cut him loose. The fact that McConnell keeps kneecapping him suggests that he’s already resigned himself to Trump’s defeat and is doing what he can now to create some distance.

I basically agree with this analysis. I’d add that the way downballot races work in presidential elections, it’s more important that the top of the ticket doesn’t get swamped than it is that you can convince some folks to split their tickets. People will not show up to vote if they’re unwilling to support anyone on the top of the ticket, and if they’re only showing up to vote for the other party’s candidate, you’re going to get stomped. For a ticket-splitting strategy to work, the top race has to remain at least modestly competitive.

So, my money is not on McConnell or Ayotte or any of the other vulnerable senators and representatives who think they can survive by tearing Trump down. A collapse at the top will cascade down and wash away these folks like so much flotsam and jetsam.

After Brexit: Transatlantic Opportunity for Europe’s Neutrality

Secr. Kerry Remarks On Brexit

Most recent comment after a few days of intensive meetings, talks and reflection:

John Kerry: Brexit could be ‘walked back’ | The Guardian |

    Claiming there were a number of ways in which Thursday’s vote could be “walked back”, John Kerry, who visited Downing Street on Monday, said David Cameron was loth to invoke article 50, the EU exit procedure. He said the British prime minister felt powerless to “start negotiating a thing that he doesn’t believe in” and “has no idea how he would do it”.

UK rudderless, as Conservatives and Labour look for post-Brexit leaders

 « click for more info
London politics looks quite similar to the last days of Rome and the decline of its Empire

As there are no kids involved, my prediction the Brexit divorce will be messy as it will be about markets, trade and sellf-interest.

Remarks With Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni Before Their Meeting

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, buongiorno. Good morning to everybody. I’m delighted to be here with Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, and we have a lot to talk about today besides Brexit, though I will address Brexit in a moment. But we need to talk about Libya, where we are working extremely closely together; Syria; and our preparations for the NATO Warsaw summit. So there’s a great deal on the table, including our counterterrorism efforts and the meeting that will take place in Washington on the 21st of July, which will be a major gathering of all of the coalition with respect to ISIL.

And the reason I start off by mentioning all of that is really to emphasize that the vote about Brexit and the changes that now are being thought through have to be thought through in the context of the interests and the values that bind us together with the EU. Twenty-two of the nations in the EU are members of NATO, and so there is a continuing criticality to this relationship. And one of the things that I want to emphasize in coming here today to Europe is how important the relationship of Europe – the EU – is to the United States and to the world.

One country has made a decision. Obviously, it is a decision that the United States had hoped would go the other way. But it didn’t. And so we begin with a fundamental respect for voters. In a democracy, when the voters speak, it is the job of leaders to listen and then to make sure that they are moving in a way that is responsible to address the concerns. I am absolutely convinced – and I say this to the marketplace, I say this to citizens who are wondering what is going on – I am absolutely convinced, President Obama is absolutely convinced that we will be able to work through this in a sensible, thoughtful way that takes the best strengths of the EU, the best strengths of the marketplace, the best interests of our national security and international security, and works to keep them moving in the right direction for our countries. I have no doubt about our ability to be able to do that. And so we will continue, the United States, to have a very close and special relationship with Great Britain. We value that relationship. That does not change because of this vote.

On the other hand, obviously there are steps that Europe needs to take to respond to the expression of voters and to the concerns of people in other countries. But there is no doubt in my mind the marketplace of the EU without Great Britain is 450 million people. This is a very powerful economic entity. It is also an entity that shares values and interests with the United States and the rest of the world, and we have always believed in the United States that an EU united and strong is our preference for a partner to be able to work on the important issues that face us today.

So I am looking forward to my meetings tomorrow, when I will meet in both Brussels and London – Brussels with the EU and, of course, in London in order to determine what they’re thinking about the transition and the process ahead. The most important thing is that all of us as leaders work together to provide as much continuity, as much stability, as much certainty as possible in order for the marketplace to understand that there are ways to minimize disruption, there are ways to smartly move ahead in order to protect the values and interests that we share in common.  

John Kerry talking about Brexit, Globalization and disruptors in digital society | Aspen Institute |

Now, unless you all spent the entire week hiking and sleeping without your cell phone – which is very enticing, believe me – (laughter) – you have undoubtedly been reading, thinking, and talking about Brexit, and maybe in the Q&A we’ll talk about it in a little bit. I mentioned I talked to the leaders from the UK, EU – I left out NATO. I met also with Jens Stoltenberg. And my message to all of them was very simple – that America’s commitment to the EU and to Great Britain is as strong as ever to both the transatlantic partnership and to our special relationship. And the Brexit vote in my judgment, and I think President Obama’s judgment, does not affect the agenda that we share with NATO, the G7, the P5, all – and by the way, the NATO leaders, we will all be meeting in about a week in Warsaw for the NATO summit, and it actually makes that summit more important and it makes much of what we will be doing to reassure the front-line states and to make it clear how important that alliance still remains. So we will continue to collaborate with both the British and the EU.

And I want to just emphasize, as I did in England yesterday, the values that we have shared for so long with our friends, the Brits, and that we shared in the vision of an EU, and the interests and its interests and values that make up foreign policy and its interests and values that brought us together – they are the same today as they were before the vote last Wednesday. Didn’t change a thing. So remember that as we go forward, and I reminded both parties how critical it is to remain steady here. And the steadiness of our purpose, I think, is evident and embraced by all, and the ability to rely on capable partners right now in this world that we’re living in is more critical than ever, because it is increasingly clear that pundits and practitioners alike understand more and more of how we are living in a much more complex world than at any time in our history.

For years, if you go back to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the great changes that came about thereafter – Tito, Yugoslavia – I mean, societies were compressed by the Cold War, by the entire post-World War II order. And a lot of societies were shielded by the absence of communication, by the slow pace of doing business if they did business at all effectively, and by the simplicity of the bipolar East-West divide which defined the world for the latter part and even for most of since 1917 – for most of the 20th century.

Now, as every single one of you knows and as you talk about in every which way as we contemplate various disruptors in our lives and in society, we are dealing with a world which speeds up politics, speeds up the flow of information beyond the capacity of most people to digest it. And believe me, that was underscored by the fact that I noticed that the largest internet Google search in England the day after the vote was “What is the EU?” (Laughter.) I’m serious.

So this is a world where globalization and instantaneous communication are connecting people in more ways than ever before. The kids in Tahrir Square – that wasn’t motivated by any religious extremism, nor were the kids who originally came out in Syria to demonstrate for a future. The fact is that we see more people connected in more ways than ever before, and so everybody knows what everybody else has, and that underscores what you don’t have.  

Hmmm … what has changed in a month’s time, eternity in the digital age!  😉

NATO to hold talks with Russia before alliance summit | France24 – May 20, 2016 |
Russia agrees to talks with NATO after Warsaw summit: France | Reuters – June 29, 2016 |

EU army? New security strategy says bloc should `go beyond NATO’

“Our Union is under threat. Our European project, which has brought unprecedented peace, prosperity and democracy, is being questioned,” it reads.

“A more credible European defense is essential also for the sake of a healthy transatlantic partnership with the United States,” the document also states. The US now subsidizes European defense by vastly outspending all other NATO members and paying about 75 percent of the bloc’s spending.

In the meantime, the paper also actively encourages European countries to increase their defense spending and create strong defense industry that would become a basis of the union’s future military autonomy.

“Investment in security and defense is a matter of urgency,” it states, stressing that “defense cooperation must become the norm.”

EU should “systematically encourage defense cooperation and strive to create a solid European defense industry, which is critical for Europe’s autonomy of decision and action,” the paper adds, stressing that member states must channel “a sufficient level of expenditure to defense, make the most efficient use of resources, and meet the collective commitment of 20 percent of defense budget spending devoted to the procurement of equipment and research & technology,” if they want to be able to cope with external threats.

Watch and listen to the leaders of Poland and the Baltic states … they’re furieus! Observe who gets invited on the mass media talk shows [cq propaganda]. Even registered the return of our former nemesis, former British citizen and former FM of Poland.
Remember Russiaphobes’ favorite son Radek Sikorski?

His secretly taped conversation with expletives towards David Cameron proved to be right. 😉

Polish MPs ridicule Cameron’s ‘stupid propaganda’ aimed at Eurosceptics | The Guardian – June 2014 |

The Polish foreign minister believes David Cameron has “fucked up” his handling of the EU by resorting to “stupid propaganda” to appease Eurosceptics, according to an expletive-laden transcript of secretly taped conversations.

Radoslaw Sikorski, who is close to many senior Tories and as an Oxford University student was a member of the Bullingdon Club at the same time as Boris Johnson, made the comments in a conversation with the former Polish finance minister Jacek Rostowski.

The conversation between the two men, printed in Monday’s edition of Wprost news magazine, reveals the extent of the fallout between Poland and the UK over Cameron’s proposals to change EU migrants’ access to benefits.

Downing Street responded to the leaked Polish tapes by saying that the prime minister would continue to stand up for British interests and deal with the “abuse” of free movement because support for the EU in Britain is “wafer thin”.

In another secretly taped conversation, the spokesman for the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, claims Tusk “fucked him [Cameron] up good” during a conversation with the British prime minister over plans to curb access to benefits in the UK.

Can Mike Ditka and Bobby Knight Fill the Void?

Two days ago, I wrote about how no one seems to want to speak at the Republican National Convention. It might actually be hard for Trump to fill all the speaking slots with politicians that anyone knows or has even a modicum of respect for, so I wasn’t too surprised to see Bloomberg report soon after that The Donald is hoping to invite some celebrities onto the stage. Legendary “ultra-ultra conservative” football player and coach Mike Ditka was mentioned as one possibility, along with convicted rapist Mike Tyson and player-choking chair-throwing basketball coach legend Bobby Knight.

Now, Tyson, through his publicist, says that “he’ll be nowhere near Cleveland” when the convention rolls around, but Ditka (though surprised to hear his name mentioned) says he’d be willing to do Trump a solid. There’s a slight problem, though:

Ditka said he first learned of the suggestion that he might appear at the July 18-21 convention in Cleveland in text messages from pals who’d read the Bloomberg story, which cited sources familiar with the Trump campaign’s plans. The story said other retired athletes, including boxer Mike Tyson, would also appear alongside Trump.

Still, Ditka said that “If (Trump) asks me, I’d be happy to do it. I’ve said before that I like him.” He added, “I’m not the type of guy to give a big speech. My speeches are short and to the point.”

I don’t see how Ditka’s short and to the point speech is going to fill enough time to keep people from noticing that pretty much no one recognizably Republican in a famous kind of way is going on stage to vouch for the nominee.

Maybe Bobby Knight can help with outreach to undecided voters.

But I remain skeptical, since that’s not the kind of outreach most people have in mind.

Casual Observation

I’m not that great with knowing a lot about the people who ran for and lost the presidency, particularly in the 19th Century, but I think it’s got to be impossible that we’ve ever had a more transparent scoundrel than Donald Trump this close to the White House.

With Blacks, Trump is an Unpopular as Obama is Popular

Back in April 2011, Donald Trump went on Talk Radio 1300 in Albany, New York. He told the host that he was mulling a presidential bid, but he was disappointed that the black community was so supportive of the Kenyan Muslim usurper despite the fact that his birth certificate was clearly a fraud. “I have a great relationship with the blacks,” Trump said, “I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.”

Contemporary polling in the Empire State showed that 95% of “the blacks” there were behind President Obama, but Trump thought it was more about racial solidarity than job performance.

“Look at Hillary Clinton,” the reality television star continued in reference to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary race. “Hillary Clinton did so much for the black population, so much and got very few votes.”

“Look, I tell it like it is,” he added. “Then you hear a political reporter go on and say, ‘It had nothing to do with race.’ But how come she got such a tiny piece of the vote. It’s a very sad thing.”

It’s interesting that Trump was so ready to acknowledge back then that Hillary Clinton had done “so much for the black population,” and that he asserted that it was “a very sad thing” that she didn’t get more support from them in the primaries.

It’s also interesting that Obama had a 95% job approval rating with New York State blacks in 2011 and that Trump currently has a 94% unfavorable rating from blacks nationally.

A recent Washington Post poll highlights the Achilles’ heel of Donald Trump’s campaign: Minority voters, namely blacks and Hispanics, don’t support him.

The poll, released Wednesday, only shows the problem is evolving for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. A staggering 94 percent of black adults surveyed view Trump negatively, a 13 percent increase since the same poll was conducted in May.

While Trump’s likely general election opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, is boasting a 79 percent favorability rating among black Americans, Trump is fighting claims of racism after launching attacks on a U.S.-born judge of Mexican descent.

“I am not a racist, in fact, I am the least racist person that you’ve ever encountered,” Trump said to The Washington Post last week, defending his comments that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage creates a conflict of interest that prevents him from fairly presiding over a case involving Trump University.

Those comments were met with scorn by both Democrats and Republicans, with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) calling it “textbook” racism.

It’s not unlikely that by taking a tour around the country to question the president’s citizenship, Trump actually bolstered the president’s standing with the black community. I think the whole Birther Movement was so appalling that it caused black folks to rally to Obama in defense. When has any other president been subjected to something so ridiculous and transparently bigoted?

What’s more certain is that Trump earned the everlasting antipathy of nearly every black person in the country. And that’s not something he could afford to do if he ever wanted to be president. Not when he’s running against someone who (as he’s admitted) has done “so much for the black population.”

Has Justice Kennedy Left the Conservative Movement?

I love this piece in the Atlantic by Garrett Epps. I particularly love the way he concludes it:

And then came Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. In its aftermath, the Senate Republican leadership dropped once and for all any pretense that law is anything but the crassest of partisan politics. Senate Judiciary Chair Charles Grassley told the world that no justice would be confirmed who did not toe the line—a line that the chief justice, a confirmed Reaganite, was now too “moderate” to be trusted with. The Court, Grassley and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told the Republican base, was and would remain the GOP firewall; its job is to strike down Democratic programs and rubber-stamp Republican ones—nothing more and nothing less. Justices are in effect elected at the polls; Donald Trump could possibly select the next name.

How did this cynicism sound to Kennedy, who considers the majesty of the Court the defining virtue of the American system? O’Connor was once a loyal GOP foot soldier, who did her duty in Bush v. Gore. By the time she left the Court, according to Jeffery Toobin’s book, The Oath, she told a colleague, “It’s my party that’s destroying the country.”

Has that same realization begun to insinuate itself into Kennedy’s opaque mind? Has he had an O’Connor moment? This is just speculation on my part. But Kennedy really has shifted. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case, the states opposing marriage equality discovered that it is unwise to question Kennedy’s central dogma of “dignity” as the aim of constitutional law. Perhaps McConnell, Grassley, et al., should now resolve never again to treat the Sphinx of Sacramento as if he were Reince Priebus’s errand boy.

What’s probably most interesting about Epps’s article is his speculation about the influence Sonia Sotomayor may be having on Justice Kennedy. It’s a subject that was also recently tackled by Ian Millhiser. It appears that Kennedy was about to gut affirmative action in college admissions back in 2012 but was dissuaded when he read Sotomayor’s blistering draft dissent. He decided to punt by sending the case back down to the lower court and asking them to be more hard-ass in their assessment of universities’ diversity admission programs. And then something odd happened.

The lower court looked again—and upheld the affirmative-action program again.

When the case came back, there was little reason to expect anything but a brisk reversal. Yet during the intervening terms, Kennedy may have begun to move on race questions…

…The opinion Kennedy wrote was really not a narrow one. It strongly endorses the Lewis Powell-Sandra Day O’Connor view of affirmative action as a quest for racial diversity, and it goes out of its way to say that courts must defer to educational authorities when assessing race-conscious admissions plans.

As Epps explains in detail, this is a fundamental reversal of Kennedy’s thinking, and it amounts to apostasy in conservative circles.

I don’t know if Sotomayor deserves most of the credit or if it’s more a matter of Kennedy just getting disgusted by the extremism of the Conservative Movement, or some combination. But taken together with his support of gay marriage and his joining the majority in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt abortion case, Kennedy has recently presided over a scorched earth decimation of the core of the Conservative Movement’s judicial order of battle.

Epps says he can’t discern any consistent, ideological guidepost to Kennedy’s thinking, but maybe he found one despite himself. Maybe Kennedy is still a very conservative Justice, but one who is no longer a part of the Movement or even particularly sympathetic to its causes.

One Small Step for Justice

“A Florida jury on Monday found a former Chilean army officer liable for the 1973 torture and murder of the folk singer and political activist Victor Jara, awarding $28m in damages to his widow and daughters in one of the biggest and most significant legal human rights victories against a foreign war criminal in a US courtroom.”  — The Guardian 27 June 2016

(also covered in the back pages of the NYT
and h/t Joe Shikspack at c99)

The killer is a cook who won’t ever pay any noticeable fraction of the $28M, but there’s always a chance the court will extradite him to Chile as requested. Small chance I know.