SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: locogringo who wrote (1088033)9/13/2018 8:50:53 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1577842
 
trump LOSING: Laura Ingraham’s Brother Goes to War Against Her; Curtis Ingraham wants people to know that his sister, the right-wing Fox News host Laura Ingraham, is the ultimate ‘hypocrite.’
Maxwell Tani
09.12.18 5:14 AM ET
thedailybeast.com

Curtis Ingraham uses Twitter to vent his political frustrations—like many left-leaning users in the Trump era.

To an audience of just a few hundred followers, the Northern California-based teacher expresses outrage at new White House policies, engages with popular #resistance figures like former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum and the Krassenstein brothers, and bashes Trump’s right-wing media cheerleaders on Fox News.

While most of his tweets go largely unnoticed, a few people have taken notice because of what he has to say about one media personality in particular: his sister, Fox News primetime host Laura Ingraham.

“I think she’s a monster,” Curtis repeatedly said in an interview with The Daily Beast.

Since Donald Trump launched his presidential bid in 2015, a number of his prominent backers have faced public hostility from family members critical of Trumpism and the Republican agenda under his watch.

Trump special counselor Kellyanne Conway’s husband, longtime Republican operative George Conway, has used his Twitter account to make his displeasure with the administration well-known, despite his wife’s position as a top flack for the president. Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s son accused his father of “ political grandstanding,” and donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic running for his father's congressional seat. And White House adviser Stephen Miller—an architect of Trump’s most anti-immigration policies—has earned public condemnations from his uncle, elementary school classmate, and childhood rabbi.

Since earlier this year, the elder Ingraham sibling has used his Twitter account for seemingly one purpose: criticizing Laura, whose pro-Trump, hardline stances on immigration and culture-war issues have earned her praise from the president and far-right figures.

My sister's repeated mean spirited, flip and insensitive remarks makes me, her brother, question her very humanity. Your continued sponsorship is disturbing to say the least. @BeachesResorts @SandalsResorts @SIRIUSXM @CarfaxReports @JohnDeere @Cabelas @davidhogg111 #DavidHogg

Curtis Ingraham encouraged advertisers to boycott Laura’s show following her comments about Parkland school-shooting survivor David Hogg, and apologized to LeBron James after his sister mocked the NBA star’s criticism of Trump by saying James should “shut up and dribble.”

But Curtis has also dished out a few eyebrow-raising claims about the Ingraham kids’ upbringing and Laura’s life.

My sister's racist comments date back to her freshman days at Dartmouth when she would mock her black roommate by speaking jive with her friends. Shameful! #IngrahamAngle @IngrahamAngle @davidhogg111 @Hadas_Gold t.co

— Curtis Ingraham (@CurtisIngraham1) September 1, 2018
He wrote on Twitter that she once mocked a black college classmate by speaking “jive.” He shared that one of Laura’s adopted immigrant children called him a “Dummy-crat.” He pointed out that their grandparents were Polish immigrants, and said his sister was influenced by their late father’s alleged sympathy for Nazis.

“My siblings and I are shocked and saddened to learn of these false and hurtful online postings,” Ingraham said in a statement to The Daily Beast. “Although we’ve been estranged from him for many years, we love our brother and miss him very much.”

We grew up with an abusive, alcoholic father who was a Nazi sympathizer. Like father like daughter?! This was the familial soil that gave bloom to my sister's anger.

— Curtis Ingraham (@CurtisIngraham1) August 9, 2018
And off Twitter, Curtis doesn’t have much better to say about his sister.

In a telephone interview with The Daily Beast, the soft-spoken older brother criticized Laura’s show, described her personality as “destructive,” and characterized her as generally “extremely angry.”

“She’s very smart, she’s well spoken, but her emotional heart is just kind of dead,” he said. “And you see it in her face when you see her on TV. She’s ready to destroy. She does not listen to understand—she listens to respond. And her response is always an attack.”

The point of the Twitter account, Curtis said, is not to air out his sibling rivalry or resentments. Rather, he uses it to point out how she has disappointed her older brother.

“The reason I’m sharing these details is because of what is happening in our country,” Curtis said. “I feel like a bit of a whistle-blower in trying to unveil hypocrisy.”

He added: “Our country has been thrown into this divisive state. So now I feel like I have got to speak out, I’ve got to speak out for my own sanity.”

Curtis said he didn’t always believe his relationship with his sister would be adversarial, even though she held political views that he disagrees with. At one time, Curtis said, he and Laura were “very close,” vacationing together, spending time in Washington, D.C., and sharing personal details about their lives.

But he acknowledged that they have “very limited contact at this point,” which he attributes to political differences rooted particularly in her past statements about the LGBT community.

As a student at Dartmouth in the 1980s, Ingraham ran the school’s right-wing newspaper, The Dartmouth Review, which had been known for its controversial statements about race. She infamously assigned a reporter to attend and secretly record a gay students’ association meeting in which some closeted students shared their experiences. The paper published excerpts and quotes from the meeting, which ended up outing at least one student, and labeled gay students with offensive slurs.

In a 1997 op-ed apologizing for her actions, she attributed her changing opinions about issues including same-sex marriage to her experience witnessing her brother’s loving relationship with his longtime partner, who died of AIDS.

Curtis told The Daily Beast that, at the time, he was moved by the piece.

But he said Laura became more religious in subsequent years, and began to waver in her newly empathetic positions on LGBT rights. In private conversations with her brother about issues like same-sex marriage, she said she would have to “agree to disagree” with him.

He told The Daily Beast that, to him, Laura’s change of heart on LGBT issues and gay marriage at the time constituted a betrayal.

“That goes against my ethics,” he recalled thinking. “You’re destroying me. It’s hideous, it’s hideous behavior.” He added: “That’s what I’m trying to unveil here, the hypocrisy. ‘Family’s first, I know about gay rights, my brother is gay.’ It’s all a sham.”

Curtis said that for a long time he chose to publicly overlook their sharp political differences.

But the addition of her incendiary show to the Fox News prime-time lineup and the stark oppositional politics of the Trump era prompted him to break his silence.

“The divisiveness in this country has cut through not just friendships, but it’s cut through families,” he said. “I was doing that dance with my sister for a while, we were very tight, her anger was funny to me back then.”

Curtis said he is saddened by how his sister’s outspoken punditry has destroyed their relationship.

“It is not easy for me,” he said. “My heart has been bruised, it has been kind of irreparably bruised. But I’m trying to illuminate and shed a light on hypocrisy.”



To: locogringo who wrote (1088033)9/13/2018 8:54:57 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1577842
 
trump LOSING: Bob Woodward's 'Fear' is the FASTEST SELLING BOOK IN HISTORY since 'Go Set a Watchman'
by Brian Stelter @brianstelterSeptember 13, 2018: 1:17 AM ET
money.cnn.com

Almost every week, there's a new book about the Trump White House. But Bob Woodward's book is in a category of its own."Fear" came out on Tuesday. And it is already one of the top selling books of the year -- not just on the politics shelf of the bookstore, but in the entire store.

On Wednesday, Barnes & Noble said "Fear" has had the "fastest sales for an adult title since Harper Lee's 'Go Set a Watchman' was released in July 2015."

The bookseller called the pace of sales "phenomenal" and "amazing."

Also on Wednesday, Woodward's publisher Simon & Schuster announced that more than 750,000 copies of "Fear" have been sold as of Tuesday, the first day it went on sale.

The staggering figure includes pre-orders, first day sales of the print copy, ebooks and audiobooks, according to the company. President Jonathan Karp called "Fear" a "cultural phenomenon."

The publisher is trying to keep up with demand, but there are some big backlogs to obtain a hardcover copy.

It's a testament to the widespread interest in, and concern about, the Trump presidency. Woodward's book describes a dysfunctional White House where some of Trump's own aides think he is a danger to national security.

The only similar book that has sold as well as "Fear" this year is "Fire and Fury," which painted a similarly disturbing portrait of the president.

On Amazon, "Fear" is the No. 3 overall top seller for the year. No. 2 is the "Last Week Tonight" parody of a children's book about the Pence family bunny. And No. 1 is Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury."

What distinguishes Woodward is his decades of reporting on Washington. He has written or co-written 19 books, including "Fear." So when he sounds an alarm, it's serious.

"I've never seen an instance when the president is so detached from the reality of what's going on," Woodward said on NBC's "Today" show earlier this week.

On NPR's "Morning Edition," he said people are "underestimating how serious all of this is." He said "people took actions to protect the country because the president wanted to do things like withdraw from a trade agreement in South Korea."

Woodward's media tour is surely helping stoke sales of the book. But what really seemed to help sales are the early leaks from the book and the resulting condemnations from President Trump.

Book critics have quipped that Trump is an effective book salesman, because his angry tweets and denunciations have fueled interest in "Fire and Fury," "Fear" and several other titles this year.

His endorsements of pro-Trump books like "The Russia Hoax" also help with sales -- but not as much as his expressions of outrage do.

In response to the rush of "Fear" pre-orders, Simon & Schuster ordered hundreds of thousands of extra copies. On Monday the company said "we have reprinted six times for a total of seven to meet extraordinary demand -- that will put one million books in print before we've even gone on sale."

Two days later, on Wednesday, the publisher said it was up to nine printings. This will eventually bring the total number of hard copies in print to 1,150,000.

The book is selling well outside the US, as well. It's also No. 1 on online charts in Canada, the UK and Germany. Simon & Schuster said that foreign rights to the book have been sold in 16 countries.



To: locogringo who wrote (1088033)9/13/2018 9:01:37 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1577842
 
trump LOSING: Betsy DeVos Loses Student Loan Lawsuit Brought by 19 States
By Andrew M Harris and Daniel Flatley
September 12, 2018, 2:42 PM MST Updated on September 12, 2018, 3:31 PM MST
bloomberg.com

Judge says department’s postponment of rule was improper

Hearing on remedies in case scheduled for Friday in Washington



Betsy DeVos, U.S. secretary of education. Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos lost a lawsuit brought by 19 states and the District of Columbia, accusing her department of wrongly delaying implementation of Obama-era regulations meant to protect students who took out loans to attend college from predatory practices.

A Washington federal court judge on Wednesday ruled the department’s postponement of the so-called Borrower Defense rule was procedurally improper.

The Obama administration created the rule in the wake of revelations that some for-profit colleges enticed students with promises of an education and diplomas that would allow them to get jobs in their chosen fields. In reality, many of those certifications weren’t recognized by prospective employers, leaving graduates saddled with student loans they couldn’t repay.

The department deprived plaintiffs "of several concrete benefits that they would have otherwise accrued," U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss wrote in a 57-page opinion. "The relief they seek in this action -- immediate implementation of the Borrower Defense regulations -- would restore those benefits."

Writing that he didn’t want to delay matters further, Moss said he will hold a hearing Friday to consider remedies.

The Department of Education didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

(Updates with judge’s comment in fourth paragraph.)



To: locogringo who wrote (1088033)9/13/2018 9:03:02 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1577842
 
trump LOSING: Federal judge orders DeVos to reinstate for-profit college loan protections
By David K. Li
September 12, 2018 | 8:45pm

A federal judge Wednesday struck down Trump administration slow play of Obama-era regulations that helped students escape from loan debt incurred at questionable for-profit colleges.

US District Court Judge Randolph Moss sided with consumer protection groups and more than a dozen attorneys general, in ordering Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to reinstate Borrower Defense Regulations which had been drawn up under Obama.

The rules — aimed at helping students who borrowed to attend schools that vastly overstated post-graduation job prospects — were designed in the wake of the 2015 collapse for-profit Corinthian Colleges. Government regulators found that Corinthian and other for-profit institutions had misled students for years with misleading advertising and job-placement figures.

DeVos had wanted to hold off on granting loan forgiveness until July 1, 2019 so the Department of Education to work up new rules.

Judge Moss ruled that the department’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious.”

“This policy made it easier for student borrowers to get out of federal loans when dealing w/ shady shell schools that ripped them off,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro tweeted shortly after Moss’ ruling.

“Students cheated by deceptive for-profit schools deserve debt relief. It’s on our leaders to push back & hold such institutions accountable.”

With Post Wire Services



To: locogringo who wrote (1088033)9/13/2018 9:05:10 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1577842
 
trump LOSING: Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Rule to Rein In Federal Unions
By Benjamin Hart@realaxelfoley
nymag.com

A federal judge ruled early Saturday that a set of Trump administration rules designed to weaken federal unions did not pass legal muster.

The administration issued three executive orders in May that would have imposed new requirements on the unions, which retain significant power in Washington and beyond. Among other things, the rules directed federal agencies to force the unions to renegotiate their contracts, fire underperforming workers much more quickly, and restrict the amount of time workers could spend on union business at their offices. The provisions were put into place in July.

In response, the unions filed suit against the administration. In her ruling, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the kinds of changes the administration had attempted to institute must involve negotiations between federal agencies and their workers, and that the Trump administration had exceeded its authority by attempting to impose them from above. Though the Trump administration had positioned the orders as mere guidance, not hard-and-fast rules, Jackson wrote that the rules would still “impair the ability of agency officials to keep an open mind, and to participate fully in give-and-take discussions, during collective bargaining negotiations.”

In a statement issued after Saturday’s ruling, J. David Cox Sr., the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said that “President Trump’s illegal action was a direct assault on the legal rights and protections that Congress specifically guaranteed to the public-sector employees across this country who keep our federal government running every single day.”

The White House had pitched the regulations as a boon for government efficiency. But, coming from a president who warns darkly of a clandestine deep state, and is conducting a slow-motion purge of perceived enemies at the Department of Justice, the real goals seemed to be damaging America’s civil service and instilling fear across the bureaucracy. So far, that mission had apparently been successful: the New York Times reports that the new rules “had begun to create an atmosphere of fear among workers at many federal agencies.”

Saturday’s ruling is another major win for public-sector unions, which also scored a victory when Missouri voters resoundingly rejected a proposed right to work law earlier this month.

But those victories have been overshadowed by two momentous developments in the other direction. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that workers could exempt themselves from public-sector union fees, in a major, if expected, blow. And in July, President Trump selected Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. As evidenced by his pivotal vote in the Janus case, Kennedy was no great friend to unions. But Kavanaugh is an outright foe, and his likely-to-be-successful nomination probably presages a new wave of 5-4 anti-union decisions over the next few years.

The government is expected to appeal Saturday’s ruling. If a federal appeals court sides with Judge Jackson, the case is likely to end up before the most anti-union Supreme Court in decades, where the smart money would be on an outcome favorable to the Trump administration.



To: locogringo who wrote (1088033)9/13/2018 9:06:56 AM
From: sylvester801 Recommendation

Recommended By
Celtictrader

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577842
 
trump LOSING: Federal judge strikes down Trump administration’s Clean Water Act attack
Published Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018, 6:25 pm
augustafreepress.com

A federal judge in South Carolina today struck down the administration’s effort to strip away crucial clean water protections from rivers, lakes, streams and other waters that feed drinking-water sources for nearly 20 million people in the South and 117 million people across the country.

Today’s decision follows a legal challenge filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The ruling ends the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ suspension of clean water protections under the Clean Water Act, one of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws, and puts the Clean Water Rule back in effect for more than half of the country. This ruling does not apply to 24 states where other legal challenges are pending.

“This is a victory for families and communities across America who depend on clean water, and a rebuke to the polluting industries trying to gut this nation’s bedrock health and environmental safeguards,” said Geoff Gisler, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing the coalition of conservation groups before the court. “Water is a way of life in the South, where clean water is the lifeblood of our economy. We are thrilled the court rejected this administration’s blatant attempts to undermine safeguards that are critical to our nation’s welfare without being accountable to the American people.”

The Southern Environmental Law Center filed the initial challenge in February on behalf of American Rivers, Clean Water Action, Defenders of Wildlife, Charleston Waterkeeper, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Coastal Conservation League, Friends of the Rappahannock, North Carolina Coastal Federation, and North Carolina Wildlife Federation.

“This is a huge win for protecting rivers, wetlands and clean drinking water,” said Bob Irvin, president and CEO of American Rivers. “The court makes clear that the Trump administration cannot ignore the law, science, or the views of the American people in its rush to undermine protection of rivers and clean water.”

“Today’s decision affirms that rule of law, not politics, must dictate how regulatory decisions are made,” said Jennifer Peters, Clean Water Action’s National Water Programs director. “The Clean Water Rule was adopted with tremendous public support, a fact the Trump administration cannot brazenly ignore. The Administration should immediately scrap its plan to strip critical Clean Water Act protections for certain streams and wetlands and instead ensure all our nation’s waters are safeguarded from harmful pollution.”

“The Suspension Rule typified this administration’s disregard for the environment, the rule of law, and public input,” said Steven Goldstein, legal fellow at Defenders of Wildlife. “Judge Norton’s opinion is not only a victory for clean water but serves as a reminder that scientific and procedural integrity matter.”

“This is a great win in the ongoing effort to finally implement understandable, protective clean water laws based in sound science,” said Kevin Jeselnik, general counsel for the Chattahoochee Riverkeeper. “Industries will benefit from the clarity the Clean Water Rule provides, and the millions of anglers, paddlers and others will enjoy cleaner, safer water in the Chattahoochee River and its tributaries.”

Their lawsuit contended that EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated fundamental laws that prohibit agencies from removing basic environmental safeguards without telling the public what they are doing, revealing the impact of those changes, and giving the public a chance to weigh in. The court held that the agencies refusal to allow meaningful public comment doomed the rule, stating that “An illusory opportunity to comment is no opportunity at all.” The agencies failed at their most basic responsibilities: evaluating the effect of their reckless actions and allowing the public to comment on their decision to eliminate scientifically backed protections for rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands.

Finalized after 200 days of public comment and review of 1,200 studies, the Clean Water Rule used science to draw clear lines about what American waters are protected from pollution by the Clean Water Act. It replaced a confusing, case-by-case regime with clearer protection for critical waters such as small streams that flow into our rivers and lakes, wetlands that shelter wildlife, and uniquely southern wetlands such as pocosins and Carolina Bays.

The administration’s suspension of standards under the Clean Water Act was the first of several steps the administration plans to take to repeal long-standing clean water protections, which could strip away safeguards from wetlands, rivers, lakes, and drinking water sources that our families and communities use.



To: locogringo who wrote (1088033)9/13/2018 9:26:40 AM
From: Sdgla2 Recommendations

Recommended By
isopatch
locogringo

  Respond to of 1577842
 
It’s about using Gov agents to punish your political enemies when you lose an election. That’s Obama’s legacy and the fools do not know the favor will be returned in spades.