Sunday, May 18, 2014

Why Progressives Have Botched the Fight Over Common Core



[Above: An anti-Common Core video from those friends of progressives, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity.]

I've been forced to conclude that the people leading the progressive side of the fight against the new Common Core educational standards are dishonest and disingenuous -- either that, or they are incredibly naive politically, and are incapable of coming to terms with the reality of their situation.

Because what they have been doing is, frankly, standing back and letting far-right extremists and corporate-education supporters hijack their issue, naively believing that sharing the goal of derailing CCSS was good enough, and failing to realize that they were aligning themselves with the very people dedicated to the destruction of progressive politics across a broad swath of issues, including education.

Instead of denouncing these elements and their falsehoods, their conspiracy theories, their fearmongering and their hatemongering – all of which are elements of the far right’s campaign against CCSS – these supposed progressives have soft-pedaled their presence, referring to them as the “Tea Party” element (when in fact these folks are much more radical than that) and suggesting that, well at least the right-wing folks have demonstrated that CCSS can be stopped.

Well, yeah, it can be stopped, if you’re willing to lie, and fearmonger, and hatemonger, and cast the entire proceedings as a product of a nefarious New World Order conspiracy. If that’s your template for success, please count me out.

I mean, come on, folks. You really need to stop and assess what you’re doing when the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity – one of the leading proponents of corporate education – avidly joins your side and attacks your opponents. But instead of giving progressives pause, all we hear are excuses.

I was forced to finally reach this conclusion by education reformer Diane Ravitch’s recent post attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center for its devastating study exposing the far right’s involvement in the CCSS debate.

Ravitch, rather than explaining that progressives wish to have nothing to do with John Birch Society paranoia, instead wishy-washes the situation: “I think there are plenty of well meaning people on different sides of the Common Core issue,” she writes. “It serves no useful purpose to divide people into good guys and bad guys.”

The naivete this reveals is astonishing. Really, Ms. Ravitch? You think that people who proclaim that "Common Core will turn every one of your children gay" are well-meaning? You think they are contributing usefully to this dialogue? Do you think we ought to be paying attention and thoughtfully heeding such arguments as part of our democratic process? Or should we, perhaps, be alarmed that such hatefulness and fearmongering is polluting what should be a rational debate? -- That being the point, of course, of the SPLC's study.

Then Ravitch goes on to proclaim high-mindedly that “our national discussion should deal with consequential issues, such as the quality of the standards, whether they are appropriate for students of different age groups, and how they are likely to narrow or increase these gaps among different student groups.”

Gee, that would be great. Now if only the people on the far right’s side of the debate would actually heed that advice, because the entirety of their campaign against CCSS has focused on all the non-issues that Ravitch thinks are a distraction.

And then she attacks the SPLC for pointing all of this out, calling their study “one sided”. She writes:
Unfortunately, SPLC chose to paint opposition to the CC as Tea Party and/or rightwing extremists who want to destroy public education. This is odd indeed because the critics and supporters of CC are strange bedfellows.

Either Ravitch cannot read, or she is dishonest. Because the study in fact goes to considerable pains to make clear that the opposition to CCSS is broad based. Here’s exactly what it says:
To be sure, education experts of all political stripes have raised important questions about the Common Core. Are the standards too rigorous? Are they rigorous enough? Should children and teachers be evaluated on standardized testing? Has there been ample time for implementation and teacher training? These and other issues should be the focus of robust debate—one rooted in the facts.
Unfortunately, the issues are being obscured by a cloud of overheated hyperbole, misinformation and far-right propaganda.


Legitimate issues obscured
To be sure, criticism of the Common Core—which is backed by the Obama administration and funded, in part, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—is coming from all points on the political spectrum and from some leading education experts. Critics have raised important issues that should be thoroughly debated, such as: whether the standards were adequately tested; whether we can have great education that isn’t simply “teaching to the test”; whether there has been ample time for implementation and teacher training; and, significantly, whether it’s wise to evaluate teachers on the results of Common Core-aligned tests.

But these and other issues are being obscured by a cloud of fear-mongering propaganda and extremist hyperbole. The attacks from the far right stand apart from the legitimate criticism because of their incendiary language, their apocalyptic warnings, and their reliance on distortions, outright falsehoods and antigovernment conspiracy theories.


Current debates
Many of the legitimate debates surrounding the Common Core focus on concerns that have been central to education reform discussions since the 1980s. It is unclear whether the fringe elements of the radical right are ignorant of this history or whether they are deliberately distorting the facts. What is clear is that the unfounded and paranoid rhetoric surrounding the standards distracts from the important debates that are happening among highly informed scholars, state officeholders, policymakers, educators, and families across America. The following are a sampling of some of the valid Common Core-related concerns under debate:

• Education historian and researcher Diane Ravitch has asserted that the Common Core was not developed according to the principles established by the American National Standards Institute. Ravitch says her reason for opposing the standards is not the content but rather concerns about the transparency of the development process and the exclusion of informed, concerned interests such as early childhood educators and special education experts.

• Some critics see the Gates Foundation’s support as overwhelmingly disproportionate. The fact that the foundation not only funded—directly and indirectly—such a large percentage of the development of the standards but also the validation and some implementation measures has raised concerns about the ethics and desirability of a single private entity being able to influence a public initiative of the Common Core’s scope.

• Some educators oppose the Common Core out of concerns that the standards depart from best practices for teaching and supporting culturally diverse youth. One such critique refers to the reduced emphasis on student reflection and experience in the writing standards. Others point to the lack of diversity in exemplar texts.

• Many teachers and administrators find the implementation timeline of the Common Core unrealistic, noting that the rigor of the standards has bumped the bar so high that it will take years to actually reach it. Meanwhile, pressure on schools to show immediate and measurable improvement makes it difficult for them to chart a slower and more deliberate path to implementation.

• While Race to the Top funding is not directly tied to Common Core adoption, it is tied to the adoption of college and career readiness standards, and more points were awarded to states that adopted the Common Core. Some critics saw the Race to the Top stipulations as federal strong-arming that allowed the Obama administration to paint state adoption as entirely voluntary when, in fact, there were potential financial consequences for opting out.

• Many progressives criticize the role that the Common Core plays in magnifying the the toxic testing culture that NCLB and its high-stakes testing made a feature of life in public schools. They note that corporate interests are served whenever testing companies have a mandated market, and that the quick implementation period is, in fact, feeding these interests by creating an urgent need for implementation materials.

I still believe these are significant issues that need to be addressed. But guess what? Once the far right has hijacked the opposition to CCSS and dominates the opposition, and comes to represent that opposition, those issues will never be heard or debated.

Instead, we will find ourselves explaining over and over to people that no, this is not a U.N./New World Order conspiracy to brainwash your children and turn them gay.

And then progressives will wonder why no one takes them seriously.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Idaho’s GOP Gubernatorial Primary Debate Reveals Deep Streak of Extremism



[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

Usually, political debates are an opportunity for candidates to provide voters with enough information for them to make informed decisions before filling out their ballots. But Wednesday night’s Republican gubernatorial primary debate in Boise, Idaho, featuring the state’s top four conservative candidates, raised more questions than it answered.

Two of the four candidates – a foul-mouthed biker from Nampa named Harley Brown and a bearded anti-abortion activist named Walt Bayes – had previously run for office but garnered few votes. Their show-stealing debate performances, broadcast on Idaho’s public television network, revealed why.

Both men were on the program at the insistence of incumbent Gov. L. Butch Otter, who was accused by his Tea Party rival, State Sen. Russ Fulcher, of inviting the men to participate so that he could avoid Fulcher’s own questions.

Brown set the tone by explaining early on in the debate that God told him to run for president while he was going through personal trouble: “I cried out to God. I said, ‘How about putting me back on active duty and making me a battalion commander?’ Long story short, he says, ‘No, son, I got a higher rank for you. I’m gonna make you a commander in chief.’ And I stagger not at his promise. I’m gonna get into that more with you.”

Brown paused briefly and looked at everyone staring at him, and said: “Don’t think I’m crazy, ‘cause I’m not.”

However, while Brown was mostly colorful and crude, Bayes was clearly the most radical of the lot, declaring abortion outright murder, saying he would shoot authorities if they came for his children, and implying he thought LGBT people should be put to death.

One of Bayes’ early statements was a rant about abortion, claiming it was against state law to even perform the procedure: “If I’m governor, I am going to enforce the law. And somebody says, ‘What about the Supreme Court?’ If the Supreme Court goes to hell, I’m not followin’. And I’m telling you folks, when you murder 56 million babies, you’re asking for our country to be demolished.”

He read from Scripture – Romans 1:24-32, to be exact – when he was asked about the recent court decision overturning Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying: “My main loyalty is to God Almighty, and what he says is what I go by. And this is part of the Bible.”

The reading concluded with the line: “Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they would commit such things, are worthy of death.”

Bayes also boasted of having been arrested for his home schooling advocacy when he was asked if he could govern. “They told me we couldn’t home-school. I prayed about it. I stood on my hind legs like a man. I told ‘em what I thought of ‘em, and the television would talk to me for thirty minutes or an hour: Well what would you do if they came out to take your kids? Well, you’d shoot ‘em! What else would you do?”

Bayes also had a scathing assessment of the two political parties: “I honestly think half of the Republican Party is Democrats and half of the Democratic is Communist.”

Near the end of the debate, Bayes exclaimed: “Our energy plants that are run by atomic – they can stand one-fifteenth of an earthquake like that one in Japan! And my Bible says they’re gonna get worse and worse!”

While Brown and Bayes kept the audience’s attention with their outlandish pronouncements, the two more mainstream candidates – incumbent Gov. L. Butch Otter and State Sen. Russ Fulcher, a Tea Party favorite – held wonky discussions mostly between themselves about serious state policies and politics.

The two fringe candidates also tried their hand at policy, voicing sentiments similar to those heard on the right surrounding the standoff at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch.

“The first thing I want to do is take Idaho ground back from the federal government,” said Bayes. “The Constitution – the Idaho Constitution – states plainly that the federal government only owns a few buildings. The land is ours. We’ve got as much right to all the land in this state, including the wilderness, as New York has Manhattan. I’ve got as much right to see Manhattan Island like they paid twenty-four dollars for as they have to come out here and look at our wilderness. We’ve got a bunch of Eastern idiots running everything!”

Brown chimed in: “I agree with Mr. Bayes. The key is getting our land back from the feds. And here’s my
plan of attack.  … OK, you go in there and you use spiritual warfare. Nobody – everybody talks about the natural. But I’m gonna talk about the other realm we need to extend. You bind those evil spirits that are behind the feds with the blood of Jesus, the name of Jesus, the power of entombment of the Holy Spirit, the power of agreement, the Word of God. Take air superiority, and then go in there with your tanks, on the ground, with [colleague Chris] Troupis’s lawsuits. Blitzkrieg.”

The somewhat astonished moderator interjected that the question she had asked was about taxes. Brown was unruffled: “Taxes are a drag,” he said. “I don’t even like to think about it. Fighting the feds is more exciting for me.”

Brown was also clearly unapologetic about the bigoted jokes and remarks he makes at his campaign website, “The Candid Candidate”. “You might find it offensive, but I hit everybody — Jews, Irish people, black jokes and religious jokes,” Brown said when asked about the site. “I don’t like political correctness! Can I say this? It sucks! … I’m about as politically correct as your proverbial turd in a punchbowl. And I’m proud of it. And I’m going for the vote of the real people.”

Indeed, as Idaho Statesman columnist Dan Popkey reported, Brown made a crude racist joke about “wetbacks” during the warmup for the debate and was warned that he would be cut off from questioning if he made such comments during the debate.

At the closing, Brown finished the tale of how God told him he would become president, including a mention of “trumped up restraining orders” that prevented him from seeing his kids. He also waved a signed statement from a “Masai prophet” that supposedly confirmed that God had told him this.

“You have your choice, folks,” Brown concluded, waving at his fellow candidates. “A cowboy, a curmudgeon, a biker, or a normal guy. Take your pick… We’re leaving it up to you.”

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Former Zimmerman Defender Taaffe Now Says He Should Have Been Found Guilty




[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

Frank Taaffe, the tough-talking friend of George Zimmerman who appeared on multiple TV programs to defend the Florida man’s actions in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, has had an apparent change of heart.

Taaffe, who has a history as a white supremacist as well as a criminal background, told a reporter for Orlando, Fla.’s News 13 that he now believes that Zimmerman “racially profiled” Martin the day he was shot, and that he should have been found guilty by the jury that eventually acquitted him last year.

“What I know of George and his tendencies and also my opinion is that he racially profiled Trayvon Martin that night because if that had been a white kid on a cell phone, walking through our neighborhood, he wouldn’t have stayed on him the way he did and that’s a fact and I believe that in my heart,” Taaffe told reporter John Davis.

For many months, Taaffe said just the opposite, and did so on national television on numerous occasions, depicting Martin as a drug-addled, thuggish teenager and declaring Zimmerman’s innocence. “It’s really sad that he has already been convicted in the public media and has already been sentenced to the gas chamber,” he lamented in an interview with NBC’s Miami affiliate.

Taaffe said he’s now recanting his earlier statements in order to clear his conscience. “I can only ask for the country to forgive me, and today I believe that he racially profiled him based on the color of his skin.”

Davis said that some “may wonder what does Frank Taaffe have to gain by doing this,” before asking if he was was working on a book or TV show. Taaffe said no, “I’m just working on me right now and getting right with God.”

Taaffe told Davis that he was driven to reassess his views after the death of his brother last month, as well as his two sons’ deaths in recent years. He added a message for Trayvon Martin’s parents: “I’m sorry that you lost your son, I know what that’s like and I wish things had been different.”

It was not clear whether Taaffe now has similar regrets over the crudely racist things he uttered on air while campaigning on Zimmerman’s behalf – most notably on the white nationalist podcast “The White Voice.” On that show, he attacked Oprah Winfrey as a “nigger” and said “the only time that a Black life is vindicated is when a White person kills them.”

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

On MSNBC, Schultz and Schweitzer Raise Concerns about Direction of Western ‘Revolt’



[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz hosted former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Monday night to discuss the growing “revolt” over federal land use policies in Western states, embodied in the recent armed standoff with federal officers at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. Schweitzer has deep experience with contentious land use issues and dealing with federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

As Schultz pointed out, antigovernment animus – rife with extremist “Patriots” and militiamen, as well as ample weaponry – appears to be building. Just last week in Utah, a BLM livestock wrangler was threatened on Interstate 15, and protesters – including two Bundy sons – intentionally violated a ban on motorized vehicles in a natural area, put in place to protect nearby archaeological sites.

Schultz blamed the rise on right-wing media: “We all know where this antigovernment sentiment started, don’t we?”

Schweitzer, who has had plenty of experience in dealing with “Patriot” extremists in his own state, including in the Montana legislature, was particularly scathing in his assessment of the motivations of the people involved in the “revolt”:

SCHWEITZER: And now this bunch, this Cliven Bundy bunch, coming over from Nevada giving advice to people in Utah on how to deal with the BLM? My God, that’s like the Aryan Nations giving advice to Donald Sterling. This bunch, the Bundy bunch are grifters, they haven’t paid their fees, they haven’t cooperated with the federal government, they say they don’t even recognize the United States government. And these Tea Party, militia Foxtrotters, they’re a bunch of ne’er-do-wells – they aren’t ranchers, they aren’t loggers, they aren’t people who have legitimate businesses on the land. You wouldn’t get ranchers to stand next to Bundy. And people who are in the mining business, and the oil and gas business on federal land, they wouldn’t stand next to these people because they make a living on that land, and they listen to the rule of the land.

Schultz pointed out that the fanatical behavior of the “Patriots” raised real concerns about the rule of law: “So now we have got government officials in this country wondering, ‘What do we do if we go out and try to enforce the law, and people are openly armed with assault weapons?’”

“No one knows where this is going to end,” he added. “And no one knows how it’s going to end. And it’s kinda scary. It has the roots of a movement that won’t end really peacefully. I hate to say that. But this is how it goes, isn’t it?”

That was the conundrum he presented to Schweitzer: “Are we now seeing a culture develop in America: ‘Well, you can go ahead and do what you want, we’ll just decide which law we are going to uphold?’”

Schweitzer agreed that it was a real concern. “We are a land that has rule of law,” he observed. “We’re not Yemen. We’re not Somalia. We’re a land that has laws. And we all have to follow those laws. We don’t get to decide which ones we’re going to follow and which ones we don’t. That’s what a civilized society does.”

Schweitzer also said he was glad that the FBI had announced it was investigating the people who had pointed weapons at federal agents during the Bundy standoff in Nevada on April 12: “If you point a gun at law enforcement or federal officials, you should have no expectation of this ending good for you,” he said.


Tuesday, May 13, 2014

In Wake of Missoula Shooting, Montana Legislator Rips NRA



Even in a state like Montana, where guns have long been woven into the culture, even in this paranoiac-gun-crazy age, there are still some lines that no one can or should cross. One of them is old-fashioned premeditated murder.

We all saw this "stand your ground" mentality in play with the Trayvon Martin case. And in the recent murder conviction of the Minneapolis man who lay in wait in his home so he could gun down the two teenagers who came to burglarize his place in cold blood.

Now there's a case in Missoula, Montana, a state where guns have been part of the culture since the days of the Old West, and have never ceased being so. But everyone knows when someone is hiding behind a law to commit cold-blooded murder, as happened again in a case like the Minnesota one, involving a homeowner angry at being burglarized.

From the New York Times:


Around midnight on April 27, a 17-year-old exchange student from Germany named Diren Dede left the host home where he played Xbox and drained cans of Sprite to set off with a friend through his dark hillside neighborhood. They passed a home whose garage door hung partially open. Using a cellphone for light, Mr. Dede headed in.

Inside the house, motion sensors alerted Markus Kaarma, 29, to an intruder’s presence. Two recent burglaries had put Mr. Kaarma and his young family on edge, his lawyer said, and he grabbed a shotgun from the dining room and rushed outside. He aimed into the garage and, according to court documents, fired four blasts into the dark. Mr. Dede’s body crumpled to the floor.

While Mr. Kaarma has been charged with deliberate homicide, Mr. Dede’s death has set off an outcry an ocean away in Germany, exposing the cultural gulf between a European nation that tightly restricts firearms and a gun-loving Western state. In his defense, Mr. Kaarma is expected to turn to laws enacted in Montana five years ago that allow residents more legal protections in using lethal force to defend their homes.


This isn't the first time the "Castle doctrine" has been used as a pretext for cold-blooded murder in western Montana. Last year, a man in Kalispell gunned down the husband of the woman he had been sleeping with when the man came to his home, and he too claimed self-defense under the Montana law.

But this case presented clear evidence that the perpetrator set out to kill someone:

A hairstylist named Felene Sherbondy told the police that Mr. Kaarma had come into the Great Clips salon three days before the shooting and talked about how he had been waiting up with his shotgun for three nights “to shoot some kid.” Ms. Sherbondy told the police that Mr. Kaarma was being “extremely vulgar and belligerent,” according to court documents.

Al Sharpton's PoliticsNation show tackled the case earlier this week. And Sharpton got right to the point, exploring the reality that this "stand your ground" mentality was creating a culture that encourages people to commit cold-blooded murder.

He invited Montana legislator Rep. Ellie Boldman Hill of Missoula -- a standout progressive in a state where that is a rarity -- on to discuss her efforts to overturn Montana's "Castle doctrine" laws, or at least reform them.

And Hill left little doubt where all this originates:

HILL: That’s my contention, Reverend. These types of laws have created a culture in our country of vigilante justice that has expanded too far. I believe that this individual is using the “castle doctrine” although it’s premeditated murder – just like we’ve seen in Florida, with Trayvon Martin, and now we’re seeing out here in the West with Montana. This isn’t a rural or urban issue, this isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue. This is an issue of the NRA taking our gun laws, taking our self-defense laws, and running amok in a dangerous way that has made our communities less safe, and has now resulted in a culture of violence where people are being murdered in the name of their “castle”.


Hill deserves kudos for her bravery and her thoughtfulness. Now if only her fellow Democrats would act like the common-sense Western Democrats of old and rally behind her effort.

White Supremacist Celebrates Second Year as GOP Committeeman with Stormfront Post

[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]



Even though his fellow Republicans originally denounced him, Steve Smith has been unrepentant and unapologetic about his racial views in the two years since he was elected to a Republican county committee in Pennsylvania.

Nowadays, some of those Republicans even pose for photos with him at fundraisers. [Updated with statements from Rep. Lou Barletta and Matthew Dietz below.]

Steve Smith with Congressman Lou Barletta
Steve Smith with Congressman Lou Barletta,
who later explained he did not know
about Smith's white-supremacist ideology
Smith, a former skinhead with a violent criminal record and past associations with neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations, was elected in May 2012 to a four-year term to the Luzerne County, Pa., Republican Party county committee, on what appears to have been a single write-in vote – his own. Republican officials initially attempted to have Smith removed from the position, but eventually gave up and let Smith remain.

Smith recently posted a note at Stormfront – the white supremacist website whose users are responsible for nearly one hundred murders – observing that he had been in office for two years and was becoming entrenched in his role. “Not only were they not successful in ousting me, I was appointed as an officer in my district in my first year!” he boasted.

In the ensuing thread, his fellow white supremacists praised him for his “bravery.” Smith proclaimed: “I consistently vocalize my pro-White viewpoints at meetings. I tell perspective [sic] Congressional candidates that stopping the illegal alien invasion should be their top issue if they truly care about the future of this country.”

Steve Smith with congressional candidate Matt Connolly
Steve Smith with congressional candidate Matt Connolly
One of the participants in the thread asked: “I’m curious. Do you bring along the increase in crime statistics with you when you are arguing these points? If so, how do they handle it?”

Smith answered: “These politicians know I am telling the truth. They have never even tried to debate me on these facts.”

“Unfortunately, these politicians fear being called a “racist” more than they fear the violent crime that blacks and non-white Hispanics are bringing into their neighborhoods,” he added.

This note was similar to a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, that Smith wrote last year, defending and explaining his views:


I am going to present three facts on violent crimes. Young adults commit more violent crimes than older adults. Men commit more violent crimes than women. Blacks commit more violent crimes than whites.

I will bet that almost everyone will wholeheartedly agree with the first two facts without batting an eye, but the last fact seems to bring about false cries of “racism” and a litany of lame excuses.

How can it be perfectly OK to profile according to age and sex , but not race?

Has “political correctness” effectively stopped most people from publicly stating the obvious truth?

I stand behind my positions on racial issues because they are backed up with facts and logic. Here is a bet for the liberals and cultural Marxists who like to try to denigrate me for bringing up the truth on race and crime. If blacks can bring down their violent crime rate in proportion with their population in this country, and Detroit becomes one of the safest cities in the United States while maintaining its majority black population, I will quit being an advocate for whites.

Of course, the crime statistics that Smith and his cohorts obsess about have been around a long time, and their crude and oversimplistic analysis of it has been long debunked. Crime correlates with poverty, and race has been shown to be a very poor predictor of criminal tendencies. Nonetheless, that hasn’t stopped white supremacists from continuing to parade such statistics as proof of a racial root to crime.
Steve Smith with congressional candidate Matthew Dietz
Steve Smith with congressional candidate
Matthew Dietz
  

Smith has frequently denied that the ideology he
advances falls into the category of “white supremacism” or racism. Yet Smith’s blunt approval of race-based smears meets the basic definition of hate – namely, having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics (e.g. race).

Smith’s whole career at this point appears to be focused on advancing his racial views. When another user on Stormfront asked him about the possibility of someday running for governor in Pennsylvania, he responded: “I may move up the food chain, but if I do it will be a local office.” “I don’t have the money or time to consider a run for Governor. I have two more years on my current term,” he said.

When he was first elected, Smith also adamantly denied that he was a white supremacist. “That’s a bunch of name-calling the liberals do,” Smith said. “I have made mistakes, and I am moving on.”

Of course, Smith also dismissed his conviction for beating up a black man, during his days as a skinhead, with stones and chunks of pavement, claiming the account wasn’t true: “He wasn’t even touched,” Smith said. He tried to pass the attack off as a case of “drunken stupidity.”

Smith remains unremorseful and unrepentant. He boasted on Stormfront about the mainstream Republicans who posed for photos with him during a recent Republican fundraiser in his district. And he posted the photos.

These included shots with Rep. Lou Barletta, R-PA (11th District); and two Republican congressional candidates from Pennsylvania, Matt Connolly and Matthew Dietz, both competing in the state’s 17th District.

When contacted by Hatewatch, Barletta’s campaign manager, Lance Stange, firmly distanced the congressman from Smith:

We appreciate the Southern Poverty Law Center for bringing this to our attention.  The Congressman recently spoke at a local Republican event.  As often happens, he posed for pictures with a number of people when he was finished speaking.  Apparently, one of them was Mr. Smith, whom the Congressman does not know.

The Congressman rejects the opinions expressed on the website in question and does not associate himself with those views.  He is outraged that his image would be used in any way to support such ideas.

Matthew Dietz’s campaign manager, Cynthia Anderson, also firmly distanced the candidate from Smith:

We’d like to thank the Southern Poverty Law Center for notifying us of Steve Smith’s assertions in an online posting following a Luzerne Co. Republican Committee event earlier this month. Mr. Dietz was very troubled to learn about Smith’s past and current associations; they stand in direct opposition to Mr. Dietz’s own beliefs – namely that this Nation’s greatness was indeed earned through the sacrifice of people from numerous creeds, races, and beliefs.

Matthew Dietz and his campaign have worked diligently to reach out to all families in the 17th Congressional District without exception or exclusion. We condemn any who would use his message to hurt, harm or alienate the citizens in our District, State, or Nation.

Friday, May 09, 2014

FBI Enters Investigation into Weapons Use at Bundy Ranch Standoff



[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

Following several weeks of silence from federal officials in the wake of the April 12 showdown between federal agents and several hundred heavily armed antigovernment “Patriots” near Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch, Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie confirmed Thursday that FBI agents are investigating the behavior of participants that day who aimed their loaded weapons at law enforcement officers.

Such behavior constitutes assault against an officer and a is federal crime that can carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison when a deadly weapon is involved. FBI agents were also investigating verbal threats that were made that day.

“Everyone anticipated that this would occur,” said Gillespie. “I’ve said all along there has to be accountability for what took place on April 12.”

Assistant Sheriff Jim Lombardo, who oversaw local police operations at the scene of the standoff, earlier vowed to investigate the threats.

“Yes, there will be consequences, definitely. That is unacceptable behavior. If we let it go, it will continue into the future,” Lombardo said.

Lombardo told reporters that his officers had collected a great deal of intelligence regarding the actions of individuals that day and would move accordingly.

Gillespie said agents expected to interview every law enforcement officer who was on the scene that day near Bunkerville, including Bureau of Land Management agents and Las Vegas Metro police officers who were brought in to bolster their numbers. He said they were mostly interested in identifying the people who pointed guns at federal agents, and would be poring over photos and video taken during the confrontation to do so.

KLAS-TV also confirmed
the FBI investigation.

Bundy supporters have been adamant they did not point weapons at officers at the standoff – rather, that it was the other way around. But the officers who were on the other side say that’s not the case.

“It is not a rumor,” Metro Police Sgt. Tom Jenkins told KLAS. “When we first got out there and made a left to divide I-15, that is all you saw. You saw kids and women and horses in the backdrop and then men with guns, laying on the ground, in the back of pickup trucks. We’re going, ‘Wow, this would never happen in Las Vegas.’ But it was there. That is not a rumor. It is reality and I saw it with my own eyes.”

Thursday, May 08, 2014

In Wake of Bundy Standoff, Utah BLM Wrangler Threatened by Armed Men in Pickup



[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

At first, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) livestock wrangler driving on Tuesday along Interstate 15 in Utah, about 260 miles from the scene of the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada, thought he was experiencing fairly standard road rage. But then it quickly escalated into a freeway stalking with masks and guns, and ended with a law enforcement manhunt.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the wrangler was pulling a load of burros and horses northbound on the freeway when a dark blue extended-cab Dodge pickup pulled up alongside him and a man gestured at him with a one-fingered salute. The wrangler eased up and let the men drive past him, then he continued on. Just after passing the town of Nephi, the men caught up to him again.

This time, they were wearing hoods. And they showed him a sign that read: “You Need to Die.” Then one of them pointed what appeared to be a Glock handgun at the wrangler.

As the wrangler again dropped back, he tried to get a license plate number. But it had been covered with duct tape.

The wrangler notified state police in Nephi, and they immediately began a manhunt for the men in the pickup. So far, that search has not produced any results.

In response, Utah BLM employees began removing the agency’s decals from their vehicles as a “precaution,” according to Eric Reid, the wrangler’s supervisor at the BLM field office in Fillmore. “We’re toning things down.”

Reid told the Tribune that he didn’t believe the men issued threats because of the agency’s wild horse roundup program, but rather were motivated by antigovernment animus, such as that still festering 260 miles down the desert highway in Nevada. Reid thought the men just wanted to harass a federal employee.

“It’s one of those things now we’re going to be dealing with,” Reid said. “A lot of [people] have taken that attitude toward the government.”

Officials at the BLM’s West District, according to a report from KUTV, sent out a memo urging employees to “be prepared to encounter unfriendlies.”

“We never know in life when we will cross paths with these types,” the message states. “We are hopeful this will be a lone instance and it will fade from memory.”

The state BLM office issued a firm statement through spokesperson Megan Crandall: “Threats against Bureau of Land Management employees will not be tolerated, and we are pursuing this matter with local law enforcement.”

Wednesday, May 07, 2014

Indiana Sheriff with Antigovernment Views Creates Stir by Traveling to Bundy Ranch

[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

Brad Rogers, the sheriff of Indiana’s Elkhart County, is a lot like other self-described “constitutional sheriffs.” They are convinced that their extremist interpretation of the Constitution – which originated with the far-right, anti-Semitic Posse Comitatus movement – is the only valid one.

He has traveled far and wide to spread the message, too, including an appearance on CNN with Anderson Cooper last year during the debate over gun control. More recently, he traveled to Nevada to take part in the standoff between antigovernment “Patriots” and federal agents over Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy’s illegally grazing cattle. He held forth in a lengthy speech at the ranch on the role of the sheriff as the supreme law of the land.

But back home in Elkhart, he is taking heat for his Nevada adventure. The local Goshen News editorialized that “Rogers made a questionable decision at best to visit Bundy’s ranch and interject Elkhart County into this fray by wearing his sheriff’s uniform.” Many of his constituents were also less than impressed. The Nevada junket – at which Rogers wore his Indiana sheriff’s uniform – angered many of them, and they lit up social media with calls for him to step down or be recalled.

“Sheriff Rogers needs to stay in Elkhart County and worry about its problems instead of traveling across country to stick his nose into another states [sic] business where he doesn’t belong. I have had about enough of this individual who thinks he is above the laws that he has sworn to defend. Your responsibilities are to the people of Elkhart County, not in Nevada,” wrote one of them on the Elkhart Truth website.

“He should be fired by the commissioners!!” wrote another. “Or impeached. He was not elected to represent us in different state [sic] based on his crazy views. This is going too far! Scary!”

Others posting at the local paper wondered whether Rogers would be sympathetic to civil disobedience in Elkhart County: “would really like to know how Sheriff Rogers would feel when WE start questioning HIS authority to enforce laws here in Elkhart County. Something tells me we will not have as much FREEDOM as Sheriff Rogers is being given.”

But others were wildly enthusiastic about his trip. One woman responded to his Facebook post to say: “Brad Rogers for president! Preach it brother! Truth is truth! We could use a little of that in this society..ppl pointing fingers, blaming others, excuses..sick of it.. we need leaders who understand what’s right, moral, and just simply true!”

Rogers went to Nevada at the invitation – and with the sponsorship – of the Oath Keepers, the conspiracy-minded “Patriot” organization dedicated to recruiting law enforcement officers, and was introduced onstage by Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers’ founder and president. Rogers’ speech was aimed at encouraging other sheriffs to follow his example.

“I’m not here to judge Mr. Bundy,” he said. “But even if he was wrong, 200 armed federal agents to gather up cows? It should be the sheriff intervening so that we don’t have a Waco or a Ruby Ridge all over again.”
“Sometimes we protect you from the criminals, but sometimes we have to step in and protect you from government,” he added, to enthusiastic “amens”.

He claimed, again, that the sheriff is the supreme law of the land by noting their status as the highest-ranking elected law enforcement officials. Sheriffs, he said, are more connected to their communities because “we have a name, we have a face… You have a number for the sheriff. Who do you contact with the feds? There’s no number. There’s no face to them.”

He lauded the crowd: “Basically it’s a bunch of peace-loving patriots like yourselves that are looking to have constitutional government and to not abide by any orders that are unconstitutional, like herding people into concentration camps or disarming the public or whatever the case may be,” he said.

On his Facebook page, Rogers again lauded his fellow “Patriots”:

Then, what about those honorable Oathkeepers, patriots, 3 Percenters, and others who believe this event is a watershed moment for our nation?  I met and visited with these men and women, coming from all walks of life, all races, and different religions.  Some of these patriots quit their job and came to Nevada to keep their oath; to defend their nation against tyranny.  Some are expecting to die here.  Nevada U.S. Senator Harry Reid called them “domestic terrorists”.  Reid’s comments were inflammatory and irresponsible, and did nothing to quell the potential for violence.  The patriots are men and women who have come to the Bundy ranch to protect the Bundy’s from a Federal government that has no logical reason to use force.  These patriots are not domestic terrorists. I would not stand with terrorists.  I’m convinced that the patriots will not fire the first shot.  But, if and when the BLM agents return and start firing, the bloodshed will begin.  It will be the battle of Bunkerville.

Back in Elkhart, Rogers was adamant in defending his trip, claiming it was all done on his vacation time and on the Oath Keepers’ dime.

“I’m the sheriff of this county whether on vacation or not,” he wrote to the editors of the Elkhart Truth. “I was proudly representing Elkhart County to show that the people in Elkhart County are a peaceful people and, as sheriff, I desire for all potentially violent situations to be resolved without anyone getting killed.”

Rogers’ previous brief appearance in the national limelight came in January of last year, when he was invited to participate in a “town hall” panel on CNN hosted by Anderson Cooper titled “Guns Under Fire,” a discussion of the efforts at the time to revive federal gun control laws.

Rogers had previously declared that he would enforce no such laws, so Cooper asked him about that:

COOPER: All right. I want to bring in Sheriff Brad Rogers who’s also joining us here. Sheriff is on the other side. He’s from Elkhart County, Indiana.

You made headlines recently when you said, you know, that folks in your area were concerned about people — government coming and confiscating their guns and that you would not uphold any law that you felt was unconstitutional that was passed.

Do you believe — and you believe it’s a state’s rights issue. Do you believe the federal government has any right to any form of gun control?

ROGERS: No, I do not believe so. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly spells out what the federal government should be — is authorized to do. And everything else goes back to the state. It’s reserved for the states to mandate that.

In Indiana where I’m from, the Indiana Constitution spells it out even further. In Article 1, Section 32, it says, that people shall have a right to arm themselves to defend themselves and the state. So, you know, even if this — you know, even if it’s taken up by the state, they are restricted usually by their own constitution.

Cooper turned to legal expert Jeffrey Toobin, who appeared mildly stunned by all this and promptly pronounced Rogers “just factually wrong.”

The federal government is supreme — is supreme in this. There is a supremacy clause in the Constitution. If there’s a conflict between state law and federal law, the federal government wins. However, the federal government does have to abide by the Second Amendment, too. So the question, there is no doubt that the federal government has the right to engage in some sort of gun control. The question is, what can they ban? They cannot ban handguns.

We know that from the Supreme Court. But can they ban assault weapons? Can they ban tanks? Can they ban stinger missiles? You bet they can. And they do, and so that much we know is that the federal government can ban certain weapons, but they can’t ban all weapons.

The national smackdown does not appear to have altered Rogers’ views, however.

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Holocaust Denial Exercise for Students in California High School Backfires








[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

What appears to have been a well-intentioned effort to encourage students in a suburban Los Angeles high school to critically think about history has instead provoked outrage in the community for inadvertently lending credence to Holocaust denial, forcing the district and the school to issue apologies with promises to halt the assignment.

The research and writing project, assigned in April for eighth-graders at Rialto Unified School District, read:

When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence. For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual historical event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain. Based upon your research on this issue, write an argumentative essay, utilizing cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe the Holocaust was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain. Remember to address counterclaims (rebuttals) to your stated claim.

Last week, officials from the Los Angeles offices of the Anti-Defamation League contacted the district to voice their concern and displeasure over the assignment.

“An exercise asking students to question whether the Holocaust happened has no academic value; it only gives legitimacy to the hateful and anti-Semitic promoters of Holocaust denial,” wrote Matthew Friedman, the ADL’s associate regional director. “It is also very dangerous to ask junior high school students to question the reality of the Holocaust on their own, given the sheer volume of denial websites out there.

“If these questions do come up, it’s better to show the huge preponderance of evidence that’s out there (testimony, documentation, death camp sites, archaeology, etc.) and to also question why people would question the reality of the Holocaust (many motivated not by historical curiosity, but by anti-Semitism). Also, who are the people questioning the Holocaust and what do real historians say? This is more of an issue of teaching good information literacy.”

State Sen. Norma Torres, who represents the district, chimed in, declaring: ““Giving school children an assignment that asks them to question whether the holocaust occurred is inappropriate. These actions are insensitive to the millions who lost loved ones and to the many people around the world who have no tolerance for discrimination and genocide.”

In short order, the school district beat a hasty retreat, announcing the assignment had been canceled: “The holocaust should be taught in classrooms with sensitivity and profound consideration to the victims who endured the atrocities committed,” said district spokeswoman Syeda Jafri in an interview.

“This was a mistake. It should be corrected. It will be corrected,” Jafri added. “We all know it was real. The Holocaust is not a hoax. … I believe our classroom teachers are teaching it with sensitivity and compassion.”
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, was particularly outraged by a section in the assignment that referred to Anne Frank as a “fraud”.

“Pedagogically, socially, morally — an F,” Cooper said of the assignment.

“Whatever [the district's] motivation, it ends up elevating hate and history to the same level,” Cooper said. “We should train our kids to have critical thinking, but the problem here is the teacher confused teaching critical thinking with common sense, because common sense dictates you don’t comingle propaganda with common truth.”

The ADL noted at its blog that there was no evidence the assignment was devised to encourage Holocaust denial: “ADL does not have any evidence that the assignment was given as part of a larger, insidious, agenda. Rather, the district seems to have given the assignment with an intent, although misguided, to meet Common Core standards relating to critical learning skills.”

Monday, May 05, 2014

Man Who Tried to Kill Hundreds at Gay Bar Pleads Guilty to Arson Only

[Cross-posted at Hatewatch.]

The man who tried to kill a crowd of 750 people packed inside a popular Seattle gay bar by setting it afire on New Year’s Eve has pleaded guilty to a federal charge of arson. Despite some evidence that he was motivated by hatred of LGBT people, Musab Mohammad Masmari will not face federal hate crime charges.

The Seattle Times reports that Masmari, a 30-year-old American-born man of Libyan extraction and upbringing, reached an agreement with prosecutors on Friday to plead guilty to arson. Though prosecutors had substantial reason to believe it was an anti-LGBT bias crime, he will not face federal hate-crime charges. Prosecutors said that Masmari’s motives will be addressed by the judge during the sentencing phase, which comes next week.

The plea agreement specifies that prosecutors will only seek a five-year prison sentence for the crime. However, prosecutors told KOMO-TV that the judge was free to ignore their recommendations and sentence Masmari to a prison term ranging up to 20 years.

Masmari got into Neighbours, a popular Capitol Hill bar, last New Year’s Eve with a canister of gasoline hidden inside another container, making it past security by entering through an adjoining tavern. He then tried to set a stairwell leading up to the rear entrance afire by dousing it with the gas, lighting it and fleeing. Alert action by bar patrons managed to douse the flames before they could spread.

Video surveillance cameras inside the bar captured Masmari’s image as he walked through with the container, and his neighbors and acquaintances identified him to detectives in short order. After Masmari was brought in for questioning and released, he apparently attempted to flee the country by buying a plane ticket to Turkey. But he was arrested at Sea-Tac Airport and subsequently charged with arson.

KIRO-TV reported that a friend of Masmari told FBI agents that Masmari had a “deep distaste for homosexual people” and thought “homosexuals should be exterminated,” despite living for several years at an apartment in Capitol Hill, Seattle’s best-known gay neighborhood. The informant told the agents he had met Masmari at a café near a mosque both attended and that Masmari had laid out his hatred of LGBT people over the course of their conversation. He said Masmari told him he had obtained a rifle, and added that he feared Masmari might have been planning other terrorist acts.

Neighbours has a history of being targeted by hate-crime perpetrators. In 1990, several members of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations organization from Hayden Lake in northern Idaho were arrested and charged with plotting to kill dozens, if not hundreds, of Neighbours patrons. The attackers had traveled to Seattle intent on reigniting a 1983-84 campaign of domestic terrorism carried out by an Aryan Nations-derived group, The Order, against their perceived enemies: Jews, African Americans, and LGBT people. They were thwarted by the presence of an informant and arrested in Seattle before they could carry out the plot.

Sunday, May 04, 2014

The Truth About 'The Truth About Blackfish'



It's never easy, coming in from the outside of an emotional debate over a popular public entertainment -- the kind that performing killer whales provide -- to adequately judge that's debate's real merits, such as the one over orca captivity that has been inspired by the documentary Blackfish. Both sides of the debate claim to own real expertise the subject, so it often comes down to a matter of evaluating the competing facts.

It's always a dead giveaway, however, as to the adequacy of each side's arguments when one of the sides decides not to really engage in the facts but chooses instead to emphasize character assassination of the opposing side.

And that is precisely how the Blackfish debate has unfolded. The documentary's producers and backers, while handling a deeply emotional subject with grace and reserve, have hewn to the facts -- as did their film.

Sea World, on the other hand, has run and hidden: first refusing to participate in the film, then refusing even to come on CNN when asked, refusing any public accountability for its practices. Its few media defenders, rather than debate facts, have simply indulged in mindless bullying.

And when it finally did go public with its response to the film, it did so in a completely non-transparent way -- undertaking a closed-shop public-relations campaign predicated around websites, videos, and ads. And the primary subject of that campaign has not been an effort to rebut the factual issues raised by the film, but an attack on the people involved in the film and an attempt to impugn their motives. A smear campaign.

Which is why, at a deep level, SeaWorld is losing. It is now fighting off legislative attempts to outlaw orca captivity. Its stock has been in decline. Its chief stockholder, Blackstone Group, recently sold off large shares. More importantly, its attendance figures are in decline, with no sign that the trend will be reversing anytime soon. Indeed, the more people who see Blackfish the more likely it is to accelerate.

This campaign is embodied by SeaWorld's web-based effort at responding to the film, namely, its website titled "The Truth About Blackfish."

At first glance, the site looks on its slick surface like a sincere attempt to humanize the people who still work at Sea World. But when you start going through its actual content, what quickly emerges is not a humanizing of Sea World but -- beyond an array of picked nits and distorted "facts" -- the website is in fact mostly a relentless smear of the people who spoke up in the film.

See, for instance, the third point in its array of supposed "facts":
The film also relies on animal rights activists masquerading as scientists: The film relies heavily on the dubious reflections of scientists who have aggressively campaigned against marine mammal display for decades, and have no expertise with killer whale behavior in captivity.  These scientists include Howard Garrett, Lori Marino and Ken Balcomb. Mr. Garrett, along with cast members Samantha Berg and Carol Ray, joined with PETA in a previously filed lawsuit against SeaWorld. In this lawsuit, they equated SeaWorld’s work with killer whales as slavery under the 13th Amendment. Although their case was promptly dismissed by the Court, their anti-captivity bias is obvious.  Likewise, the film relies on the statements of David Duffus, a professor of geography and purported expert in the area of killer whale behavior, whom Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Judge Kenneth Welsch found “has no expertise in the training of captive killer whales.”  
So, which is it: Are they scientists, or only activists? In fact, every single one of the people that the site lists as "animal rights activists posing as scientists" is, yes, a scientist. Real scientists, not fake or -- perhaps worse yet -- corporate ones. Which, as you'll note, the entirety of the rest of the paragraph admits, while qualifying that these scientists have no expertise in captive whales. But Garrett and Balcomb, in fact, have abundant experience with killer-whale behavior in the wild. Indeed, Ken Balcomb is one of the most respected wild orca researchers in the world, having carefully catalogued the populations and behaviors of the Pacific Northwest's Southern Resident killer whales for the past forty years. His Center for Whale Research is recognized around the world as one of the leading authorities on the species.

Likewise, Lori Marino is one of the most respected (and celebrated) specialists in cetacean neurology in the world, having been one of the scientists who ascertained that dolphins have mirror self-recognition. It's true that she has not worked with live killer whales, though it should be noted that their morphology is quite similar to that of the bottlenose dolphins with whom she has extensive experience. More important, she is one of the only scientists to have participated in an MRI study of a killer-whale brain -- which in fact is what she came on Blackfish to talk about.

But that also brings up the other aspect of how SeaWorld smears these and other scientists who have spoken, by dismissing them as activists. Because Lori Marino also is a key faculty member of the Emory Center for Ethics -- one of the nation's leading scientific-ethics think tanks, a place where scientists, especially biologists, go to think about the ethical dimensions and ramifications of their work.

Here's how "The Truth About Blackfish" concludes, describing Marino's assessments:
All of the falsehoods and misleading techniques in Blackfish are employed in the service of the film’s obvious bias, one that is best revealed near the end of Blackfish by a neuroscientist with no known expertise in killer whales. She claims that all killer whales in captivity are “emotionally destroyed,” and “ticking time bombs.” These are not the words of science, and indeed, there is not a shred of scientific support for them.  Rather, they are the words of animal rights activists whose agenda the film’s many falsehoods were designed to advance. They reveal “Blackfish” not as an objective documentary, but as propaganda.  
This obviates the nature of scientific ethics, which SeaWorld seems to believe is only valid when it's done on behalf of a corporate interest. When Marino speaks out about the ethics of orca captivity, she does as someone bound by the nature of her work to consider whether orca captivity is the right thing to do on a purely scientific basis. And on that basis, SeaWorld loses. It is not even close. And it is the same for all the other scientists that SeaWorld tries to smear this way: They speak out not because they are loopy-eyed ideologues, but because their extensive scientific experience with these animals compels them to speak up about what they know.

The same can be said of the several former SeaWorld trainers who appeared in the film, describing the company's dubious practices. These are people who "The Truth About Blackfish" devotes considerable energy to attacking, largely on the basis that their credentials were not extensive enough to speak authoritatively. Most of these trainers and the film's producers have replied to these smears adequately, but it shouldn't be necessary; SeaWorld condemns itself simply by going this route, rather than addressing the content what these trainers had to say to the cameras.

Moreover, on that score, SeaWorld's attempts at responding on a factual basis are not only woefully inadequate, they are riddled with falsehoods, inaccuracies and distortions.

The most egregious of these, of course, is its ongoing claim that the lifespan of captive orcas is similar to, or perhaps even longer than, that of wild orcas. In order to make this claim, SeaWorld has to rig its statistics by including only SeaWorld orcas in its database, and then only deaths that have occurred in the past 15 years. Considering that it, and many other marine parks, have held many more orcas over the nearly fifty years they have been in business, that's an absurdly skewed database.

Moreover, while it has managed to buffalo a few journalists into believing that "scientists don't really know" the lifespans of wild orcas, the data that have been collected so far justify scientists' widespread confidence that the lifespans we see in the well-studied Pacific Northwest orcas are reasonably representative of their lifespans in other habitats. There are no scientists who study wild orcas who believe that captive lifespans are even close to equivalent, and indeed the real data demonstrates conclusively that this is the case.

And that is reflective of SeaWorld's ignorant and fundamentally unscientific approach to the facts. In the "detailed analysis" of Blackfish it offers, it actually makes the assertion that that adult orcas must leave their mothers in the wild, because, as they write, "if no adult offspring ever leave their mother, there would be no genetic diversity necessary for survival or separate pods of killer whales."

This, to put it nicely, is monumental, risible ignorance. In fact, among resident fish-eating killer whales, both and female orcas remain with their mothers their entire lives, forming extremely tight social circles; they overcome the genetic-diversity issue by primarily mating with resident orcas from other pods. This is well-established scientific fact, and the fact that SeaWorld says Blackfish "offers no scientific basis for this statement" and that "SeaWorld is aware of none" demonstrates its only abysmal understanding of the animals in its care.

This kind of nonsensical distortion and afactuality pervades "The Truth About Blackfish". Another deceptive claim on the website is one of its most prominent:
Through stock footage and video mismatched to the narrative, the film implies that SeaWorld collects killer whales from the wild and separates mothers and calves.  NEITHER IS TRUE.
But in fact, SeaWorld manages to obtain orcas for its inventory that are "rescued" from the wild, because as the dominant figure in the captive-orca industry, it is able to access any orcas that are captured for other venues. A classic case of this is Morgan, the wild orca calf recently rescued in the Netherlands; she was placed temporarily at Loro Parque off the coast of Spain until a court could determine her disposition. In the interim, as Gabriella Cowperthwaite noted in an interview, SeaWorld began listing her as one of its corporate "assets." Sure enough, the Dutch court eventually concluded that Morgan was legally in their possession. Moreover, there has been a recent surge in captures of wild orcas that has significantly increased the overall pool of captive orcas, and some of the recent captures are almost certain to fall within its corporate sphere eventually.

Even more risible was SeaWorld's claim that it doesn't separate mother orcas and their calves. This is only true if by "calves" you mean young under one year of age. But in fact SeaWorld regularly and with impunity separates mothers and their offspring -- which, as we just noted, is a completely unnatural occurrence in the wild. Moreover, the assertion isn't even true all of the time for one-year-old calves; SeaWorld has a long track record of separating mothers and calves at birth, and even more often when they become older than a year. Indeed, the orca and calf whose image illustrates SeaWorld's assertion were, as a matter of fact, separated when the youngster was four.

Some simply fly in the face of what we know already. For instance, there's this: 
The film falsely suggests that SeaWorld “blamed” Ms. Brancheau for her death.  We have never done that. She was our colleague and we mourn her loss to this day.  The film, however, does blame Ms. Brancheau, and it accomplishes this through former trainers with little or no relevant experience. These trainers were not present on the day she died, and callously presume to critique her interaction with Tilikum. 
Yet anyone who has seen the film knows that this is simply, baldly false. Not only does the documentary provide two clear examples of SeaWorld employees and spokesmen blaming Brancheau for her own death, the speculation by trainers about the events leading up to her death were a far cry from these blatant examples of victim-blaming.

And as if to underscore that blaming Brancheau was in fact the official company line for the better part of a year at SeaWorld, the company's chief investor -- Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman -- went on CNBC (after "The Truth About Blackfish" made these claims) and in fact blamed Brancheau for her own death. Challenged about SeaWorld's stock, Schwarzman told his host that the company had only "had one safety lapse -- interestingly, with a situation where the person involved violated all the safety rules that we had."

The company quickly tried to backtrack, saying that Schwarzman had "misspoken," explaining that "his comments did not accurately reflect the facts of the accident or SeaWorld’s longstanding position on it."

Right.

Then there is the matter of Tilikum himself, the killer whale who is the focal point of the film. SeaWorld tries to pretend that he's just fine and healthy:
What clearly is supported by the facts is that prior to Ms. Brancheau’s accident in 2010, Tilikum had engaged in numerous interactions with trainers and veterinarians safely and without incident over a period of 18 years. Tilikum remains at SeaWorld, where he cooperates with trainers, socializes with other killer whales and our guests.  

The reality that I, and other observers, have seen at Sea World Orlando is quite different for Tilikum. The park continues to keep him socially separated from most of the other whales, allowing him only the company of other males, usually one at a time, but he spends most of his days floating in more or less one place.


This is where SeaWorld's campaign not only fails, but backfires utterly. Rather than persuading its core audience -- average Americans, people who appreciate science and reason and nature, people inclined to support a conservation ethic and the humane treatment of animals -- that what it is doing is the right thing, it spend all of its energy trying to make its critics out to be bad people. And after awhile, that kind of campaign just become a kind of mirror: Everyone outside of the company can see that they are projecting.

Certainly, the facts are not on their side. The reality is that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that orcas are not animals that are fit for captivity, and ethically speaking, continuing the practice has to be considered inhumane. Scientist Naomi Rose -- yes, she's also one of those experts they choose to dismiss as an "activist" -- has compiled a white paper that lays out the case. 
Longevity/survival rates/mortality
In 1995, Small and DeMaster published a peer-reviewed paper on the survivorship rates of several captive marine mammal species.This paper showed that, through the end of 1992 (the last year for which a complete set of annual data  was available) orcas had significantly lower annual survival rates in captivity than in the wild. Their annual mortality rate (the inverse of survivorship) was more than two and a half times higher in captivity than in the wild. Thus to date the maximum lifespan of captive orcas has matched the mean life expectancy of wild orcas. As a corollary, very few captive orcas who have died achieved the mean life expectancy of wild orcas.
... The infant mortality rate in captivity (“infant” defined here as an animal six months of age or younger, including near- to full-term pregnancies where the calf does not survive birth [stillbirths]) is approximately 50%.

Age distribution
Of more than 130 wild-caught orcas held for public display, only 13 survive in oceanaria around the world. Nine of these are older than the vast majority of captive orcas who have died and, given that they represent less than 10% of the wild-caught animals, should be considered outside the norm in terms of captive longevity. The remaining 29 living captive orcas are captive-born and therefore younger than 25 (with the death of Kalina, the oldest living captive-born orca is now Orkid, aged 23 years). Indeed, 17 of the surviving captive-born orcas are younger than 11 years of age.

Fin Collapse
All captive male orcas have collapsed dorsal fins as adults, most completely folded over the back. Because of their visibility, these fins tend to draw attention and questions from the public. SeaWorld attempts to characterize the fully collapsed dorsal fins of its male orcas as a normal phenomenon; however, in the wild, only 1-5% of male orcas in some populations (and none in others) have fully collapsed dorsal fins.

Causes of Death
The most common causes of death in captive orcas, wild-caught or captive-born, are pneumonia, septicemia, and other types of infection. That many infections turn lethal in captive orcas highlights the fact that wildlife often does not manifest clinical signs of illness until it is too late for treatment. This raises the logical question of whether veterinary care provides a significant advantage to captive wildlife. Clearly it helps some animals, but others die before treatment can be started or take effect.

Dental health
The high rate of lethal infection may also be a function of poor dental health. Captive orcas routinely show damaged dentition, primarily broken and worn teeth with the pulp exposed. This is in contrast to wild orcas: many show little or no tooth wear, while those who do tend to specialize in prey with abrasive morphology. Broken teeth in wild orcas are rare.

Aberrant behavior
The only recorded fatal attack by one orca on another occurred in captivity. Incompatibility among captive orcas is frequent, with certain individuals bullied by others, resulting in lacerations and other wounds, and eventually needing separation from dominant individuals. In the wild, aggression has been only rarely observed; where it was, serious injuries did not result.

Human injuries and deaths
Throughout recorded history, there have been no reliable reports of wild orcas killing a human being. In contrast, four people have been killed by captive orcas. Three orcas drowned a part-time trainer in 199190. One of these three was involved in the death of a member of the public eight years later and this same whale killed his long-time trainer 11 years later. A fourth whale killed his trainer only nine weeks earlier.

There have been very few reports of serious injuries inflicted by wild orcas on humans; one surfer required stitches in his leg in 1972. The few other reported incidents were minor and resulted in little or no injury. In contrast, there have been dozens of significant incidents between people and captive orcas, including serious injuries requiring hospitalization, throughout the 47 years this species has been on public display.
The obvious conclusion is clear cut and unambiguous:
Considering orca natural history, it is unsurprising that orcas do not thrive in captivity. They are kin-bonded creatures, with a long dependency period on the mother and life-long family ties to her, their siblings and more distant relations. When in captivity, they are kept in artificial social groups with no resemblance to those in nature. They are cooperative predators, whose home ranges are hundreds if not thousands of square kilometers in size, and who can and often do swim almost 200 kilometers in a day. When in captivity, they are made to exist inside a comparatively small concrete enclosure, less than one ten-thousandth of normal habitat size.

Captivity cannot adequately provide for such large, social, wide-ranging predators. A captive orca bears little resemblance to a wild one and the evidence is mounting that these animals, raised within or born into profoundly abnormal circumstances, are themselves abnormal. However, for 47years oceanaria holding orcas have been telling the public that captive orcas thrive and indeed that they might even be better off in human care than facing the challenges of a wild existence. The facts show otherwise.
This is the truth about SeaWorld and its PR counteroffensive against Blackfish: It cannot face the facts, because the facts mean they have to completely rethink their business model (and Rose has some ideas about that, too).





Rather than address the real issues underlying the matter, it chooses to attack the people involved and touting their business credentials; their chief argument seems to be that they are better people -- even while they lie through their teeth to us at every turn, whether it's telling people that captive orcas live as long as wild whiles, or claiming to be really all about conserving orcas in the wild.

Indeed, the most laughable part in all this comes when Sea World tries to claim it is also a leader in conservation and wildlife recovery efforts for the animals in its care. That may be true of Florida manatees, but it is simply a flat-out lie when it comes to orcas.


One thing we know for a fact about SeaWorld: Even though it preaches a "conservation message" to people who come to their theme parks, it does almost nothing of consequence in the real world to assist in the conservation of wild killer whales.

When people at those parks ask what they can do to help killer whales in the wild, they are given generic answers such as watching what lawn fertilizer they use, or not littering, or assisting in beach cleanups. In the video above, you can hear a guide telling children that those are the steps they should take at home to help wild orcas.

But these things do little if anything at all to actually help killer whales in the wild. Indeed, you will find only scant references at Sea World parks to the only officially endangered population of killer whales -- the Southern Resident population of the Salish Sea. And if you do happen to hear about them, you will be told that their chief threat is boats and pollution.

What you will not be told is that in reality, the Southern Residents face a doubly whammy. The first whammy came in the loss of over a third of its historic population during the period 1964-75, when SeaWorld and its cohorts founded the captive-orca industry by removing some fifty resident killer whales from Puget Sound waters. Since then, its population has wavered between seventy and a hundred whales -- we are currently at 81 -- in large part because of the second whammy: a lack of salmon, particularly the Chinook salmon that comprise their preferred diet.

Recovering the orca population is necessarily focused on restoring our salmon runs, both in the Salish Sea and in the Columbia River and elsewhere, including Northern California. It is a long and difficult fight, one in which the progress has been slow, in large part because of a lack of financial support for salmon restoration.

Where has Sea World been in all this? Nowhere. They have not funded orca-population studies or censuses, let alone communications and ship-noise studies that are needed. We did see them briefly during the Springer episode, when SeaWorld lent local scientists the use of a diagnostic lab and an overseeing veterinarian to test a sample of Springer's blood before she was transported north and successfully reunited with her familial pod. For that, they now claim credit for the entire project.



There has been some recent research at SeaWorld that actually helps advance our knowledge of killer whales. For instance, researchers there have established recently that dialects in killer whales are in fact learned behaviors. There has also been some recent impressive work on the energy orcas expend in the process of swimming. One could argue that this research is long overdue, but at least SeaWorld is now undertaking research that could actually help conserve orcas in the wild -- something that was not true for many years.


If you scroll around "The Truth About Blackfish" and SeaWorld's website, you'll find a page full of videos "featuring employees talking about the park’s animal conservation and rescue efforts, as well as its care for its animals and how interactions with them inspire visitors." This is all very heart-warming. But it's as phony as a three-dollar bill. In fact, SeaWorld spends well under 1 percent of its annual revenues on conservation efforts. 

If SeaWorld were serious about assisting orcas -- and serious about their claims to being a conservation-oriented organization -- they would be a major presence in the Northwest in the long hard battle to restore our salmon and save our killer whales. Instead, they are nowhere to be seen -- too busy teaching orcas to breach in triplicate and rolling in the revenue stream that creates.

They also specialize in lying about and smearing the people who are in fact actively engaged in the work of saving wild killer whales in their native habitat. This tawdry public-relations effort is just another iteration of what we have seen from them all along.


It's telling enough that when Blackfish's filmmakers challenged SeaWorld to a public debate, they simply refused. They knew, of course, that they would lose. It's even more telling that, when SeaWorld has gone to court on these issues -- as it has with the OSHA ruling ordering its trainers to stay out of the water with killer whales, the end result of Dawn Brancheau's death -- it in fact loses, as it did recently, once again. 

At some point, it will have to figure all this out. But by then, it may well be too late for it to pull out of its self-inflicted death spiral.