Rest in Peace, Jim Vance – you were a shining star for a lot of years in DC.
The problem with draining said swamp, is you have to take down the folks who control the swamp…
Right now, those folks are Republicans.
And Republicans are the only thigh standing between the Chumph and his ass being impeached and convicted of Treason…
Kinda sad to see the last few dumb mofos in America still suckered into thinking Putin’s Bitch is going to change anything.
There is just going to be a big Trump Hotel in the middle of the swamp…Oh, there already is one!
Less than a quarter of Americans surveyed in a new Monmouth University poll released Wednesday said President Donald Trump is making progress on his promise to “drain the swamp” of Washington corruption.
Thirty-two percent of those polled said Trump is actually making the “swamp” worse, while just 24 percent said he is draining it. Thirty-five percent of respondents said the president has done nothing to change Washington’s culture.
Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” was one of his most popular campaign speech bits, a line that evolved into a call-and-response at many of his rallies. And while he has instituted some limitations on future lobbying for those working for his administration, Trump has also taken some steps that seem at odds with his anti-corruption message, including removing from public view the list of White House visitors and installing well-connected individuals within his administration, including several from Wall Street megabank Goldman Sachs.
Among those polled, 35 percent said the president has paid “a lot” of attention to the most important issues to average Americans, while 30 percent said he had paid “a little” attention and 32 percent said he had not been attentive to those issues. Sixty-two percent of participants said they wished the president would pay more attention to the issues that matter most to them, while 34 percent said Trump had paid adequate attention to their preferred issues.
A young Muslim boy found hanged in a wooded area nearly 2 months after his disappearance. Initial ruling suicide…Now the authorities are changing that finding.
Police found Ben Keita’s body more than a month after he disappeared.
A family in Washington state is asking the FBI to investigate the mysterious death of their son, a young black Muslim man.
Ben M. Keita, 18, was reported missing on Nov. 27, the Lake Stevens Police Department posted on Facebook. On Jan. 9, Officials found that he had been hanged in a wooded area.
Medical examiners originally ruled the death a suicide, but announced Tuesday that the manner of death was still undetermined.
Keita’s family appealed to the public to come forward with any answers.
“He was planning to graduate this year from Lake Stevens High School,” his father, Ibrahim Keita, said Tuesday at a news conference hosted by the Council of American-Islamic Relations. “He was already in the Running Start program at Everett Community College and he was dreaming of becoming a medical doctor and work as a medical examiner. Now those dreams are over.”
CAIR has asked the FBI to open an investigation because “we really want to get answers about what may have happened,” Arsalan Bukhari, CAIR’s executive director for the Washington area, said at the news conference.
“The FBI is communicating with our police partners,” the group said in a statement. “We are aware of circumstances of the individual’s death and will review them with consideration of federal law. If warranted, we may conduct further investigation. A review does not necessarily result in the opening of an investigation.”
There is a planned March fo Science on the 22nd of February. Whether that march turns into another monster like the Women’s March or barely inconvenience the subway system is really dependent on the “Scientists” making alliances with other groups. Science in particular hasn’t always been good news for black folks, who were often used and abused in horrendous scientific “experiments”. Tuskegee still resounds in the psyche of many black people, who as a result have a inborn distrust of Science.
Donald Trump is an anti-science president. In fact, his entire raison d’être — perhaps unsurprisingly — stands at cross-purposes with the scientific method, systematic inquiry, and even the basic notion of evidentiary support. In the few days since his inauguration, Trump has already prohibited scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from speaking to the public about their research. Moreover, the White House recently expunged U.S. National Park Service (NPS) Twitter content highlighting the threat of climate change. In the wake of Trump’s dictates, concerned scientists have taken to social media to plan a protest in Washington, DC that they are dubbing the #ScienceMarch. The Twitter account associated with the action — @ScienceMarchDC — has amassed over 240,000 followers since it came online a week ago.
The #ScienceMarch has great potential to underscore the need for public policy to be grounded in scientific study. Securing widespread participation, however, will require that the organizers pull together multiple constituencies in a broad-based multi-racial and bi-partisan alliance. To be sure, the coalitional nature — and, therefore, efficacy — of this fledgling movement will be predicated on the extent to which its organizers are willing to acknowledge the racialized nature of the history of science itself. That is, the organizers must understand the manifold ways in which so-called scientific experimentation and discourse have been marshaled to ratify and propagate white supremacy and to degrade the bodies, minds, and experiences of people of color.
Whereas event organizers claim that “[science] is a not partisan issue,” history unequivocally proves otherwise. Science is and always has been a function of power and politics. The historical record is replete with examples of the ways in which scientific inquiry and experimentation have sought to naturalize and rationalize the inferiority of people of color and justify their oppression through the language of pathology, deviance, and abnormality. Further, people of color have long served as laboratories for dangerous scientific experimentation. Exposing this lurid history is the first of many steps in forcing mainstream science — often implicitly racialized as white — to confront a historical past that exerts an enduring political force over our historical present.
“Because of science,” 21-year-old Black South African Saartjie Baartman was brought to Europe under false pretenses in 1810 by physician William Dunlop and paraded around London’s Piccadilly Circus as a “theatre of human oddities” on the basis of her large buttocks and protruding vulva. For years, Baartman’s body was the object of spectacle, scientific fascination, and degradation. Dr. Dunlop and other medical professionals used her large buttocks and extended labia to claim that Black people were morphologically similar to Orangutans. When Baartman died in 1815 at the age of 26 her corpse became the property of scientist Georges Cuvier. Cuvier fabricated a plaster cast of her body before dissecting it and preserved her skeleton, brain, and genitals. Baartman’s sexual organs were displayed in a Paris museum until 1974, when activists successfully petitioned to have her remains returned to her birthplace in South Africa. Baartman’s body was not repatriated and buried until 2002.
“Because of science,” Samuel Cartwright, a New Orleans physician and Confederate loyalist, argued that high rates of physical and mental illnesses afflicting enslaved black persons were products of the ostensible biologically inferior mental capacity of the “black race.” In his 1815 “Report on the Disease and the Physical Peculiarities of the Negro Race,” Cartwright introduced what he called “Drapetomania,” known as the “Disease Causing Slaves to Run Away.” Unconvinced that enslaved Black children, women, and men might naturally seek freedom, Cartwright instead claimed that Drapetomania could be cured by “kindness.”
“Because of science,” Ota Benga, a young Congolese man, was put on display in an iron monkey cage at the Bronx Zoo in 1906. Benga was brought to the United States by Samuel Verner, a well-known white supremacist from South Carolina. Benga’s captivity — justified under the impress of scientific exploration — was sanctioned by zoological society officials, the mayor of New York City, prominent scientists, much of the public, and many major U.S. newspapers, including The New York Times. Officials at the Bronx Zoo said that “Benga, according to our information, is…closer to the anthropoid apes than the other African savages…” Four years before Benga’s exhibition, Dr. Daniel Brinton published his text The Basis of Social Relations: A Study in Ethnic Psychology, where he first claimed that Africans were “midway between the Oranutang [sic] and the European white.”
“Because of science,” Alice Jones, who had recently married Leonard Rhinelander, a wealthy white man from Manhattan, was forced to “prove her race” in a New York court in 1924. During her trial Jones was forced to expose her naked body to an all-white, all-male jury and judge. She was made to remove various articles of clothing so the jury and judge could determine her race by examining the color of her nipples, back, and legs. The court concluded that Jones was not fully white.
“Because of science,” Dr. John Cutler, a physician with the U.S. Public Health Service, deliberately infected over 400 Guatemalan prisoners and sex workers with syphilis from 1946–1948. None of the research subjects were asked for their consent. Seventy-one subjects died during the experiments.
“Because of science,” doctors and public officials deliberately withheld syphilis treatment from hundreds of black men in Alabama as part of the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male.” The experiment — conducted from 1932–1972 — resulted in hundreds of deaths. To this day, there is no evidence that researchers informed the men of the study or its real purpose.
“Because of science,” the University of Cincinnati, with the help of the Pentagon, conducted experiments on 88 cancer patients from 1960–1971 by exposing them to intense doses of radiation and recording their physical and mental responses. They endeavored to answer the following question: “In the event of a nuclear explosion, how much radiation could a soldier withstand before becoming disoriented or disabled?” According to reporting in The New York Times, “most were poor; 60 percent were black.”
“Because of science,” psychiatrists Walter Bromberg and Frank Simon diagnosed Black Power as a form of “protest psychosis” in 1968. They described it as a form of “delusional anti-whiteness.” Four years later, in “Symbolism in Protest Psychosis,” they said the disorder was “a psychotic illness with strong elements of racial hostility and black nationalism [that entails] the release of previously repressed anti-white feelings, which combine with African ideology and beliefs.” In short, “[the illness is oriented toward] reversing the white supremacy tradition or stating an objection to the accepted superiority of white values in terms of an African ideology.”
“Because of science,” over 310 HIV+ Haitian asylum seekers were detained at a Guantánamo Bay prison campfrom 1991–1993. At the time, federal law prohibited individuals with HIV from entering the United States even if they qualified for political asylum.
“Because of science,” over 60,000 women and men — the majority of whom are women of color — were involuntarily sterilized from 1907–2003 in 32 U.S. states. Black and Latina women in Puerto Rico, New York, North Carolina, and California were targeted by the U.S. government for sterilization throughout the 20th century. North Carolina involuntarily sterilized 7,600 people from 1929–1974. During that time period, 85 percent of the victims were women and 40 percent were people of color. Native American women were also subjected to coercive and involuntary population control practices throughout much of the 20th century. The Indian Health Service (IHS) began providing family planning services to Native American families in 1965. According to the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, over 25 percent of Native American women were sterilized between 1970 and 1976.
“Because of science,” nearly 150 women prisoners — most of whom are Black and Brown — were sterilized between 2006 and 2010 by doctors under contract with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). A May 2013 state audit reported that some of the tubal ligations in that time were done illegally without informed consent.
These histories matter.
The #ScienceMarch organizers have recently written that “people from all parts of the political spectrum should be alarmed by [Trump’s] efforts to deny scientific progress.” And they are correct. We should be alarmed. Such a claim, however, seems to leave unacknowledged the ways in which communities of color — based on the histories outlined above — might not take the unqualified promise of science at face value. To be sure, the history of science is a history of power — the power to name problems and legitimize solutions, the power to dictate political agendas, and the power to hierarchize social order. Certainly, the #ScienceMarch is an idea worthy of merit. Its success, however, will depend on acknowledging the racialized histories of science itself.
Not sure how big this one may be, unless they join with other groups – as the number of actual scientists is fairly small. But would love to see 3 million on the mall, so here is hoping lots and lots of other folks come out.
It seems in this case, the scientists and doctors…
Are, really mad.
A group of researchers have proposed a March for Science, but it won’t be the first time scientists have protested
Last weekend, a massive milieu of women in pink hats descended on Washington, D.C. for the Women’s March. The next big protest being planned for the nation’s capital could involve a sea of lab coats (and likely a few pink hats as well).
Organizers started a private Facebook group and Twitter account on Monday. By Wednesday afternoon, the former boasted more than 300,000 members and the latter had nearly 55,000 followers. A public Facebook page had more than 11,000 likes just five hours after going online. The explosion of support caught organizers off guard, but they’re meeting this weekend to discuss details about the date and full mission statement.
The march would be the latest in a string of actions taken by scientists following Donald Trump’s election and his inauguration as president. His administration has been widely viewed as hostile to science — from the transition period through hearings for his cabinet nominees through silencing key federal science agencies and freezing grants.
“This is not a partisan issue. People from all parts of the political spectrum should be alarmed by these efforts to deny scientific progress,” Caroline Weinberg, a medical researcher who is helping organize the march, said. “Scientific research moves us forward and we should not allow asinine policies to thwart it.”
Researchers have been getting more vocal about the value of science and evidence-based policymaking in recent months. Earth scientists took to the streets in San Francisco last December during the annual American Geophysical Union meeting. Researchers and librarians are also racing to save climate data from federal websites. And more recently, scientists flooded Twitter during Friday’s inauguration with updates about how science impacts everyday people.The March for Science represents a next step, with a groundswell of support behind it and the potential to dwarf the December San Francisco rally of a few hundred earth science researchers. While details are forthcoming, Weinberg underscored that scientists and science lovers of all disciplines and backgrounds will be welcome.
“Diversity in science, both in the researchers who participate and the topics we are focused on, is a critically neglected area,” she said. “We fully intend to emphasize diversity in both the planning of and mission statement for this march.”
Whatever becomes of the march, it won’t be the first time scientists have turned out to protest what they view as federal policies ungrounded in science. The 2014 People’s Climate March turned out an estimated 310,000 people in New York, including a large number of climate scientists.
Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard, said that looking further into the past reveals another telling example of scientists organizing.
“It is the scientists who mobilized against the arms race in the late 1950s and 1960s,” she said. “So that tells you how scientists feel now. This is an existential threat.”
The crowd protesting the Chumph just in DC is now over 600,000, and possibly could be 800,000!
2,500,000 to 5 million people marched today in over 600 cities in the US and around the world to reject the Chumph’s illegitimate presidency.
Metro reported 470,000 came by the Subway.
More than 470,000 people had taken Metro by 1 p.m., a weekend ridership record. (By 11 a.m. on Inauguration Day, 193,000 trips had been taken.)
The City has about 3,000 parking spaces for buses, including those in close in Northern Virginia (You can walk across the bridges).
A month ago, city officials said they were expecting around 1,500 buses. But as of Tuesday, just 435 charter buses have permits to park on Friday (Inauguration), about half of them in the sea of asphalt around RFK Stadium and the other half in lots and spaces around the city (Only about 250 actually showed up), according to the District’s Department of Transportation. At least a dozen of them are coming to shuttle people to protests organized by DisruptJ20, the ANSWER Coalition, and other groups.
Meanwhile, on Saturday, there a total of 2,066 buses registered to bring rally-goers for the Women’s March on Washington, according to figures collected by DDOT. EventsDC, which is handling permits at RFK for the day, said they filled all 1,200 spots available at the stadium by last Tuesday. WMATA, U Street Parking, and other private companies are also providing parking elsewhere in and around the city.
Predicting crowd sizes is a deeply imperfect science, but buses offer one of the few concrete measurements to gauge participation.
For President Barack Obama’s record-breaking first inauguration, more than 3,000 chartered buses were registered and officials estimated attendance at around 1.8 million people.
At 50 per bus, that means an additional 103,000.
There is no count of the number of people who came in on the “Chinatown” buses which normally operate hourly between DC and NYC, Phila, Boston, Richmond, and Atlanta.
Greyhound is reportedly sold out
Many came in on the Amtrak train Union Station, which is a block from the Capitol Building. Amtrak reported being sold out today.
So the numbers look like 600,000 to 800,000 in DC
Philadelphia had @ 50,000
Seattle @ 120,000
North Texas – @ 100,000
Austin – $@ 50,000
150,000 in London
65,000 in Paris
And most noteworthy –
Washington, DC., New York, Chicago, San Fran, LA, and Dallas All host great restaurants – of which a half dozen or so compete on the World Stage of greats.You want to open a restaurant and claim it belongs you better be on the very, very, very top of your game. Legendary locations for exquisite cuisine include The French Laundry, Per Se, Alinea, or Le Bernadin are world famous. The top 5, 10, or 50 list is hotly contested and changes from year to year. Per person seatings generally run from $80 to $300 before the wine tab.
In the Washington, DC area that list include perennial favorite, The Inn at Little Washington, as well as relative newcomers Minibar, Rasika, Komi, Fiola, and French traditional stalwart L’Auberge Chez Francois.
So when an upstart opens a new place with a price tag of $1,000 a seating, at 4 times the price of 2 of the highest Michelin rated restaurants in the US, you better be able to produce something so spectacular, people faint at first tasting.
Alas… This foolish brother couldn’t “walk the walk”.
Just from a single guy standpoint, if I’m picking up a $2,000 tab – everything from the decor, ambiance, food, service, wine better be so good – my date hands me the room key to the Presidential Suite she paid for at the hotel…With the bottle of champagne!
I’m not paying 4 times the going rate for some of the very best restaurants in the world…For a place whose decor looks like “Early Howard Johnson’s”
The Shaw Bijou closed today, and the owner says the blame for the restaurant’s two-and-a-half-month existence is shared among all the principals.
Kelly Gorsuch, the principal owner of Shaw Bijou, says he saw himself as a silent investor, providing the capital for first-timers chef Kwame Onwuachi and general manager Greg Vakiner to build and run the high-concept restaurant they had been planning for years. But in retrospect, Gorsuch says he should have pushed the duo more from the start.
He says that the restaurant’s pricey tasting-menu dinner wasn’t filling seats or covering costs. So on Sunday, Gorsuch called Onwuachi and Vakiner into a meeting and told them he was closing Shaw Bijou, effective immediately. Gorsuch and the other principal investor Glenn Paik could no longer afford to keep the place running.
Neither Onwuachi nor Vakiner could be reached for comment.
“[The restaurant] bled too much, at too much of a clip, to be able to salvage it,” says Gorsuch, the president of Gorsuch Holdings, a company that operates upscale salons and other luxury brands. “It just cost a lot of money. It was a very expensive business. I’ve never quite seen that in business at all. That was new for me. The numbers were staggering.”
The closing of Shaw Bijou, first reported by Washingtonian, brings an abrupt end to a restaurant that endured wild mood swings before it served a single meal. Even before appearing on “Top Chef,” where he finished sixth out of 17 contestants last year, Onwuachi was a hot commodity. He not only had a compelling back story, but he also had an impressive run with Dinner Lab, a series of pop-up dinners in which the chef consistently impressed diners. Onwuachi’s appearances on “Top Chef” only contributed to the buzz around the young cook, even though he had never run his own restaurant or managed a kitchen.
The hype took a turn in August when Onwuachi and his team announced the price tag of their 13-course tasting menu, which would take diners on a journey through a converted townhouse. It wasn’t long before Washingtonians realized that dinner for two at Shaw Bijou could top out at $1,000, immediately making it one of the most expensive restaurants in the city. Diners couldn’t understand how someone with such a thin resume could compete with the likes of José Andrés, Eric Ziebold and Aaron Silverman.
When Shaw Bijou opened on Nov. 1, the early reviews were mixed. In his First Bite review, The Post’s Tom Sietsema enjoyed several of his savory courses but found the desserts fell flat. More dispiriting, the critic realized that after dropping $500 per person on the meal, he was still hungry. Washingtonian gave the place two stars in a review that couldn’t make sense of the story that Onwuachi was trying to weave.
Two months into its existence, Shaw Bijou slashed its prices and its offerings: Onwuachi rolled out a seven-course, $95 tasting menu on Jan. 3. The chef also offered up a little humble pie. “Humility creeps up on you when least expected,” Onwuachi noted in a letter. “The opening of this restaurant has taught us just that.”
But Gorsuch says it was too little, too late.
“I think all business is difficult. You have to be able to move and change and adapt quickly, especially when you’re starting out,” Gorsuch says. “It wasn’t happening. It wasn’t where it needed to be.”
The owner says he had been trying for weeks to convince Onwuachi and Vakiner to change the concept, but he says he couldn’t convince them.
“I think the biggest problem here, from the get, was that we were not listening to the guests,” Gorsuch says. “We spent two years working on this thing . . . I don’t care what the industry is, you put your people first and you care about the guests and you care about the details. . . I mean, numbers can be tweaked. You can cut things, but you have to have those elements.”
Gorsuch says he had spent most of Sunday trying to find jobs for the servers, cooks and bartenders at Shaw Bijou. The owner wasn’t as concerned about the chef and general manager. The longtime friends, who first met while attending the Culinary Institute of America, will probably find a new home soon, Gorsuch says.
“They’ll be fine,” the owner says. Onwuachi “had tons of offers before us.”
Gorsuch says this experience has shaken him. He’s never closed a business before. “This is probably the roughest week I’ve ever had,” he says.
But more than that, Gorsuch is upset by the lost opportunity. He says he believed in the team behind Shaw Bijou. He thought they could have pulled off the concept with proper oversight.
“The game plan was always to be super innovative,” Gorsuch says. “For all the things we did wrong, the talent that was in that building was special.”