SoylentNews

takyon writes:

Google is struggling to discuss the recent diversity memo controversy internally:

Google's CEO, Sundar Pichai, canceled a scheduled all-hands staff meeting—moments before it was scheduled to begin—meant to address concerns over a controversial essay published by former employee James Damore.

In an email to staff, Pichai explained that questions from employees had been leaked and that, in some cases, specific employees' identities were revealed, exposing them to harassment and threats. Instead of today's large-scale meeting, which was to be livestreamed to Google's 60,000 employees worldwide, smaller groups will meet sometime in the future.

"We had hoped to have a frank open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally," Pichai said in the email.

Also at CNET.

Original Submission

DeathMonkey writes:

According to a poll conducted by two academic authors and published by The Washington Post, 52 percent of Republicans said they would back a postponement of the next election if Trump called for it.

If Trump and congressional Republicans proposed postponing the election to ensure only eligible citizens could vote, support from Republicans rises to 56 percent.

Pollsters found 47 percent of Republicans think Trump won the popular vote.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346000-poll-about-half-of-republicans-would-back-postponing-2020-election-if-trump

Original Submission

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Alphabet Inc.'s Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company's diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley. James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes." He said he's "currently exploring all possible legal remedies."

[...] Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo "violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace." But he didn't say if the company was taking action against the employee. A Google representative, asked about the dismissal, referred to Pichai's memo.

[...] After the controversy swelled, Danielle Brown, Google's new vice president for diversity, integrity and governance, sent a statement to staff condemning Damore's views and reaffirmed the company's stance on diversity. In internal discussion boards, multiple employees said they supported firing the author, and some said they would not choose to work with him, according to postings viewed by Bloomberg News.

"We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company," Brown said in the statement. "We'll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul."

Source: Bloomberg.

[Update: Apparently Julian Assange has offered James Damore a job, saying that "Censorship is for losers". - Fnord666]

Previously: Googler's Memo on Culture of Diversity Extremism Goes Viral Inside Google

Original Submission

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Gizmodo got their hands on an internal memo gone viral at Google that criticizes extreme biases and blind promotion of diversity. The memo's author confronts the practice of silencing such minority opinions through shame:

"Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change."

Are these hints of the writing on the proverbial wall? One fears the diversity pendulum will break rather than be allowed to swing back.

[Update: Google has written a memo to its employees about the document. - ed]

Also at Motherboard and BBC.

Original Submission

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Venezuelan security agents arrested two key opposition leaders in a midnight raid on their homes, making good on President Nicolas Maduro's promise to crack down on dissent following a vote that gave him broad authoritarian powers.

In the middle of the night, armed men took Leopoldo Lopez and Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma from their respective homes in the capital. The leaders had been highly critical of Maduro and had only recently been released from jail on politically motivated charges. The two, however, remained under house arrest.

The wife of Leopoldo posted a video on Twitter showing flak-jacketed agents bundling her husband into a vehicle marked "Sebin" — the name of Venezuela's intelligence agency — and then speeding off.

[...] Tuesday night, President Trump condemned "the actions of the Maduro dictatorship."

"Mr. Lopez and Mr. Ledezma are political prisoners being held illegally by the regime. The United States holds Maduro – who publicly announced just hours earlier that he would move against his political opposition – personally responsible for the health and safety of Mr. Lopez, Mr. Ledezma, and any others seized. We reiterate our call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners."

On Monday, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Maduro himself, marking only the fourth time that the U.S. has sanctioned the sitting leader of another country.

Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540790886/venezuela-agents-arrest-opposition-leaders-in-midnight-raids

Previously: Voting Company Finds Manipulation in Venezuela Election.

Original Submission

bradley13 writes:

I don't know if this is appropriate for SoylentNews - I'll leave that to the editors. It's a blog entry that does the best job I've seen, explaining a difficult issue: How do those of us originally from flyover territory perceive the progressive politics that dominates the left coast, and indeed most of the big cities.

Anyone from a red county will read this article and nod. Anyone from a blue county really ought to try to understand the article, because it explains why Trump won, and also explains the rise of the alt-right as a response to progressive politics.

[Ed. note: The linked article is rather long. Contrary to long-standing tradition, I did RTFA. On occasion, stories are submitted where it is not clear to me whether or not our community would find it appropriate or interesting. This is one of those occasions. So, consider this an experiment... of course, please comment on the story itself, but please also indicate whether or not you would like to see more stories like this, and why. Thanks! --martyb]

Original Submission

takyon writes:

A lawsuit by Rod Wheeler has linked the President and the White House to the publication of a retracted Fox 5 DC story about the Seth Rich murder case:

The Fox News Channel and a wealthy supporter of President Trump worked in concert under the watchful eye of the White House to concoct a story about the death of a young Democratic National Committee aide, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday. The explosive claim is part of a lawsuit filed against Fox News by Rod Wheeler, a longtime paid commentator for the news network. The suit was obtained exclusively by NPR.

Wheeler alleges Fox News and the Trump supporter intended to deflect public attention from growing concern about the administration's ties to the Russian government. His suit charges that a Fox News reporter created quotations out of thin air and attributed them to him to propel her story. Fox's president of news, Jay Wallace, told NPR on Monday that there was no "concrete evidence" that Wheeler was misquoted by the reporter, Malia Zimmerman. The news executive did not address a question about the story's allegedly partisan origins. Fox News declined to allow Zimmerman to comment for this story.

[...] On April 20, a month before the story ran, Butowsky and Wheeler — the investor and the investigator — met at the White House with then-press secretary Sean Spicer to brief him on what they were uncovering. The first page of the lawsuit quotes a voicemail and text from Butowsky boasting that Trump himself had reviewed drafts of the Fox News story just before it went to air and was published. Spicer now tells NPR that he took the meeting as a favor to Butowsky. Spicer says he was unaware of any contact involving the president. And Butowsky tells NPR that he was kidding about Trump's involvement.

Original Submission

takyon writes:

The new Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is Christopher A. Wray:

The Senate easily confirmed President Trump's pick to lead the FBI on Tuesday, following the abrupt firing of James Comey earlier this year.

Senators voted 92-5 on Christopher Wray's nomination to lead the bureau. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) voted against the confirmation.

EFF picked his record apart last month:

During his tenure as Assistant Attorney General in the Bush Administration, Wray vocally defended a range of controversial provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act—including Section 215, which would later provide the basis for the bulk collection of Americans' telephone metadata.

When Wray went before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 to defend the PATRIOT Act, a Department of Justice document indicated that Section 215's business records provision had never been used. Wray insisted that was a sign of restraint: "We try to use these provisions sparingly, only in those instances where we feel that this is the only tool that we can use." In fact, as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) made clear in its report on the bulk metadata program, Section 215 was sitting fallow because the Bush Administration was already collecting much of that data—without statutory authorization.

Granted, Wray didn't have all of the information about that secretive wiretapping program until 2004, which we'll get into below. Still, his insistence that Section 215 was just an effort to bring counterterrorism powers in line with ordinary criminal authorities reflected a concerning lack of skepticism about the risk of abuse. The same holds for his defense of a range of other PATRIOT Act provisions: "sneak and peek" warrants that allow law enforcement to search first and serve notice later; a reduced bar for obtaining a FISA warrant that one district court later found inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment; and a vaguely worded expansion of the kind of Internet data, some of it potentially very sensitive, that can be collected with a pen/trap order.

Original Submission

-- OriginalOwner_ writes:

Common Dreams reports

Joe Arpaio—the former sheriff from Maricopa County, Arizona, who famously ordained himself "America's toughest sheriff"—was found guilty of criminal contempt for violating a federal court order mandating that Arpaio and his deputies refrain from racially profiling Latinos with traffic stops and detentions, based on suspicions about their immigration status.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said [July 31] that Arpaio demonstrated a "flagrant disregard" for the order, rejecting[¹] the former sheriff's defense that the order was unclear and the violations unintentional. Arpaio, who is 85, could face up to six months in jail, and is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 5.

[...] Arpaio's attorney said [July 31] he plans to appeal Judge Bolton's ruling in hopes of receiving a trial by jury. The [former] sheriff was denied a jury trial in May because it was not legally required, due to the short length of his potential jail term.

[¹ Submitter claimed problems with this link and offered Google's cache. I could open original link using both Pale Moon and Lynx without issue. -Ed(s).]

Original Submission

takyon writes:

New Jersey Senator Cory Booker has introduced a bill (alt) that has been described by Marijuana Majority as the most far-reaching marijuana bill ever filed in either chamber of Congress. It would legalize cannabis federally by removing "marihuana" and tetrahydrocannabinols from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. But it would go much further by withholding money from states with racially or financially disparate arrest and incarceration rates for cannabis-related crimes (effectively all states where cannabis is illegal):

The bill would legalize marijuana at the federal level and withhold federal money for building jails and prisons, along with other funds, from states whose cannabis laws are shown to disproportionately incarcerate minorities.

Under the legislation, federal convictions for marijuana use and possession would be expunged and prisoners serving time for a marijuana offense would be entitled to a sentencing hearing.

Those "aggrieved" by a disproportionate arrest or imprisonment rate would be able to sue, according to the bill. And a Community Reinvestment Fund would be established to "reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs" for everything from re-entry programs to public libraries.

Booker says that he will work towards bipartisan support for the bill.

Serious legalization attempt or just advertising for a 2020 U.S. Presidential Campaign?

Original Submission