Fosen

Last Wednesday morning—hours after results of the election came in—the website of the National Organization for Women crashed due to overwhelming traffic. Record numbers of people were directed to the site after the organization was named in online lists, like this viral one from Jezebel, that highl...

For someone who says he wants to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, Donald Trump sure does seem to be cheering for their team. The coalition of Kurds, Iraqi military, other militia groups, and US advisers is steadily working toward the heart of the city.

Pentagon officials said Monday that the campaign to reclaim Mosul was proceeding as planned and that so far anti-ISIS forces in Iraq are succeeding in their fight against the terror group.

But one man is acting as al-Baghdadi Bob, downplaying progress and doing his best to un-support the troops.

For weeks, Trump has lambasted the coalition effort to re-capture the city of Mosul from ISIS, calling the undertaking a "total disaster" and saying the US and its allies were "bogged-down" there even as defense officials say they are encouraged by the progress being made.

The reality of forces winning on the ground can’t be accepted by Trump, because Trump predicted a disaster. Trump knows more than all the generals, and stands ready to teach the military experts a couple of things. Maybe Trump could come by the Mosul state television station, which coalition forces captured just a few hours ago, let the soldiers know they’re part of a “disaster.”

On Monday night, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi gave the estimated 5,000 ISIS militants holed up in the city a chilling warning as troops approached the city's doorstep.

"There is no way to escape, either surrender or die," he told a reporter for state-run Iraqiya TV at the Qayyara airbase south of the city.

---

Do you live in a state that will determine the presidential race and/or who controls the Senate? Get involved this weekend in crucial door-to-door canvasses and phone banks.

Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer went on CNN Monday to explain that Donald Trump is really a civil rights pioneer:

I think it's really important to look at the totality of Donald Trump. In 1985 when he went and bought Mar-a-Lago and all the liberals down in Palm Beach County didn't let people join clubs and institutions because of color of their skin or the religion that they belonged to, it was Donald Trump that went out and bucked the establishment and fought to make sure that people no matter the color of their skin or their religion could join his clubs.

Wow, in 1985 Donald Trump was so forward-thinking as to say that the blacks (and the Jews) could pay giant piles of cash to join his clubs, and it was totally the most liberal elements of Palm Beach County that he had to fight like a tiger to make that happen.

Believe it or not, this is an ongoing talking point about Trump’s record on race. Donald Trump integrated his ridiculously expensive golf club. In 1985. Which means it’s not at all a problem that white supremacists are more excited about him than they have been about any other recent presidential candidate, and that Trump’s big black voter outreach effort was to say “what do you have to lose?”—even as his much more extensive white voter outreach showed exactly what black voters have to lose.

Watch the video (and marvel at Trump's civil rights trailblazing) below.

The E-Trade baby has nothing on Trump for staying "connected."

Open thread below....

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who made waves earlier this year when he said he would not vote for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, undermined his own argument on Wednesday when pressed by CNN host Brooke Baldwin. Kirk said he would not vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton, arguing that he “canR...

I admit I've lost the thread. For awhile we've had this basic framework in place. The Democrats were the high tax, big government, secret welfare system for the blahs, soft on crime, military hating, free love, hippie peacenik babykiller party. The Republicans were the small government, cut your taxes, love America and freedom and the flag, free market, family values, love Jesus, gay hating, tough love for the blahs, bomb all the scary furriners, death penalty for all criminals, save the babies from the babykillers party.

I'm not saying either of those narratives were quite true, but you could basically pluck out any random statement from any pundit about politicians/political parties and it would fit nicely into those boxes. And someone like me, who to some extent tried to correct those false narratives, had a basic framework to work against.

Now? Pundits still largely operate within those frames, but they're increasingly gibberish and unfamiliar to people. The parties, their voters, and certainly perceptions of those are changing, especially for younger people, and these days "younger people" seems to include anyone under 45 (just made it!).

A reporter for Sky News, the British sister network of Fox News, came under fire this week for callously ending a broadcast from a church by noting that he could have killed all of the worshippers if he were a terrorist. A video clip first posted on Twitter by Bobby Faghihi shows the Sky News corres...

In his Independence Day statement, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan confused Memorial Day and Independence Day by thanking everyone who died on the 4th of July.

Although Paul Ryan tried to deflect, by blaming some "flunky" in Trump's campaign, it's well-known that Trump does his own tweeting. Also somewhat amusing was when radio host Charlie Sykes (and notorious 'NeverTrump' member) reminded Ryan of his endorsement of Donald Trump for president. More noteworthy still, Paul Ryan didn't bother to use Trump's lame excuse that the Star of David resembled a sheriff's badge, because it doesn't.

Source: TPM

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) admonished Donald Trump on Tuesday for tweeting an anti-Hillary Clinton message with a Star of David over the weekend. An exasperated Ryan called the tweet "anti-Semitic" and "ridiculous."

“Look, anti-Semitic images have no place in a presidential campaign,” Ryan said in a phone-in with conservative radio host Charlie Sykes.

read more

Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Jeff Sessions recognize the crisis Brexit has sparked. But for somewhat incoherent reasons, they're celebrating anyway.

CNN contributor Van Jones responded to Donald Trump’s call to racially profile Muslims on Monday by pointing out that Americans were “seven times more likely to be killed by a right-wing extremist.” During a Sunday interview, the presumptive GOP nominee suggested that he would cons...

Who knew that professional wrestlers could be so sensitive? And that their antics could have potentially grave First Amendment implications? Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker Media over the publication of the former professional wrestler’s sex tape is the latest case that pits a celebrity’s privac...

The New York Times reports: The first trucks from a convoy carrying food and medical aid entered the besieged Syrian town of Madaya on Monday, only to discover harrowing scenes of desperation, including 400 people who needed immediate medical evacuation, United Nations officials said Monday night. The 400 were in the town hospital and included […]

While discussing a Supreme Court case focused on union fees, Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade falsely claimed that public employees were "forced to join unions" and to pay fees that went directly "to political causes." Not only can public employees opt out of joining a union, but the reduced fees that non-members pay, known as agency fees, are used by the union to collectively bargain on behalf of all the employees of a workplace -- including non-members -- and are distinctly not permitted for use toward a union's outside political activity.

Supreme Court Heard Arguments In Case Over Public Sector Union Agency Fees

The Supreme Court Heard Oral Arguments In Friedrichs V. California Teachers Association. On January 11, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case brought by 10 California public school teachers who are challenging the state union's charging of "agency fees," which are smaller fees charged to those who opt out of union membership that cover the union's costs of collective bargaining. The challengers claim that even routine union negotiation with public employers over workplace conditions, salaries, and retirement benefits are political in nature, and that charging such fees to non-members is a violation of their right to free speech. From a January 11 Associated Press report:

The Supreme Court appears ready to deliver a major setback to American unions as it considers scrapping a four-decade precedent that lets public-sector labor organizations collect fees from workers who decline to join.

During more than an hour of oral arguments Monday, the high court's conservative justices seemed likely to side with a group of California teachers who say those mandatory fees violate the free-speech rights of workers who disagree with a union's positions.

Labor officials fear unions' very existence could be threatened if workers are allowed to get all the benefits of representation without at least paying fees to cover the costs of collective bargaining. The case affects more than 5 million workers in 23 states and Washington, D.C.

[...]

The challengers argue that public-sector unions have become more political over time. They say even a push for higher salaries and pension benefits raises political questions about the best use of tax dollars for cash-strapped localities. [Associated Press, 1/11/16]

Fox's Brian Kilmeade Mischaracterized Union Membership And Fees

Kilmeade Asserted People Are "Forced To Join Unions" And Non-Members' Agency Fees Go "To Political Causes." While interviewing the plaintiff and a member of the legal team in the Friedrichs case on January 12, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade asked if it was right for unions to "collect dues ... even if you're not a member," then claimed that teachers were "forced to join unions," falsely stating that "if you want to teach, that's what you have to do." Kilmeade also asserted that "a lot of" the fees paid by non-members go "to political causes":

BRIAN KILMEADE (HOST): [H]ere's a big, big story. Should unions be allowed to collect dues from your paycheck, even if you're not a member? In states like California, they can. And now, a group of teachers are challenging the controversial practice over how their money is being spent. Some of it just all goes to political causes, or a lot of it. Sarah Friedrichs is one of the teachers taking her case all the way to Supreme Court. She joins us now with her attorney Terry Pell, who gave oral arguments yesterday in front of the Supreme Court. Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining us.

TERRY PELL: Thanks for having us.

REBECCA FRIEDRICHS: Thank you.

KILMEADE: Rebecca, you and nine other teachers brought this all the way up. You've had it with unions. How, in your mind, what were the unions doing that you were not happy with?

FRIEDRICHS: Well, the unions take stances in collective bargaining that we are totally opposed to. And unfortunately, the union in my district was voted in when I was a child. And you know, it didn't matter what I did, even when I served as a union representative, I couldn't make my voice heard. And the union continued to make decisions, and collective bargaining stances that were actually harmful to my students. So we just decided enough was enough.

KILMEADE: Terry we've heard this for the longest time, that you know, people who were forced to join unions, some people feel that they are are happy with it, and not happy with the agenda. But if you want to teach, that's what you have to do. What made you think that Rebecca and her nine friends had a case here?

PELL: Well, the First Amendment is clear. The state can't compel individuals to support an organization that takes positions that they fundamentally disagree with. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what organizations they allow to advocate on their behalf. So when the union takes positions, not just political positions, but positions during collective bargaining, that teachers fundamentally oppose, they should not have to support the union. They should not have to pay money to the union. If they don't agree with what the union is doing, then it's up to them to decide whether to support it. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 1/12/16]

Workers Are Not Forced To Join Unions, And Non-Union Members Pay Only Agency Fees To Cover Their Contract Protections And Representation

Economist Dean Baker: "Workers Are Never Required To Join Unions," Even Though Unions Are Required To Represent Non-Member Workers. Economist Dean Baker, writing about a 2011 labor law bill in New Hampshire, explained that "collective bargaining agreements cannot require employees to join a labor union," and that "national labor law requires that a union represent all workers who are in a bargaining unit regardless of whether or not they opt to join the union." He continued:

This means that non-members not only get the same wages and benefits as union members, but the union is also required to represent non-members in any conflict with the employer covered by the contract. For example, if a non-member is faced with an improper dismissal the union is obligated to provide them with the same representation as a union member. [Alternet, 4/22/11]

Center For American Progress: "Federal Law ... Guarantees That No One Can Be Forced To Be A Member Of A Union, Or To Pay" For "A Political Or Social Cause They Don't Support." A 2012 Center for American Progress Action Fund issue brief on anti-union laws explained that "federal law already guarantees that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, or to pay any amount of dues or fees to a political or social cause they don't support." [Center for American Progress Action Fund, 2/2/12]

NLRB: Workers That Don't Want Full Union Membership "Pay Only That Share Of Dues Used Directly For Representation" Of Union Contract They Work Under. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) explained that workers at a unionized workplace do not have to be full union members, but can instead opt to forego membership and pay only a smaller fee to offset the union representation and substantial benefits they receive, regardless of their membership status:

The NLRA [National Labor Relations Act] allows employers and unions to enter into union-security agreements, which require all employees in a bargaining unit to become union members and begin paying union dues and fees within 30 days of being hired.

Even under a security agreement, employees who object to full union membership may continue as 'core' members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer full members but are still protected by the union contract. Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right. [National Labor Relations Board, accessed 1/12/16]

The Atlantic: Agency Fees "To Cover The Cost Of Bargaining" Paid By Non-Union Members Like Friedrichs "Are Different From Dues That Union Members Pay, Which Can Be Used ... For Political Expenses." In a January 8 article, The Atlantic noted that the plaintiff in the case "is not a member of the union ... like many other public employees," and explained the difference between agency fees, which "cover the costs of collective bargaining and other negotiations" that "even non-union teachers like Friedrichs benefit from" and "dues that union members pay, which can be used by the unions for political expenses":

The case concerns a teacher in California, Rebecca Friedrichs, who has sued the California Teachers Association, arguing that being required to pay a fee to the union violates her First Amendment rights. Friedrichs is not a member of the union, but, like many other public employees, is required to pay a so-called agency fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining and other negotiations with the school district--union activities that all teachers, even non-union teachers like Friedrichs, benefit from in the form of higher salaries and better benefits. To be clear, these agency fees are different from dues that union members pay, which can be used by the unions for political expenses such as lobbying and electoral work. The law allows public-sector employees to opt out of dues and just pay an agency fee to cover the cost of bargaining--an accommodation intended to protect people's First Amendment rights. Teachers who, like Friedrichs, have opted out of the union are still represented by it in various contract negotiations, which is why they are required to pay a fee. [The Atlantic, 1/8/16]

The Agency Fee Rule Was Established By The Supreme Court In 1977. The Atlantic's January 8 article also explained how the Supreme Court created the distinction between agency fees and union dues in a 1977 case:

The distinction between agency fees and union dues was set in a 1977 Supreme Court case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, in which Detroit teachers made almost exactly the same argument that Friedrichs is making today. Then, though, there was no distinction between agency fees and union dues. In its decision in Abood, the Burger court struck a balance on the relationship between public employees and labor unions, said Charlotte Garden, a professor at Seattle University School of Law. Abood allowed public-sector unions to charge for the cost of representation, but not the costs of political activities, creating the distinction between agency fees and member dues.

Before Abood, certain jobs required union membership as a condition of employment, a practice that predates the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. [The Atlantic, 1/8/16]

With Thanksgiving, Black Friday and Cyber Monday having become something of an orgy of over-indulgence, somebody somewhere came up with the idea that the Tuesday after Thanksgiving should usher in the benevolent side of the holiday with a call to give back. They are calling it "Giving Tuesday" and it seems as though it might be refreshing reset from the endless eating and shopping of the long holiday week-end.

Unfortunately, this past Thanksgiving holiday was not just marked by the usual Walmart brawls and long lines waiting for Best Buy to open. This year we had to endure an act of terrorism perpetrated on our own soil: a man gunned down 12 people, killing three, in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs. Afterwards, he was said to have declared "no more baby parts." Those two words --- "baby parts" --- are used by Republican demagogues to describe the practice of life-saving scientific research which uses fetal tissue. It refers to some hoax videos circulated by anti-choice zealots in furtherance of their cause.

It is inflammatory incitement and it did its job this last week-end.

read more

People who knew the suspected gunman in the Colorado Springs shooting described him as a loner who was “weird” but had given few signs of violent behavior, US media reported Sunday. Robert Lewis Dear, 57, is believed to have entered the Planned Parenthood clinic with a high-powered rifle...

Violence against doctors or clinics providing abortion services has claimed the lives of at least 11 people in the United States since 1993. Most were shot, though one was killed by a bomb. Four were doctors. The most recent deaths came Friday, when a police officer, Garrett Swasey, and two civilian...

From the November 16 edition of MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes:

CHRIS HAYES (HOST): Linda, your response to this news cycle today on this issue.

LINDA SARSOUR: As an American born and raised in Brooklyn and that runs an organization that serves refugees, asylees, and immigrants right here in New York City, I am so disturbed by what I'm listening to. I mean religious tests, how do you know what religion someone is? I don't understand what that even looks like. And we are trying basically to bar the very people who are running away from the same terrorism that we're talking about. The Syrian refugees left their country because of ISIS. Because of the Assad regime. And that's why they flee to places like Europe. And our country is known to be welcoming refugees. Our Statue of Liberty continues to be a symbol of welcoming immigrants into this country. I'm disturbed by the rhetoric of people who are in our leadership and I'm grateful for President Obama to stand up to this rhetoric.

HAYES: Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful men in the world, I think it's fair to say, says this. 'Obama facing enormous opposition in accepting refugees. Maybe make special exception for proven Christians.' Can you imagine a State Department bureaucracy that is effectively able to to tell who is a proven Christian?

SARSOUR: What does that mean? Are they going to do a blood test and if it turns into wine? I don't even understand. It's ludicrous to hear what these people are saying. Majority of the refugees that we're talking about are young children. These are children who have seen so much trauma, violence, potentially their parents massacred. They've been displaced. These people have -- some have drowned on the way to Europe. We're taking a drop in the bucket to be the greatest nation in the world, one of the most wealthiest nations of the world. And for us to be debating over 10,000 Syrian refugees, we're not even making a dent into that.

HAYES: OK. But what do you say to people who say, look, we just saw -- And I just want to be clear about what we know about what happened. On the bodies of one of the assailants was a passport that appears to be a Syrian passport. It is likely a fake passport. Though it does appear to show stamps that suggested he came in a direction many refugees are using, Leros, Greece, through Macedonia and up into Europe. People that say, look, we can't afford taking any more risk. There has to be a limit.

SARSOUR: Well we heard from your previous guest the vetting process of refugees is extremely tedious. I know this from the clients that I have served, and Iraqi refugees who have come here. And I tell people, let's stop basing our decisions on unconfirmed information. We still do not know if that Syrian passport belonged to one of these people. And let's remember most of those who are committing these attacks are home-grown. They are from Belgium, they're from France, they are not people who showed up from Raqqa, where we are now seeing the French bombing a country that has huge -- a place with huge populations of civilians still. People have to understand that ISIS is playing over the divide and conquer. They want the world to hate Muslims. They want us to push Muslims away. They don't want the American government to see the Muslim Americans as their partners. The Europeans to see Muslims in Europe as their partners. They want to tell you they hate you, they don't want you. This is how they play on the vulnerability of these men who are now being sympathizers of groups like ISIS.

HAYES: I imagine in the work that you have done face to face with people that have come from these place, people talk about just the irony, the tragic irony of being terrorized by these monsters, frankly, who have been committing unspeakably barbarous acts. And then to find yourself unwelcome because of another act they committed.

SARSOUR: Absolutely. These people -- what people need to know is that the largest group of victims of ISIS are Muslims. Muslims are the largest victims, group of victims of ISIS. They've seen trauma, they've seen torture. They have seen things unfathomable that we as Americans will probably never experience. And here we are telling them, nope, can't come to our country. Can't see some normalcy in your life. You can't see safety. This is not the American way. This is not what we're known for.

Previously:

Rupert Murdoch Endorses Religious Test For Refugees, Calls For "Special Exception For Proven Christians"

On CNN, Reza Aslan Explains How The Media Is Failing In Its Reporting On Islam

Following Paris Attacks, Right-Wing Media Echo GOP Call To Accept Only Christian Refugees

Fox Host Gretchen Carlson Lets Guests Push For "Profiling" Of Muslims Seeking To Enter The U.S.

Conservatives Use Paris Attacks To Stoke Fears About Admitting Syrian Refugees Into America

A British man imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for breaking anti-alcohol laws has returned to Britain, the foreign ministry said on Wednesday, after a diplomatic storm that threatened to dent UK-Saudi relations. The family of Karl Andree, 74, said he had been told he faced 350 lashes after a year behind b...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new top media adviser came under fire Thursday for controversial past comments, including some accusing US President Barack Obama of anti-Semitism. The controversy surrounding Ran Baratz erupted as Netanyahu prepares to meet Obama in Washington Monda...

Ever since last May when Congress authorized itself to review the Iran nuclear agreement with the Corker-Cardin bill—the Nuclear Agreement Review Act—supporters of the agreement have focused on the president's veto.

Although nobody ever doubted that both houses of the GOP-dominated Congress would have no trouble passing a resolution of disapproval of the agreement, most close observers have noted the Republicans and their Democratic allies would not be able to put together the two-thirds vote margin needed to override the veto. So the agreement would stand.

But the optics of a veto—it would be President Obama's fifth—have always been worrisome. That's especially so since poll after poll has shown the American public opposes the agreement.

Much of that can be chalked up to the fact most Americans are ill-informed on matters of foreign policy and they've been buried in propaganda on the agreement from organizations that are spending tens of millions of dollars disinforming about it. These groups have harnessed the support of several former Democratic office holders, as well as ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman, who, at last count, was involved in four organizations working to scuttle the agreement.

But with backers all-but-convinced by the flow of Democratic lawmakers declaring in favor of the agreement that they can squelch any attempt to override a presidential veto, the effort to keep such a resolution of disapproval from reaching the president's desk at all via a Senate filibuster has been stepped up.

While sustaining a veto would require 34 votes, a filibuster would necessitate getting 41 Democrats on board. Right now, there are 29 Democratic senators declared in favor of the agreement, with three leaning yes and at least two of the undecideds likely to support it based on their past records. Getting those additional seven will be a squeeze, however, to say the least. If it can be done, however, it would be worth it.

Check below the fold for more commentary and to see the latest count of senators and representatives who have not yet declared their stance on the agreement.

Join us in pushing senators and representatives to support the nuclear agreement.

Today's edition of quick hits.

This week's Versus segment with Alan Colmes featured a man suffering from the worst case of Obama Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen. David Horowitz recently phoned in an interview on perhaps the most factual segments on FoxNews.com. Alan simply let David speak and the crazy flowed like Manischewitz wine (which is a Bain Capital Corporation ICYMI). This man despises President Obama and none of his reasons are based in reality, and he was very happy to divulge his twisted worldview.

Alan brought up a few of Horowitz's most recent assertions:

'Obama hates America, he hates the Marines, he hates our country.'

Horowitz interrupted and added,

'he's also a traitor.'

He then said that the president is a Jew-Hater because of the Iran Deal.

'His legacy, by his own determination is to build up Iran and introduce it into the community of nations where it is worse than Nazi Germany!'

In the midst of the tirade that invoked Godwin's Law, Alan asked if he really was equating President Obama with Adolf Hitler and he concurred, just not in so many words.

read more

Morning headlines: GOP field awaits Fox News' top 10 list of main-event debaters, Planned Parenthood fight not over, meet the team behind 2016 viral videos.

The Associated Press violated its own guidelines while reporting on the homicide of a transgender woman in Florida, joining several state-based news outlets in misgendering the victim and referring to her as a "man dressed as a woman." The incident is the latest in a trend of media mistreatment of transgender victims of violence.

On the morning of July 21, 25-year-old transgender woman India Clarke was found dead in a park in Tampa Bay, Florida. Clarke suffered blunt-force trauma to the upper body, though the exact cause of death is still unknown. Before her death, Clarke publicly identified as female, used female pronouns, and presented as female in her photos.

But in its news release announcing a homicide investigation surrounding Clarke's death, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office referred to Clarke as a "male dressed in women's clothing." Speaking to BuzzFeed's Dominic Holden, Detective Larry McKinnon defended the Sheriff's Office's decision to identify Clarke as male:

"We are not going to categorize him as a transgender. We can just tell you he had women's clothing on at the time," Detective Larry McKinnon, a spokesman for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, told BuzzFeed News. "What his lifestyle was prior to that we don't know -- whether he was a cross dresser, we don't know."

Initial calls to 911 descibed the victim as a woman but a medical examiner later identified her as male, McKinnon said.

"He is a male," McKinnon continued. "I can't tell you he is a female."

In the 24 hours following the discovery of Clarke's death, state-based news outlets and the Associated Press repeatedly misgendered Clarke, referring to her as a "man dressed as a woman" and violating journalistic standards on how to refer to transgender people. CBS, ABC, and NBC affiliates in the Tampa area followed the Sheriff's report and also referred to India as "Samuel," using male pronouns, and referring to her as a male.

The Associated Press violated its own widely-cited guidelines and referred to Clarke as a "man wearing women's clothing," referring to her as "Samuel." AP's misgendering was repeated by state media outlets' that republished AP's report:

The practice of misgendering transgender victims of violence violates guidelines established by GLAAD and the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association and has been widely criticized by journalism experts.

And it's a practice that's become all-too-common in 2015, a year that's seen an unprecedented string of murders of trans women.

The cycle at its worst seems to be the same: a transgender person is found dead, law enforcement officials fail to acknowledge the victim's gender identity, and local news outlets follow law enforcement's lead, misgendering the victim despite often knowing how the victim wished to be publicly identified.

But failing to report the way Clarke is publicly identified deprives audiences of the information they need to understand her death in the broader context of violence against transgender women. In instances where misgendering is intentional, it's a statement that her gender identity is little more than a deceptive costume, not worthy of being taken seriously.

Interactive map of the Virginia state Senate

This fall, both parties will be working hard to take control of the Virginia state Senate. The GOP holds a bare 21-19 majority and Team Blue only needs to net one seat to take control because Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam would break ties for the Democrats. But both parties have several targets, and Democrats have very little room for error.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe is focusing on flipping the chamber, but it's not going to be easy. While Obama won 21 of the 40 Senate seats, Democratic turnout usually falls disproportionately in off-years, and Republicans will be making the most of their advantage. While the GOP is expected to hold the House of Delegates without any trouble, a Democratic state Senate would give McAuliffe and his allies more influence and a better negotiating position in the state government. Old Dominion Democrats also believe that this year's state Senate races will help them improve the party's infrastructure for the 2016 presidential contest.

Mid-year campaign finance reports are in, giving us some insights into how the battle for several key Senate seats is going. At this point in the cycle money gives us a good idea of which campaigns are becoming competitive and which ones are going to be left by the wayside, though there's always the potential for surprises. We've included Stephen Wolf's interactive map of the state Senate above: You can find the rest of his maps here. The two light red seats are districts that Obama carried but are held by a GOP (there are no Romney seats in Democratic hands anymore).

Unsurprisingly, both of those light red seats are top Democratic targets. The open Richmond-area SD-10, which Obama carried 50-48 but McAuliffe took 47-42 the next year, may be the commonwealth's most important race, and both candidates will have plenty of money. Democratic Chesterfield County Supervisor Dan Gecker outraised Richmond School Board member Glen Sturtevant over the last month, but the June primary drained some of Gecker's resources. The Republican holds a $96,000 to $72,000 cash on hand advantage, though both candidates will be hauling in a whole lot more before too long.

Head below the fold for more on both parties' targets.

From the July 9 edition of Fox News' The Five:

Previously:

Fox Defends Jeb Bush's Call For Americans To "Work Longer Hours" With Faulty Data, Disproven Theories

Ben Carsosn seems wholly unprepared for national office. And for many in the GOP base, this is a feature, not a bug, of a compelling candidacy.

Tennessee State Senator Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro) supports the planned construction of a monument to honor Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate general, slave dealer, and founder of the Ku Klux Klan, the Daily News Journal reports. The Sons of Confederate Veterans are behind the memorial, whose un...

From the June 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Previously:

Limbaugh: Drugs And Liberal Media Have Inspired Mass Shootings, But There's Never A Conservative Link

Fox Host Dismisses The Dangers Of Right-Wing Terrorists After Years Of Deadly Attacks

How Fox News Covers Right-Wing Cop Killers