Today in Disgusting People: A Twofer (Update)

First, we have Junior, who has a knack for putting his foot right in it, hard:

Donald Trump Jr. likened his father's proposed border wall with Mexico to a zoo fence Tuesday evening, sparking a sharp backlash on social media from users who thought he was comparing immigrants to zoo animals.

“You know why you can enjoy a day at the zoo?” the son of President Donald Trump wrote in an Instagram post that has since been deleted. “Because walls work.”

I'm a habitual zoo goer, and I've seen some interesting transformations in animal habitats, including one case in which an exhibit in the bird house that had been open now has screening. Talking to other visitors, we really couldn't decide whether it was the keep the birds in or to keep people out.

Oh, and as for the idea that walls work -- ask the Chinese about that.

Via Joe.My.God.

Second in our spotlight today is Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, the "conservative" legal firm that has never won a case. He takes exception to a bill that just passed the Senate outlawing, after all this time, lynching:

The Justice for Victims of Lynching Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate but Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says it passed without some senators realizing an amendment was added providing special rights for homosexuals and transgenders. He calls that amendment the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent.

“The old saying is once that camel gets the nose in the tent, you can’t stop them from coming the rest of the way in,” he explains. “And this would be the first time that you would have in federal law mentioning gender identity and sexual orientation as part of this anti-lynching bill.”

Got that? Not being lynched is a "special right".

Oh, and of course he's lying -- the section was not an amendment, it was in the body of the bill:

“(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—If 2 or more persons, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully cause bodily injury to any other person because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

“(i) each shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if bodily injury results from the offense; or

“(ii) each shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if death results from the offense or if the offense includes kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse.

But then, we know Staver is a liar.

Update: Looks like the social media storm got to him. From Joe.My.God.:

Some media have falsely reported that Liberty Counsel is opposed to banning lynching, or, opposes banning lynching of LGBT people. Such reporting is false, reckless, and offensive. In fact, Mat Staver said, “No one can or should oppose a bill that bans lynching.” Staver continued, “We oppose lynching across the board for any person. Period!”

“The bill in question created a list of protected categories, thus limiting the application of the law. Lynching should be prohibited no matter the person’s reason for committing this violent crime,” concluded Staver.

A little hysterical, don't you think? Must have hit a nerve.

Joe points out the big lie behind this disclaimer:

From the Liberty Counsel’s 2009 press release:

Today, Liberty Counsel delivered more than 100,000 petitions from people across America, opposing the so-called Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. The petitions were delivered on the day that President Barack Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, was scheduled to testify in favor of the Hate Crimes bill. If passed, this expansive bill would give “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” the same federal protection as race.

It looks like Staver only opposes some protected categories.

And, a bonus track:

In efforts to appease fits of manufactured conservative rage over the moderation of hateful content on social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter have relied on the advice of anti-LGBTQ extremists and far-right grifters “to help them figure out who should be banned and what’s considered unacceptable.”

Facebook is consulting the likes of the Family Research Council (which, you'll remember, has no programs for families and sponsors no research); its president, Tony Perkins; and the Heritage Foundation, not known for its inclusive approach. Twitter has gone to the likes of Grover Norquist and Ali Akbar. The latter was consulted about whether Alex Jones was too extreme. (If you don't know the name, google "Infowars".)

Well, I guess you go to the experts on something like hate speech.

Read the whole article; it's an eye-opener. And if you ever considered joining Facebook or Twitter, think again.

Also via Joe.My.God.

Footnote: I think this applies to our "independent press" as a whole. From the Media Matters article:

These examples show tech platforms’ tendency of caving to conservative whims in order to appease manufactured rage over baseless claims of censorship and bias. Evidence shows that right-wing pages drastically outnumber left-wing pages on Facebook, and under Facebook’s algorithm changes, conservative meme pages outperform all other political news pages. Across platforms, right-wing sources dominate topics like immigration coverage, showing the cries of censorship are nothing more than a tactic. And judging by tech companies’ willingness to cater to these tantrums, the tactic appears to be working.

For "tech companies" just substitute "mainstream press".